Regular Governing Body Meeting - Second Wednesday Wed, Feb 12, 2025 · Governing Body https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/258 == Executive Summary == The Santa Fe City Council meeting on February 12th focused heavily on the city's Fiscal Year 2024 audit report, which received the best possible 'unmodified opinion' (clean audit). Presenters highlighted a significant reduction in audit findings, with 37 findings resolved over the past four years, demonstrating improved internal controls and business processes. Despite this progress, councilors expressed concerns about repeated findings, particularly a 'material weakness' related to tracking Community Improvement Project (CIP) funds, and the extended timeline for corrective actions. The meeting also addressed the re-establishment of the Impact Fees and Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) to manage impact fees collected from developers for infrastructure projects. Councilors were asked to submit recommendations for CIAC members. Additionally, a budget amendment of $933,000 was unanimously approved for the Agua Fria South Meadows Intersection Improvements Project, which has faced delays due to right-of-way issues. The Mayor and councilors commended the finance team for their exceptional work in improving the city's financial standing and addressing long-standing issues. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda with no changes. - Approved the consent agenda. - Approved a budget amendment resolution (BAR) allocating an additional $933,000 in road impact fees for the Agua Fria South Meadows Intersection Improvements Project (unanimous 8-0). - Approved a motion to table Item 12 (likely an executive session) (7-0, one absent). - Approved a motion to go to 'petitions from the floor' (roll call vote: Yes: Romero Worth, Cassett, Chavez, Lee Garcia, Michael Garcia, Mayor Weber). - Approved a motion to remove Item 12 (Matters from the City Attorney) from the table (unanimous 8-0). - Approved a motion to enter Executive Session to discuss pending and threatened litigation (unanimous 8-0). - Approved a motion to reconvene in open session (unanimous 8-0). == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the allocation of $933,000 in road impact fees for the Agua Fria South Meadows project — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to table Item 12 — Passed (7-0, one councilor absent). - Motion to go to 'petitions from the floor' — Passed (roll call vote: Yes: Romero Worth, Cassett, Chavez, Lee Garcia, Michael Garcia, Mayor Weber). - Motion to remove Item 12 (Matters from the City Attorney) from the table — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to enter Executive Session to discuss pending and threatened litigation — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to reconvene in open session — Passed unanimously (8-0). == Public Comment == During the public comment period, Stephanie Beninato criticized the non-functional Zoom link for the meeting and detailed issues with receiving inaccurate responses to public records requests. She also highlighted a discrepancy in the Public Works Department's definition of 'street' regarding public property damage and questioned the Historic Board's interpretation of voting rules concerning Resolution 19-20920. Councilor Garcia also highlighted public frustration with the Agua Fria South Meadows project delays. == Topics == - FY24 Audit Report - Road Improvements - Executive Session - Public Records Requests - Meeting Procedures - Public Works Department - Historic Board Appeal - Santa Fe Century - Remembrances - Assistant City Attorney Position - Zoom Meeting Issues == Full Transcript == We are live. Very good. Thank you. In that case, we are all of us who are coming are here. I'm going to call this meeting to order at 5:05 PM, regular meeting of the governing body for February 12. We'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance that Councilor Michael Garcia will lead us in, salute to the New Mexico flag led by Councilor Cassutt, and Councilor Lindell will lead us in an invocation and then remembrances. Please rise as you are able. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Mayor. If you care to join in on the "we" version of the Serenity Prayer: Grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, the courage to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference. I do. Sunday, February 9th, three years ago, our colleague, former Mayor and great friend, Javier Gonzalez, was called to his greater rewards. The city misses him terribly. We remain heartbroken that he was called at such a young age. I always, in remembering Javier, I always think that he was that guy that everybody in town thought they were his best friend. And boy, isn't that something to be that person? The other thing I always said about Javier was that guy could talk an owl out of a tree. And I loved serving with him. I loved him and I miss him terribly. His family and your good thoughts, remember kindness. He stood for all of us and what he was dedicated to. So, hope it's going good. Other remembrances: Let's take a minute and think about people in our community and in our state and around the country who are suffering, dealing with challenges of illness or poverty or insufficient food or safe housing. People who need our help, people who are looking to us for some assistance. Let's keep them in our thoughts. Let's remember that they're all part of our community and we want to help. Thanks, everybody. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll? Councilor Cassutt: Here. Councilor Castro: Councilor Chavez: Here. Councilor Faulkner is excused. Councilor Lee Garcia: Here. Councilor Michael Garcia: Present. Councilor Lindell: Here. Councilor Romero-Wirth: Here. Mayor Weber: Present. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any changes to the agenda? Madam Clerk: There are no changes to the agenda. Can I get a motion to approve? I can motion and a second. Any discussion? If not, Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the agenda? Councilor Castro: Councilor Chavez: Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Councilor Lindell: Councilor Romero-Wirth: Yes. Councilor Cassutt: Yes. Mayor Weber: Yes. Motion is approved. And I believe, Madam Clerk, unless I'm mistaken, nothing was taken off of consent, is that correct? Agreed. Nothing was taken off consent. Can we get a motion to approve the consent agenda? Second. Motion, second. Any discussion? Please, Madam Clerk, call the roll on that. Councilor Chavez: Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Councilor Lindell: Councilor Romero-Wirth: Yes. Councilor Cassutt: Yes. Councilor Castro: Mayor Weber: Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. With that, Madam Clerk, if you would take us to our next item, the item 8A. I believe 8A, Fiscal Year 2024 Audit Report. And here to present is Emily K. Oster, Finance Director, A.J. Bowers, Partner at Carr, Riggs & Ingram CPAs and Advisors. Welcome. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the governing body. Get our presentation. Great. Well, I am Emily Oster. I am your Finance Director for the City of Santa Fe, and it is my pleasure to be with you this evening to present on the results of the city's Fiscal Year 2024 audit. So, I'll start out with a few introductory remarks and then I'll hand it over to Mr. Bowers from Carr, Riggs & Ingram, which is our external audit firm, to take you through the details of the audit. I am pleased to report that this was an unmodified opinion for the financial statements and the federal compliance audit. Unmodified is the best opinion type that there is. That is also referred to as a clean audit. An unmodified opinion. The number of findings this year was reduced to just eight, which is a 38% decrease from the 13 findings we had for FY23. In terms of highlights from the audit, I already mentioned those unmodified or clean opinions and the eight findings. I also wanted to highlight in regards to the findings that of the 13 findings we had for FY23, we were able to resolve nine of those in the FY24 audit, which is 69%. And that was during a compressed time period because we finished the FY23 audit in May. So, we had a shorter time period than a full year to resolve those findings, and I feel very proud of that, that 69% resolution rate on the FY23 findings. And I feel that that really demonstrates the city's progress in improving our internal controls and implementing improvements to business processes. We are joined this evening by our Accounting Officer, Matt Bonifer, and when we get into the details of the findings, Matt will be speaking about those this evening. Thank you so much for being here, Matt. A breakdown of the eight findings, just at a high level for FY24, we have two material weaknesses, two significant deficiencies, and two findings required to be reported by the State Audit Act. Excuse me, let me read that again. Two material weaknesses, four significant deficiencies, and two findings required to be reported by the State Audit Act. Over the course of the four fiscal years that we've been working with Carr, Riggs & Ingram on our annual financial statement and compliance audits, we've resolved a total of 37 findings. That was from FY21, 22, 23, and 24. So, again, that really shows that as we've been working through these audits and getting caught up, we have been implementing improvements to our internal controls and our business processes that are resolving those issues that have been identified through the audits. And with that, Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body, I will turn it over to Mr. Bowers to take us through the presentation of the audit results. Thank you, Emily. Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, my name is A.J. I'm a partner with Carr, Riggs & Ingram, who worked on the audit this year and has been with you for the last four years. I'll walk you through this brief presentation, just kind of summarizes the audit. Stop me if you have questions, but we'll kind of go through pretty quickly through the just the details and I'm sure there'll be questions after as well. So, as we kind of work through this, what we're going to cover today, we'll kind of cover the timeline. Obviously, we've done this, this would be a little bit more consistent of a timeline since this one was started really at year end and delivered by the audit deadline itself. We'll talk about the scope of work and then the report, kind of what those mean. As part of those reports, we'll go over just the, I would say, more of the numbering process, the levels of the findings, the actual titles where you can find them, and then if there's questions, we'll have Matt go through those. And then if you have any other questions, please chime in. So, the timeline itself. So, obviously, this is the fourth audit that we've