Finance Committee Mon, Jan 27, 2025 · Finance Committee https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/244 == Executive Summary == The Finance Committee held a meeting where they approved the agenda and consent agenda, with several items pulled for individual discussion. A significant portion of the meeting focused on the appointment of a declarant for the Los Estrellas Subdivision to facilitate affordable housing covenant amendments, which was approved despite concerns about communication and the choice of an out-of-town attorney. The committee also approved contracts for the Tierra Contenta Trail Extension and Marty Sanchez Golf Course pond repairs, both of which involved detailed discussions on funding, warranties, and contractor selection. Further discussions included the approval of a five-year contract for asset management software, following extensive vetting to address past software implementation issues. The committee also debated amendments to a bill concerning muffler noise violations, specifically regarding the effective date and the lack of a formal compliance test for repairs. The FY24 audit was announced as released, with a presentation scheduled for the next meeting. == Key Decisions == - Approved the appointment of Jake A. Garson as the declarant for the Los Estrellas Subdivision to amend covenants related to affordable housing on Tract 6A. - Approved the construction contract with GM Ulyan LLC for the Tierra Contenta Trail Extension Phase A, costing over $1.1 million. - Approved the construction contract with Mountain West Golf Scapes Inc. for the Marty Sanchez Golf Course pond repairs. - Approved a five-year contract with OpenGov (Verto Soft LLC) for asset management software and implementation services, totaling $1,935,917.20. - Approved Amendment A to Bill 2024-25, removing the 90-day effective date for the muffler noise violations ordinance, allowing it to go into effect immediately upon passage. - Approved "Item R" (a bill as amended). == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda — Passed. - Motion to approve the consent agenda as amended — Passed. - Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Garrison as Declarant — Passed. - Motion to approve the construction contract with GM Ulyan LLC for the Tierra Contenta Trail Extension — Passed. - Motion to approve the construction contract with Mountain West Golf Scapes Inc. for the Marty Sanchez Golf Course pond repairs — Passed. - Motion to approve the contract with OpenGov for asset management software — Passed unanimously (Councilor Cassett: Yes, Councilor Lindell: Yes, Councilor Faulkner: Yes, Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes, Chair Merworth: Yes). - Motion to approve Amendment A (removing the 90-day effective date) to Bill 2024-25 — Passed unanimously (Councilor Cassett: Yes, Councilor Lindell: Yes, Councilor Faulkner: Yes, Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes, Chair Merworth: Yes). - Motion to pass "Item R" (a bill as amended) — Approved by a roll call vote (5-0). == Public Comment == No formal public comment period was explicitly noted. However, Councilor Lindell raised concerns about the Los Estrellas board feeling excluded from communication regarding the declarant appointment and emphasized the importance of successful software implementation, citing past failures. Councilor Cassett highlighted the need for a formal compliance test for muffler repairs to ensure fairness and consistency. == Topics == - Muffler Noise Violations - Los Estrellas Subdivision - Software Implementation (OpenGov) - Finance Staff Recognition - FY24 Audit Results - City Manager Transition == Full Transcript == We are live. Okay, at 5:04, I'm calling to order the Finance Committee for today, January 27th, 2025. If we could get a roll call, please. **Clerk:** Certainly, Madam Chair. Councilor Cassutt? **Councilor Cassutt:** Here. **Clerk:** Councilor Lindell? Councilor Fowler? Councilor Lee Garcia? **Councilor Lee Garcia:** Here. **Clerk:** Chair Maestas? **Chair Maestas:** I'm here. Madam Chair, you have a quorum. **Chair Maestas:** Okay. Do we have any changes to the agenda tonight? **Director Oster:** No changes from staff. **Chair Maestas:** Okay. Any changes from the committee? And if not, is there a motion? **Councilor:** Motion. **Councilor:** Second. **Chair Maestas:** Motion and a second to approve the agenda. We're all here. All those in favor? **Councilors:** Aye. **Chair Maestas:** Anybody opposed? That motion passes. From there, we go to approval of the consent agenda. Director Oster, you probably have these closer at hand. I'd have to go digging in my notes. **Director Oster:** Absolutely. The items that have been removed from consent are Item D, G, L, M, and R. **Chair Maestas:** Okay. Tell me again: D, G, L, M, R. Okay, got it. Is there anything else anyone wants to hear? If not, is there a motion? **Councilor:** Move to approve as amended. **Councilor:** Second. **Chair Maestas:** A motion and a second to approve the consent agenda as amended. All