been part of. This one here, we began really the planning process shortly after the 2023 was submitted. So, the July through September time frame would have been planning. So, when we talk about planning, it means setting things up, risk assessments, controls, kind of going through all of those portions, designing our audit plan, the further audit procedures, et cetera. That's when we kind of get into that fieldwork. When we talk about fieldwork, now we're testing documents, testing substantiation, balances, transactions, et cetera. So, that was really in the October to December time frame. The exit conference was December 10th of 2024. The independent auditor's report is dated December 16th. The regulatory deadline fell on a Sunday, which was December 15th, so it goes to the following day. So, the 16th, that Monday, becomes the deadline in that process. So, it's dated that day. It went to the State Auditor's Office that day, and the State Auditors did their review and followed up and did their release January 27th. So, now it is a public document. So, here we are today. From the scope of work itself, so what did we do? Okay, so the audit of the financial statements for June 30, 2024. So, that's the majority of what we're looking at, right? That's that financial statement to determine if they're fairly presented in accordance with GAAP. So, that's that financial. So, we looked at the 2024 audit. All the opinions are within that letter. We also did single audit compliance testing. So, there's another report. We'll go over those in detail here in a moment, but we test individual major federal programs based on the risk assessment. We tested three. We tested the Airport Improvement Program, we test the Federal Transit Cluster, and we tested the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund. So, those three programs, we do render an opinion upon those programs as well as rendering an opinion on the financial statements. Lastly, we also test for compliance as it relates to the New Mexico State Audit Rule. So, the New Mexico State Audit Rule has different areas that they want us to look at, consider, and report upon. And we'll talk a little bit about that reporting here in a moment, but we don't render an opinion upon compliance with the New Mexico State Audit Rule, but we, because we're not testing to that level as it relates to an actual report itself, but anything we find is within the financial statements themselves. So, the reports themselves. So, as in that document, we have three reports. So, the first one is on pages 10 through 13 of that financial statement, and that's an, that's the, the audit opinion itself. So, that's over the financial statement. That's the opinion on those financials, and that's an unmodified opinion. Again, that's a best, the best opinion that you can get. What it means is that we're able to substantiate all the balances to a material level as well as all of the transactions throughout that year, so that they're fairly presented in accordance with GAAP. And so, when we talk about obtaining appropriate audit evidence, what it means is there wasn't any areas where we could not obtain that information. So, whether it's a hard number or a soft number, that's the terminology I use. The hard number would be something tangible, bank statement, we can confirm cash, we know how many, you know, we can look at a bill and we know what that number is, we can trace a receipt. When you look at a soft number, that's an estimate. So, whether it's allowance for bad debt, depreciation expense, useful lives, pension expenses, fair value of investments, those are estimates based on timing. And so, we have to look at different evidence, historical information, there's a whole bunch of procedures that we do to look at your policies as it relates to that. So, again, whether it was an estimate or a tangible hard number, you know, we were able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to substantiate those balances and transactions, which again, was the same over the last four years, it's been the same opinion. Okay, so unmodified opinion, those pages 10 through 13. The next report that you're going to see is towards the back of the financial statements. It's going to be on pages 200 and 201. That report itself is required under what we call Yellow Book or Government Auditing Standards or Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. They're all the three, they're all the same thing. That report is negative assurance. So, what that means is that we look at internal controls for the purposes of designing our procedures, designing our risk assessments, but we don't render an opinion on internal controls. We report things that we find. So, in that letter, it'll say, "These are items we've identified. Others may exist that did not come to our attention." Okay, so we don't, like I said, that's what that's what That's in there, and any of the findings that are required under Yellow Book are reported in there, as well as anything that's required under the New Mexico State Audit Rule. So when we talk about finding levels, Yellow Book has three levels of findings: material weakness, significant deficiency, and material non-compliance. Material weakness is the highest level. It says if something goes wrong here within the controls, it could materially affect the financial statements or the opinions of the user. The next level down is significant deficiency. It means it doesn't rise to the level of material, yet still merits the attention of the governing body. And the third level under Yellow Book is material non-compliance. If you don't comply with a debt covenant or a grant or a statute in a material way, it would be reported there. In the state of New Mexico, there are two other levels of findings that need to be reported within there: that's other non-compliance or other matters. So other non-compliance is doesn't rise to the level of material non-compliance, but it was a compliance issue. And other matter would be doesn't rise to the level of a significant deficiency, but it's something that was noted as a control perspective. So when you look at that report from a financial statement perspective, there's one material weakness and one significant deficiency, and there are two findings that fall under those other non-compliance as it relates to the New Mexico State Audit Rule. Those findings are encompassed in the greater document between pages 212 and 228. The next report is the last one, that is the independent audit report as it relates to the major federal programs in accordance with Uniform Guidance. So that report is pages 203 to 205, and within there, we render an opinion upon the compliance requirements that are considered direct material to the compliance with those programs for the city. So the three programs that we tested, as I mentioned, were the Airport Improvement Program, the Federal Transit Cluster, and the COVID-19 relief funds. All three of those were unmodified opinions, which means that the city complied in all material respects with those compliance requirements as it relates to those programs. In addition, we have to report internal control matters related to compliance with those programs as part of that report. And so they follow the same levels of material weakness and significant deficiency in controls over compliance. So the Airport Improvement Program had one material weakness and two significant deficiencies as it relates to compliance. And I did put on the slide, these programs we've tested multiple times. So the Airport Improvement was tested '21, '22, '23, and now '24. Federal Transit Cluster, based on the risk assessments, was '21, '23, and '24. And COVID-19 was '21, '23, and now '24. So we don't test every program every year, but it's based on the risk within the program, as well as the overall city itself. So going back to the Airport Improvement Program, there was one material weakness and two significant deficiencies related to the compliance. Now, there wasn't non-compliance material to those programs noted, that's why the opinion can be unmodified. Federal Transit Cluster had one significant deficiency in controls over compliance, and the COVID-19 had one significant deficiency in over compliance. The findings that relate specifically to the federal awards are on pages 217 through 224. So just as a reminder, I go through other report pieces and we'll jump into the finding highlights themselves. Ultimately, our responsibility, so what are we doing? We're here to conduct an audit in accordance with all standards. So we follow both government auditing standards as well as generally accepted auditing standards as it relates to that. We're here forming, expressing an opinion on the financial statements that they're fairly presented in accordance with GAAP. It's reasonable, it's not absolute assurance. We don't test every transaction, we don't test down to the penny. It feels like we do sometimes, but it's not every single piece, otherwise we'd never leave because it would just be auditing every transaction. We consider internal controls for the purposes of designing those audit procedures again, so we don't render that opinion on controls. And then of course, we communicate all significant matters to you. We have an entrance conference, exit conference, board presentation. It's communication that goes at the beginning and at the end of the audit. We've got the findings communicated in the letter, so it's letting you know that you've been informed of anything that came up as part of that process. Management's responsibility, of course, they're your financials. We prepare them as a service. We help as much as we can. We answer questions, we give recommendations, but we are not part of that control structure. So as it relates to that, establishing and maintaining internal controls and including ongoing monitoring activities is really the city's requirement, with of course, board directive. Board is involved to be able to hire people to make sure there's controls in place, and the external audit is not a function of your control system. Accounting policies and principles, they're changing all the time. So every year there's some new GASB that needs implemented. They're your policies and procedures. Yes, we'll help with questions, we'll give recommendations, but we are not the ones who can select those. The presentation financials, of course, like I said, they're yours. They're prepared with your information. So that goes down to that next bullet point, the maintenance of complete and accurate records. They're yours. We don't keep your information. It's not ours to maintain for you. So they're your information that you keep as part of your process of controls. You guys are considering programs to detect and prevent fraud, and of course, the board participates in the process. So entrance conference, exit conference, board