those in favor? **Councilors:** Aye. **Chair Maestas:** Anybody opposed? That motion passes. From there, we have a presentation tonight: Finance Staff Recognition. I'll turn it over to Director Oster. **Director Oster:** Thank you so much, Councilors and members of the Finance Committee. If I could have Mr. Clarence Romero come down to the front. Thank you, Clarence. And Director, make sure you're speaking right into that mic. We do. Thank you, Councilor. So, this is Clarence Romero. He's a familiar face around City Hall. You probably hopefully recognize him. Clarence is a dynamo within the Finance Department. He is our Treasury Officer here at the City of Santa Fe, and he has over 20 years of experience in public finance and government operations. Clarence holds a bachelor's degree in accounting and political science and has previously held roles with the Office of the State Auditor, the Office of the Inspector General, and the State Investment Council. Clarence has worked in various areas within city government, including grants, utilities, parking, and treasury. Outside of work, he enjoys engaging with others, following the Boston Celtics and the Dallas Cowboys, and staying active as a cross-country runner. Clarence has competed in several 5K, half, and full marathons, and although he says he's currently out of shape, he remains committed to regular gym sessions. As far as Clarence's work here within the Finance Department, I would say Clarence is the glue that holds all of us together. He's the go-to person. He's been with the city—Clarence and Andy are our two people that have been here a long time and know how everything works. So, whenever we have a question about this or that, something unusual or something especially challenging, it seems like Clarence is always part of those conversations. We're really lucky to have Clarence here at the city as our Treasury Officer. And Clarence, would you like to say anything? **Clarence Romero:** Thank you for the opportunity, and I appreciate you. **Director Oster:** We are incredibly lucky to have Clarence. Hold on, don't go away. Don't go away, Clarence. Whoa, whoa, whoa. You get a—yes, yes, maybe not hardware, but a little piece of paper to frame in hardware. That's right. It's my pleasure to present Clarence Romero with this Certificate of Appreciation. And it says, "This certificate is given to Clarence in appreciation for performance, service, and dedication to the City of Santa Fe Finance Department." Thank you so much, Clarence. **Chair Maestas:** Clarence, thanks. Thank you for your work, Clarence. You are a familiar face, and I think some of it is because you're such a cheery face, that it's wonderful to run into you in the halls. So, thank you for your hard work. Okay, with that, we will move on to our consent agenda. The first item is Item D: Request for approval of a Professional Services Contract with Jake A. Garson, not to exceed $1,887, including NMGRT, to assign rights and duties of declarant in the Los Estrellas—sorry, in the Los Estrellas Subdivision for a one-year term. We have Pat Fagalii, who's Assistant City Attorney, and I think I saw Terry Lease back there with the Office of Economic Development Asset Development Manager. And I believe Councilor Lindell, you pulled this item. **Councilor Lindell:** Yes, I did. Thank you. So, this is kind of a conundrum for me. This goes back to a resolution that we had, let's see what number it is, in 2023, Number 4. And this was brought to my attention that the resolution says, "Be it further resolved that if the qualifying entity that is awarded the Tract 6A deems it necessary to provide affordable housing, the city shall either remove Tract 6A from the Residential Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions prior to the other seven parcels, or the city shall request the Los Estrellas Residential Association Board and Master Association Board limit the assessments." So, let's start there. Have we been in touch with the Los Estrellas Board or their Master Board? Have we? **Assistant City Attorney:** Is your mic on? Yes, we've been in contact with the board. **Councilor Lindell:** Okay. And we've had conversations about this with them? **Assistant City Attorney:** We have been in the process of trying to appoint someone to speak on behalf of the city, which is what this contract is for. We've been in contact with the board to the extent that we've been trying to get their documents. We've been trying to make sure that everything is in place so that when we have someone who can act on behalf of the city, they know what they can do. We can direct— **Chair Maestas:** Well, not sure what I know talking to them about. I know it's a little circular, but it seems like, Councilor, would it be possible for the Assistant City Attorney to give us some context about this? Because as you point out, it was 2023, we're in 2025. It's been a while. It was—I think there's a couple of moving parts here, and it might be helpful to just kind of go back to what it is this is about and what this person is being hired to do for the city. If you could just give us some context, some background, and refresh on the 6A versus the seven parcels. Let's back up a bit. **Assistant City Attorney:** So, Councilors, this Los Estrellas, this land came to the city through a lawsuit that was settled. And in that settlement, the city ended up with several tracts of land and also the title of declarant as far as the homeowners association. So, the city is currently the declarant, which the city is not a person. There is not a person who has been designated to act in any capacity in regards to amending the HOA documents or attending meetings or voting at meetings or doing anything. It's just the city at large right now. So, this contract is to appoint someone to act on behalf of the city as the declarant to physically amend the documents, to cast votes at meetings. So, that's in scope of work for the contract. Now, there's also this resolution. And in this resolution, staff was directed to do an RFP for one parcel of land that would then be donated to an entity that would build affordable housing on that parcel, and also create an ITB for seven other parcels that would be sold for development. Also, in that RFQ, there's an RFQ for Tract 6A, which is the affordable tract. The chosen entity would be allowed to decide if they wanted, if it were necessary to provide affordable housing, that they would be removed either from residential covenants or to have their assessments under the master covenants limited. They had a choice between the two. We do have an entity that responded to the RFQ, has not come before you yet, but they requested that they be removed from the residential covenants. We had a very hard time finding someone to act on behalf of the city as the declarant. We basically went through all the attorneys in Santa Fe, and they all had conflicts of interest. So, we found someone in Albuquerque, and it took us about a year. And that's part of the reason why we have not brought the qualified entity for Parcel 6A to the governing body because they wanted assurance that we were able to amend these covenants before they were had the land donated to them. They wanted it to be donated to them already in place so that they could build this affordable housing that they would be obligated. **Chair Maestas:** And so, the qualified entity is still confidential, correct? **Assistant City Attorney:** Still confidential because it's still part of an RFP process, an RFQ. **Chair Maestas:** Correct. **Assistant City Attorney:** RFQ, sorry. As soon as the covenants are amended or being amended, even, we have an agreement that has been almost fully negotiated. It's in the very last stages of that. We would bring— **Chair Maestas:** And just one other thing, if you'll allow me, Councilor Lindell. And you used an awful lot of alphabet soup. ITB. I know what an RFQ is. I think the Finance Committee is familiar with that, but can you just again refresh on an ITB? **Assistant City Attorney:** An ITB is an intent to bid, which is what was used for the other seven parcels because they are not being sold for affordable housing. They're just being sold for regular old development. That is still in negotiations at this point. That's not ready. **Chair Maestas:** Okay, back to you, Councilor Lindell. **Councilor Lindell:** I get it, but we are not following the resolution that we passed. So, we need to change the resolution. **Assistant City Attorney:** I think we are, but the problem is we can't do that until we have somebody to act on behalf of the city, which is the limited nature of what's in front of us is to hire this attorney whose name is in here, Jake A. Garson of Garson Law Firm in Albuquerque, I think, to do exactly what the resolution is calling for, correct? But we can't do that until we have somebody who represents the city in that capacity, and that's what we're approving is this person to do that. **Assistant City Attorney:** So, if I might add, we're not donating the land at this point. The covenants, as long as they're in the process of being amended, we can still donate the land. I believe the donee would accept that with the contingency that we are in the process of amending the documents, but they didn't want to accept the land without the guarantee that it was at least in process. So, that would— **Councilor Lindell:** That there's nothing that's happening right now that's not—and nobody can meet with the board until if we hire this person, then that person can meet with the board and attend meetings and— **Assistant City Attorney:** Correct. **Councilor Lindell:** Be interactive in all the ways that are required in order to carry out the resolution and the work that needs to be done, correct? **Assistant City Attorney:** So far, Lawrence Frank, who's in the affordable housing, she attended one of the meetings, but she couldn't act. She was just there to, you know, to watch, essentially. **Councilor Lindell:** I disagree. I don't think that we are following the resolution, and