presentation, required communication, all those types of things that way you've been communicated with. So from a finding summary perspective, and I do like to just this way everyone understands kind of the way findings are drafted, the way they're reported, and the requirements around them. So the numbering system is required. So the FS, what I mean by the FS is just financial statement. That's something that's not necessarily a federal award piece, but it involves everything else that goes on within the financial statements themselves. And then those findings, when you see the number itself, 2024-001, 2024 is the year in which the finding began. And then the 001 is just the finding number. It's a three-digit code, the finding number within the year. At the end of the finding in parentheses, I just put the level, material weakness on this one. So when you see a repeat finding, the original number will be in parentheses. We'll see that here in a couple of minutes. It's the first finding, pages 213 to 214. It's a material weakness finding as it relates to the controls of construction and progress. When you look at the findings, you'll have the condition, which is what happened. You'll have the criteria, which is what should be occurring. You have the cause, why did it occur? The effect, what's the outcome? You'll have our recommendation. You'll have management's response. It will say views of those charged with, forget the word, but it'll be on the very bottom. It'll have a timeline for correction in there. If it's a repeat finding, you'll have the progress on that as well. So just know that that's what's in there. So pages 213 to 214 is going to be that first finding, the controls over construction and progress. That was a material weakness, so that was that material weakness we talked about. The next finding is 2024-002, is the general ledger corrections, and that's a significant deficiency. All the details 215 and 216. The next slide here is going to be federal award findings. So that's exactly what we have here, federal award, that way you kind of know where they're at, and we put the programs in which they might have been affected. So this first finding here, finding number three, was a reimbursement request. It's a significant deficiency. All the details are on pages 217 and 218, but this was noted in both the Airport Improvement Program as well as the Federal Transit Cluster. The next finding down, finding number four, all the details are 219 and 220. That is a repeat finding from last year. So you see in the parentheses, 2023-004, means that it was something last year, it came up again as part of this program. And that's an allowable activities and cost over payroll, and that's a significant deficiency in the Airport Improvement Program. The next finding is a repeat from 2023 as well, and that is also in the Airport Improvement Program, pages 221 and 222, and it's a material weakness as it relates to equipment and real property management. This next page will have the last federal award finding on it. That's related to the COVID-19 program, and this is a new finding in the year, subrecipient monitoring, significant deficiency, pages 223 and 224. And then these last two here are, we have the state audit rule finding. So these are matters that don't rise to that level of reportable under government auditing standards, but under the state audit rule, they need to be reported to you because they were things that came up. This one here, finding number seven, it's a repeat from 2021, and it's a pledged collateral finding. So it's an other non-compliance because collateral is a compliance requirement under the state audit rule that we have to test, and so it's another non-compliance. And then lastly, finding number eight is a repeat from 2021, and there cash appropriations in excess of available balance. So this is a budgetary finding as well. It's an other non-compliance, pages 226 to 227. So that's the findings that are in the report in the current year, those eight. So here's a, this slide here, we show all of the findings that were corrected within this audit. So anything that we always, and that'll be kind of towards the very last page of the report right before the exit conference, you'll see prior year findings and their status. So whether something is corrected or repeated, you'll see all of those listed there. All of those findings match the prior year report. So what I listed here, we didn't put the levels on this, maybe I should have, but I did not. But these are the findings that were corrected from '23 to '24. So you had one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine findings resolved in the current year as part of the audit procedures. As a reminder, as we look at audit findings, we look at, we have to test everything for correction. So we look at last year's findings and say, did you make? So just a real brief highlight of which ones were corrected was the schedule of expenditures of federal awards and internal controls of the grant reporting was resolved. Internal controls over financial close and reporting was resolved. Controls over cash balances was resolved. There was another federal finding related to allowable activities related to payroll that was resolved. Financial reporting resolved. Budgetary compliance finding, different budgetary compliance, that was resolved. Controls of vendor information was resolved. Bank account finders was resolved, and the late audit