I think that— **Assistant City Attorney:** Well, we have to have somebody to act for us before we can do it, right? That's all this is doing is appointing this person as the declarant, and then they'll do—then they'll—that's at least that's my understanding. We're— **Assistant City Attorney:** Yes, we're appointing them and to amend the covenants. If the assigns decides that it doesn't want to do that, it doesn't have to. You know, we can cancel the contract. You can tell them to stop. But in order to donate the parcel, we need to demonstrate to the qualified entity that we can amend the covenant the way that it is required in this resolution. **Councilor Lindell:** Where I understand this is the developers to make the request. **Assistant City Attorney:** The qualified entity is what they're calling the developer who's going to do the affordable housing on Tract 6A. **Councilor Lindell:** Correct. This person is that we're talking about here is not the developer. **Assistant City Attorney:** Correct. They are—they are us. They are the city because you need somebody to operate on behalf of the city because the city doesn't have another way to be represented as an interest, as an entity. **Councilor Lindell:** I don't think that the board from Los Estrellas feels like they have been in this communication, and I think we need to change this resolution, but I don't think that anybody's very interested in doing that. How did we happen to pick this person from Albuquerque? Why didn't—why couldn't somebody from here? **Assistant City Attorney:** They all had conflicts. They all had conflicts. **Councilor Lindell:** Attorney here had a conflict. Aren't—well, who knows anything about land? Mayor: decision. Yeah, most, we talked to many, like, over, well over a dozen attorneys, and they all had conflicts. Either they represented the city, they represented a qualified entity, they represented someone who was in a lawsuit with one of the two. So, yeah, no one, no one here was willing to do it, to give up their other clients in order to take this. When was the last time that we interacted with the PL Trust Board? Um, Florence and I had an email from someone last week, and they're in, they're in the, someone from the, they represented the board, or was it just one person? How, because my understanding is they don't feel like they've been in the loop on this. Well, there's no one to talk to them. That's the issue. The way that we've been in the loop from them is telling them that we're trying to appoint someone and getting documents from them, from their management company. So, so this person is basically, it has a fancy name, this Mr. Garrison has, he will be the declarant. That's obviously a term of art in this area. The assignment of the rights of declarant under the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements of Santa Fe Estates. So this person will be acting on behalf of the city, will be meeting with the board, will be putting forth what's necessary to amend the covenants to be in compliance with the resolution. We're just appointing a representative. And I'm, I'm sure that it's, we don't have a representative. We haven't been in touch with the, with the board the way they would like to, but there's nobody who has the authority or the power to do that until we, the governing body, appoint somebody to act in that capacity. And that's all this is doing. We're not doing any of the other stuff yet. Okay, I, I disagree, and I think that we should have changed this resolution, probably add meetings and more interaction with that board. I'd be happy to talk to you after the meeting, and I see their representatives in the audience too, but there's not really a way we can, this, we can't really, we have a, we have a process, and it's, but we can talk about this offline. I also think that this is exactly, this is the interaction they're seeking, is this is what's going to get that. We'll see. Okay, anybody else on this? Counselor Fowler, motion to approve. Second. Is there any other discussion? Motion and second. We need a roll call, please. Certainly, Madam Chair. Counselor Cassidy? Yes. Counselor Lindell? Counselor Faulkner? Counselor Lee Garcia? Yes. Chair Marworth? Yes. Motion passes. Okay, we are going on to item G. I just closed my agenda, so sorry. Um, item G, A, B, C, D, E, F, G. There it is. Request for approval of a construction contract with GM Ulyan LLC for the construction of S S770, I don't know if that's the way you refer to it, Tierra Contenta Trail Extension Phase A, in the total amount of, looks like, $1,111,917, excluding New Mexico gross receipts tax, for a two-year term. We have Romela Glorioso Moss, it's been a while since I've said that, sorry, uh, with our Complete Streets Capital Projects Manager. And Counselor Lindell, you have the floor. I just had a couple of basic questions about this. It's over a million dollars. Um, it's concrete, it's 10 feet wide. What's the distance? Thank you for the question. Here, here, Romero Worth, Counselor Lindell. Uh, the