report finding was also resolved. That's the end that I have as it relates to a quick summary of the report, but I'll pause for questions. Mayor: Director, before we go to questions, is there anything you wanted to do to wrap this up before we turn it over to the governing body? Director: Sure, thank you, Mayor. Just briefly, I just want to say that I'm very proud of these audit results. I feel like this audit shows real progress on behalf of the city to both get caught up on audits and address. Some longstanding issues going back to the previous slide where we're looking at the summary of the corrected findings. Some of these go back as far as 2017. We made real progress. We resolved 37 findings over the course of those four audits: FY21, 22, 23, and 24, including resolving nine of these that were reported in FY23's audit, which was just completed less than a year ago in May. So I am incredibly proud of the work that the team, the entire city team, has done. I really want to acknowledge the work that Matt has done to lead our audit efforts since he joined us about 14, 13 months ago. It hasn't been very long, but he's had a big impact. In addition to that, I really feel that it's important to just emphasize what a city-wide effort it has been to complete four audits in such a compressed time period. Just to illustrate that on a small scale, I wanted to share with you all of the departments that helped us with the audit in the last two weeks before we turned it in. Every city department participated in the audit from that July to December timeframe that AJ was talking about. Every single city department helped us and participated in achieving this milestone of submitting this audit on time. Just in the last two weeks, from December 1st to December 16th, when we turned the audit in, we had key folks from IT, Legal, Municipal Court, Parking, Utilities, HR, Transit, Youth and Family Services, Economic Development, and Airport, in addition to our valued partners with Carg's Ingram and our contract support from Clifton Larson Allen, and of course, our team in the Finance Department with Matt, our Controller, Josie Golden, Clarence Romero, our Treasurer, our Budget Officer Andy Hopkins, and really the entire team in Finance. Just all hands on deck. So that is just a sample of all of the different departments that jumped in in the last two weeks to help us finish this audit. So I just really want to celebrate this accomplishment. I think this is very exciting for me. I am proud of these audit results, and I'm proud of the work that led us to be here today presenting them to you. Thank you. I think what we'll do is, as we've done in the past, give everybody 10 minutes and go back around again as the time is needed to ask questions or dig deeper into any of the findings or processes that got us to a timely audit with a very positive outcome. But Counselor, why don't you kick us off, Counselor Castro? Thank you so very much. I appreciate the presentation and the thoroughness, and I know that we've had the opportunity to ask some questions, so I'll try to be brief. There were, thank you so much for all the things that were resolved. There were a few things that were repeated and modified. Can you address that and what modifications we've made in particular, and are we expecting to see this in next year's audit as a repeat finding? Mayor, Council Castro, thanks for the question. I'll need to refresh on the ones that were specifically modified, so I'm going to flip through the report just so I make sure to answer all of them fully and give you a complete answer. Of course, no worries. And I will just address, there is one 20234 and 5, which are similar. One says repeated modified, and one says resolved. Sure. So the 2024-4, the allowable cost over payroll, this is one that is with the airport. So in the prior year audit for fiscal year 23, we did have a duplicate expense reimbursement submitted to the FAA as part of our grant program, which was flagged during the FY23 audit as an unallowable cost. That cost did not exist. That finding repeated during FY24's audit, but it was modified to a much more insignificant amount. I think the amount was about $2,694, where in the prior year it was about $80-some. So it became less of a material weakness and just a significant deficiency. So that's the modification on that. Improvement on that one. I imagine it was because we caught it just slightly into the next fiscal year. We actually caught at least partially during our revised grant processing procedures. So prior to me starting here, the airport was sort of working with the FAA and then their grants sort of directly, and we've sort of steered it to now that our grant department here in Central Finance is bearing the part that they should in being the oversight and reviewing the documentation. So this one unfortunately was submitted prior to us receiving that documentation. So it was submitted, and then we were told, "Submitted it, and here's what we submitted." And we reviewed it, and we were able to catch saying, "Oh, we have a duplicate." So we did that. We didn't catch it all. There was a second piece because we did report ourselves and pay it back to the FAA during the audit. I found another similar one that was for a smaller amount to make up the difference for it. So we have since rectified and corrected it, and I've had successful draws after that point because I believe that was in March for this one that