total distance is one, uh, 2,006 linear feet, or 3/8 of a mile. 2,000 what? 2,006 linear feet. 2,006. Um, and what's the time frame for completion on it? Uh, depends on, of course, the weather. And because this is a federal funded project, uh, we are heavily audited by FHWA, that's the Federal Highway, and the NMDOT, which is the New Mexico Department of Transportation. So, for example, before we can do the pre-construction meeting, it may take up like two months to schedule a pre-construction meeting with DOT. The estimated time of completion is construction is from six to nine months. Um, but again, that's, that depends on when we dig up, dig up the, the, the trail, and maybe we find something that we need to address. But that's the estimate, six to nine months. So, in other projects that we do, do we think that, I mean, that's $500 and about $555 a foot. It's a, without NMGRT, it's $423 a foot. Um, because this is a federal funded project, uh, we need to follow the Buy America, Build America Act. And with, with this act, all construction materials must be produced and manufactured in United States. So, when I attended the training a couple of months ago, the estimate, someone estimated it, that it adds up like 30% to the project cost. However, because all construction materials are produced and and manufactured in United States, then everyone benefits. Unlike if you get the steel, for example, from China. Yes, the construction is, the construction is less than, the construction cost is less than, but we are importing the, the steel from China. So, um, and this, because this is a federal funded project, um, there is no cost from the city. All the construction funding is shouldered by the federal government. What's the, um, what's the guarantee on this? Um, so I know that I've seen sidewalks that we've done where two things happen over some amount of time. Sometimes, um, due to freezing and thawing and super hot in the summer, they buckle up and they throw, and then they crack. And that happens, but the other thing that, and, and that's usually over a longer period of time. Um, but the thing that I have seen happen sometimes in a fairly short amount of time is I see spalling on of the concrete. What's, what's our guarantee with this contractor against spalling and time frame of throwing, uh, um, or I don't know what the term is for them all? Uh, capital projects, roadways, trails, the warranty is only one year. One year only? One year. That seems lousy to me. Uh, that's the one year that those sidewalk, those sidewalks could, um, you know, buckle up and and crack. And I understand, but, um, with this federal funded projects, we have material testing. We are heavily audited by, when I say audit, it's not only financial and files audit, it also means materials audit. So, when you construct a federal funded project, you have to provide, um, the, the material testing. So, for example, you, for concrete, that, that's, that, that, that the concrete that was poured meets the density, uh, requirement for, for cement. Uh, and, and we don't get reimbursed for our expenditure if we, if we don't get those, those required documents. Okay, all right, that's all I have, Chair. Thank you. Thank you for the new words. Spalling. What, what does that mean? Like when you throw salt on cement and it starts to, oh, okay. Nancy, um, be my next Scrabble word. Okay, um, let's see. We need a motion to approve. A motion and a second. Is there more discussion? Can we get a roll call, please? Yes, certainly, Madam Chair. Can I confirm the motion was Counselor Lee Garcia and the second was Counselor Fowler? Sounds right. Okay, I don't see them objecting. Counselor Cassidy? Yes. Counselor Lindell? Counselor Fowler? Yes. Counselor Lee Garcia? Yes. Chair Marworth? Yes. Motion passes. Okay, we are on to item L. Request for approval of construction contract with Mountain West Golf Scapes Inc. to repair the aeration supply and ornamental ponds at the Marty Sanchez Golf Course and Municipal Recreation Sports Complex for compliance with a corrective action plan in the total amount of $2,213,247.69, excluding New Mexico gross receipts tax, for a three-year term. We have Scott Overly and Company, uh, project manager on this. Back to you, Counselor Lindell. A couple of quick questions on this. Um, was there something about these ponds that we needed to go with specifically with a company that does ponds on golf courses? I mean, did we get other bids? Did, um, or did, was there a reason that we needed to go with a company, uh, Mountain West Golf Scapes? Madam Chair, um, Counselor Lindell, there was a need for this in, in this situation. Um, I'm going to also let, uh, Samuari, who is working on this project, well, to help explain some of this. But the, the biggest reason for it was that we had reached out to other companies trying to get numbers and were basically told that this company was probably the best one to be able to handle this situation. Um, some other companies, it was too big of a job for them. Um, others had impacts and schedules that would not allow them to do the construction work, and it was a critical issue time-wise, and that's why we ended up looking this company. I just, I just wondered if, I mean, I have zero experience in, um, pond liners. I just wondered if, you know, there's something special about, I mean, some of these ponds are just ornamental, some of them, I think we hold water in them. Um, I just wondered why we had to go with that type of a company. There's probably other companies that do pond lining, right? Um, Madam Chair and Counselor Lindell, there are other companies that do that. And if we had enough time to, um, get other bids, knowing that we had an extended construction schedule, then that would be something that would be easier to, um, um, put into place. But the schedule, the timing of the schedule is very critical because the largest of these ponds are used for irrigation water at the golf course and at the MRC Soccer Valley and the baseball fields and rugby. Um, is, do you know what the guarantee is on, on the liners that we're using? Yeah, I'll defer to Madam Chair, Cely. Well, um, yes, the company doing the installation guarantees their work two years. Manufacturer of a fabric is going to be at 60 mil. That is guaranteed of defects for five years. And then average life expectancy of this type of life is how long? 20 to 25 years. And that's, that's what we got out of the existing ones, correct? Correct. Okay, that's all I have, Chair. Thank you, guys, for coming down. Motion to approve. Motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Can we get a roll call, please? Certainly. Counselor Cassidy? Yes. Counselor Lindell? Counselor Fowler? Yes. Counselor Lee Garcia? Yes. Chair Marworth? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you, Counselor. Okay, items, let's see, whoopsie. I, I, yeah, I, oh, I see it. Had a funny, uh, request for approval of goods and services contract with Verto Soft, am I saying that right, LLC, for the purchase of asset management software and implementation services in the total amount not to exceed $1,935,917.2, including New Mexico gross receipts tax, for a five-year term. And we have Tail Jurgens here with the, he's an engineer on this project. Counselor Lindell, you pulled this, correct? I did. Okay, thank you. Um, hi, thanks for coming down tonight. Just a couple of questions on this because in the past, we've had some, uh, software that we've purchased that has, um, not been good, let's leave it at that. Um, how did we select this software? Did we talk to other places that use this software? And do we have the people to implement this and, um, to train our staff for this? Madam Chair, uh, Counselor Lindell, thank you for the question. And first, to answer the first part of your question, we went through a pretty thorough evaluation process where we looked at several different software or vendors who focus on this area of asset management. Um, and we actually hired one of our on-call engineering consultants to provide their technical expertise and their support for us as we went through this evaluation process because they've, they've helped municipalities all across the country in this sort of evaluation and implementation process. So, they worked with us through the evaluation. Some of the steps in that included developing a software requirements list, all the features and tools we wanted in our software. Um, we did some preliminary screening of several vendors that gave us some presentations and demonstrations. Um, ultimately honing in on the final few softwares that we felt best met our needs. And then we hosted some detailed in-person demonstrations where we had scripted scenarios for them to show us in their software so we could see how you interact in software. And ultimately, we made our selection based on that, that software requirements list, the in-person demonstrations, and sort of our internal discussions and landed on OpenGov as the software vendor we'd like to. To answer your question or concern about adopting it and making sure it sticks and gets rolled out successfully, that is a big piece of any software implementation. One of the biggest parts of that we're focused on is making sure we have buy-in from all the different groups who are going to be using the software. So we wanted to make sure that they had a voice in decision-making, and so we included staff from each of the different groups in the evaluation process so that they could see the software, give their thoughts on how each software performed, and make any concerns known, things like that. So they were involved in that selection process, and we've been trying to make a point to include them in the process throughout. They're invested in the adoption process. Did we talk to anyone that's using it? We did. One of the steps we did in our— Speaking to the mic. Yeah, sorry. Thank you. One of the steps we did in our finalist evaluation was a reference check. So we called up to three different references using the three softwares that we were looking at, and I think with this particular software, we were in touch with at least two of them. Both of them had great things to say about the software. They're satisfied with it. It was meeting their needs. So we had good reviews from folks actually using the product. Hey, that was—that's probably the most important thing for me to hear, is that someone else is using it, they're using it successfully, and they like it, because we have some projects that have gone on for years and years and millions and millions of dollars, and I don't want to ever do that again. I agree. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Other discussion or a motion? Motion to approve. Second. A motion is seconded to approve this item. Can we get a roll call, please? Certainly. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Lindell? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Chair Merworth? Yes. Motion passes. Okay, thank you. We are on to item R, consideration of a bill number 2024-25, sponsored by Councilor Signe Lindell, Councilor Parra Faulkner, and Councilor Michael Garcia, a bill amending schedule A of the uniform traffic ordinance to increase penalties for muffler noise violations, eliminate a distinction between the categories "second offense" and "subsequent violations," recognizing community service as an alternative to all traffic violation penalties under the city's general penalty, and establish an effective date. We have Kyle Hibner, Assistant City Attorney, and I believe Councilor Cassett, you pulled this, so over to you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I initially pulled this because I wanted to make an amendment, which is from the last time we were dealing with this issue. We had put a 90-day lead-in period before it would actually become effective so that we could do a lot of education and get the community well aware of what was going on. The community is very well aware of this issue, so I do not believe that we need that effective date. However, another thing has come to my attention that is concerning, and Mr. Hibner, I understand that you are not the individual in charge of this, and so I'm not sure how we go about this. Probably a conversation for when we do have a new city manager, but there was supposed to be a compliance test that was developed, and this was going to be a way for people to prove that they had indeed fixed their muffler, as there is a fix-it ticket option only on the first offense. So if somebody has a second offense, they have to pay. There's no longer an opportunity for them to fix and then not have to deal with that fine. Mr. Hibner, you mentioned that this is happening kind of unofficially, casually, excuse me. I don't know how I would phrase it. Informally. Thank you. Can you confirm that as well? Chair Merworth, Councilor Cassett, correct. And I think I mentioned at the Quality of Life Committee that, you know, if it's a case that I'm handling, I'll typically, if someone brings in proof that they fixed it, I'll typically take that proof and dismiss the case. Similarly, I believe that the officers are doing the same, and I believe the judge is doing the same. Wonderful. And then the other reason we had established it is because we also wanted to have the ability for people to, you know, argue, to prove that their car was within compliance of our noise regulations. So we currently do not have that capability for anybody who has received a citation. I know that the Deputy City Manager, who is no longer with us, was in charge of this project. So I am guessing this will be something to bring up with the new City Manager, but I did just want to bring that to our attention that that was a big component of a lot of the last time that we were working on this issue, and I don't want it to get lost simply because there has been alternative means. And if those alternative means are something that we need to write in somewhere, then by all means, we should do that as well. And I would look to your expertise about whether we actually need to look at this again and put that in there, or if this is something else that we just need to have established as a procedure and have City Management, when we have somebody in place, take over that. Chair Merworth, Councilor Cassett, that's a tough question for me to answer standing up here today because I think it dips into a lot of policymaking for the governing body's role. But, you know, if I remember correctly, that was part of the reason why the governing body wanted the compliance test was, you know, the muffler ordinance is a little bit not specific, I guess, is the way to put it. You know, there's a lot of—there's wiggle room, right? What is unusual noise mean to one person as opposed to the next one? And so I think that was a lot of the reasons why there was a compliance test that was tied to the noise ordinance. It had very specific decibel levels on that. So I don't know if that was very helpful at all. Well, I think it just is something to continue to consider. It