was flagged and have since had no issues to date. So progress at least on that front. So I'm just going to read this repeated/modified as we have modified it, and we are not expecting to see this in next year's audit. Correct? Just want to clarify when we write repeated modified or repeated and modified or resolved modified is if you took last, so repeated would be if you look at last year's criteria and this year's criteria, they're the same. So if you look at last year's criteria and this year's and they're slightly different, then it's modified because something is slightly different. A great example of that, I know specifically, is the pledge collateral. It was a different account, but it was the same issue, just a different account. Okay. So that's where I can speak to at least that part of what we mean when we write that in there. Perfect. Thank you. I am just a little concerned since that was something that, I don't want to say easily fixed, but we don't want to double charge for services that we've received, right? Not at all. I mean, and this is a thing where we at least have a metric to self-report. I mean, the problem is even if it's caught after the fact in our thing, it still shows up as that. So we don't ultimately take more than we are awarded, but it's just still a breakdown in our actual internal control processes to catch it prior to us saying it as if we had a fictitious. So the amount is much smaller, which is great progress, but there's still an amount and something we're working. So all I want to say, we've absolutely rectified it. I think we've got the steps in place to prevent it. Things always can happen, but I think we're trying to make it a much less manual process and using our ERP system to our benefit. Thank you so much, and I'm going to cede the floor because I think I'm getting close to my time. But I just wanted to flag this because we should be very, very careful, and I know we are, with our federal grants so that we don't lose any federal money. Thank you so much. Thank you. You were fine. Time was no worries. Counselor Chavez, are you with us on the Zoom screen? I am here. I don't have my camera on because I had to come outside because I have a crying child inside. But I don't have any questions. I just, I really want to give the department heads credit for their work. It's amazing. Director, you have been amazing. Emily, you've been a pleasure to work with. You've reported so well, and I just, I think you guys have to get a lot of credit for the work that has been completed so far. So thank you. Thank you. No worries about the camera. Counselor Michael Garcia, you have the floor, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Director Oster and team. Always, you guys made a humongous amount of work make it seem easy, and it definitely is not an easy task. So thank you for that. And you know, with that, our hopes are we're on the track to where late audits are a thing of the past, and audits on time are where we're going to be heading towards in the future. But thank you for that and the whole team. It's a team-wide effort, city-wide effort. Thank you all and Mr. Bowers for working with the team to get this done in a timely manner. My first question is probably for Mr. Bowers since it is included in the report, and just for clarification, just for folks, especially the public that's not aware of what these type of reports mean, and sometimes something on the report might seem bad, but it's actually might not be the case. I'm going to refer to the report on page 12, in particular question six, and I'll read it for the public since if they don't have a copy of that. The question is, "Audit qualified as a low-risk auditee?" And the answer was no. You help the public understand what that means, Mr. Mayor. Council Garcia, thank you. So what that means, that's on page 212, that's the beginning of the findings. So what that means is as part of our federal risk assessment, we have to assess the overall risk of the entity. So there's a whole bunch of different questions in there, and what that means is if it's a, if you're higher risk, which is that no, right? It's a, it's a required reporting piece. So the risk assessment goes down, and don't quote me on every single part, okay? But prior audits, the opinion, prior program opinions, prior findings of material fashions, like material non-compliance or to federal awards, is your DCF data collection form filed on time? And you have to look back two years. So when you look back two years, if you don't have one of those things, the audit is automatically considered high risk versus low risk. What that means is as the auditor, we have to test a total of, regardless of what each program comes out to risk. So hypothetically, so again, I don't know, let's say that two programs say one of those programs wasn't actually a high-risk program, it's a possibility. I don't have the risk assessment in front of me, but if we don't have enough what we call federal coverage, we have to choose more programs. So if you're a low-risk audit, we are required by standards to test 20% of all federal dollars, and as a high-risk audit, we have to test 40% of all federal dollars spent. So it's a whole bunch of stuff from our risk assessment that's required per the uniform guidance. And so just so because of that, we do test more dollars spent based on the risk assessment. Right, and that's what I was going to say, just for the average