is definitely one of those, you know, "when you see it" scenarios. I think that's absolutely right. But I think that'll be something that we potentially will need to continue to explore, and again, we'll potentially be having a new City Manager as of Wednesday, although I believe he would be starting in February if he is confirmed. So to be continued, but I do want to go ahead and move my amendment, and Councilor Lindell is co-sponsoring as well. This would on page one, lines 15-16, delete "and establish an effective date," and then on page eight, lines one through two, delete "Section 4 effective date. This ordinance shall go into effect 90 days after adoption." And so if this amendment is accepted and passed, then this will go—the ordinance will go into effect as soon as it is passed. So we don't have a main motion on the floor, so I'm happy to move to approve the main item. Did—yes, we have—sorry, we have a motion to approve the bill, and we have a second, and then I will move to approve Amendment A. Is there a second on the amendment? We have a second. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. Is there further discussion on the amendment? And if nobody else has any—so why was there the 90 days? That was just a drafting thing that based on the old—but based on the old model. Okay. Councilor Merworth, I believe that's correct. Okay, all right. Any other questions, discussion on the amendment? Can we get a roll call on the amendment? Certainly, Madam Chair, on Amendment A, which has a motion from Councilor Cassett with a second from Councilor Lindell. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Lindell? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Chair Merworth? Yes. Motion passes to approve Amendment A. Okay, and is there any other conversation on the bill? I just want to—so as I look at this bill, the only thing that's in here are the penalties piece, because that's all that this is about. We did—I remembered Councilor Cassett reminding my memory that we did have a lot of conversations about dopplers, is that the right word, and the use of those in terms of—and I know we moved some stuff over from the noise ordinance, and we were going to create a test, and then it—so my understanding is that hasn't been done. I know that's not your job, but then I guess the other piece of that is that how is it, you know, "when you see it," because I remember also there being concern about old trucks or, you know, old vehicles in general. Like, how do you—how do police determine that your—is it just the—the muffler is altered, or I think we also—I remember flashing back to that time, we also know that some cars come factory installed with the ability to make a lot of racket. So do you know how they do this in terms— Councilor Merworth, in terms of an officer making a stop for based on a muffler violation, I think it is just under the standard of unusual or excessive. Part of what the governing body did the last time this was amended was they made a definition for factory installed muffler. I believe what it was and made that a defined term also, but I—if I remember correctly, there was also a time limitation on when this would apply. So if it was an older model vehicle, this wouldn't necessarily apply, if I'm remembering correctly. Okay, maybe this is something we need to hear a little bit more about in terms of why we don't have the speed or the noise test and what happened to that, and I need to obviously go back and read the ordinance itself, because I'd forgotten that there was a time piece in terms of capturing older vehicles or not capturing older vehicles. Okay, I will do my homework. Anything else on this? Can we get a roll call, please? Certainly, Madam Chair, on the bill, which is Item R, we have a motion from Councilor Cassett and a second from Councilor Lindell, and so it is now a bill as amended. As amended, thank you, Councilor. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Lindell? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Chair Merworth? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Hibner, for being here tonight. With that, I don't think we have anything else. Let's see. We—well, actually, we have Matters from Staff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I have one matter for the committee tonight. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that the city's FY24 audit was released this morning, and we will be having Carl Riggs Ingram present at our next scheduled Finance Committee meeting on February 10th, and then to Governing Body on February 12th to present you with the results of the FY24 audit. Great. And that is now public. It's been released, and it's—well, it's posted, I guess, on the State Auditor's website. Correct, Madam Chair. It is posted on the State Auditor's website and on the city's website. Oh, terrific. Okay, fantastic. Well, congratulations on that. Anything else? No. Okay. Matters from the committee? Matters from the chair? Our next meeting, Monday, February 10th. Thank you all.