citizen, that means because we were higher risk, more testing has to be conducted. In this case, 50% more testing has to be conducted, 20% up to 40%. Yes, it, it basically, it's the minimum, and I want to say the minimum threshold. So it may not have had an impact because based on, because you have to assess each program as high risk or low risk based on how much is spent in those programs, and you have to assess overall the entity as a whole. So the minimum testing based on threshold specific is 20% for low risk, 40% for high risk. Okay, so thank you, Mr. Bowers. I appreciate that. No problem. Next question is for Director Oster, and I'm just going to, in this, go kind of one by one in regards to the way the findings are laid out in the report. So the first finding is a material weakness, which is the highest of its kind. And in synopsis, we don't have the appropriate systems in place to track funds. In this case, it's Community Improvement Projects, and we are proposing June 30th, 2025, is that no, June 30th, 2026. And so a fix for this, from my understanding of this report, and this is where I'm asking for clarification, that we need to add some modules to Munis. Is that my understanding? And if that is the case, why is it taking us a year and a half to get that done? Mr. Mayor, counselors, thank you, Counselor Garcia, for the question. I'm going to have Matt join me on this because we've been working closely together. You've heard from me a lot about audits, so I want to give you the opportunity to hear from our accounting officer. Your question is about why did we identify June 30th, 2026, as the anticipated completion date for the corrective action on finding number one, correct? Well, and there was a kind of a pre-request: Is the fix, or are we proposing a fix, some modules being added to Munis? If that is the case, why is it taking us a year and a half to get these modules into Munis? Couldn't we have a more expedited timeframe, given this is a material weakness, which is the highest type of risk, the highest type of finding there is? Mr. Mayor, Councilor Garcia, if you don't mind, I'll step in. So, to answer your first question, yes, the first part of your question, the capital asset module for our ERP system, Munis, is in its early stages. We don't have it implemented yet. The position that we had running our Capital Asset Department had retired, and even prior to that, it was something that was just not an undertaking that she was set up for success for doing. We have since hired a replacement into that position that just actually started last week, so we've got that role filled. Even with a vacancy of just about three months for it, now the module is the focus for implementation. We still need to get him onboarded and comfortable with city processes and procedures. As we laid out the projected timeframe for completion on this, knowing when the audit was being released here in the December/January timeframe, we gave an honest assessment that we knew that June 30th, 2025, was just not feasible. We'd be putting down a date that we knew would be a miss, even with the best intentions. I think as we put down the date for the end of the next fiscal year, it was more of saying that we know it's going to be completed, or our anticipation is during the FY25 fiscal year. But, you know, just randomly picking a date of saying October, December, which could be more correct, but we don't have those milestones listed yet because we just put the person in place. At the time we were laying this out, I think we were still interviewing for the position, so we didn't even have a guarantee that we were going to have someone in there. So now that we do, we at least have someone actively leading the charge for implementing the module, bringing it into the ERP system, and working to resolve this. So, will that deadline be moved up? My hope is yes, based off the circumstances I presented right now. But at least at the time we were drafting it, we went with the best of our knowledge and just trying to be honest and transparent. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that clarification. As we're moving forward with this implementation, if the council can be given updates, because I want to make sure that it sounds like that was more of a liberal estimated completion date versus a much more conservative one, whether it would be the end of the fiscal year or end of the calendar year. So, any updates you can provide on that one, just because it is, again, it's the highest type of finding, but it does impact a lot of our funding, and we want to make sure we're in compliance. I don't want, especially this one, to be a repeated or repeated modified issue. And that kind of gets into the thinking of my third question that I've got tonight, which is we've got four repeated findings. The first one had an estimated completion date of January, well, no, I'm going to go through them in order. So, 2024-005, we had said we were going to complete this at the end of last calendar year, December 31st, 2024. We're now saying it's going to be completed on June 30th, 2025. So, we obviously didn't meet that deadline that we proposed we were going to set out to do. Next finding, 2024-4, another one we said we were going to complete it last year at the end of the calendar year. We've got a June 30th, 2025, deadline date. Another finding, 2024-7, we said we were going to complete it last June, June 30th, 2024, and we're saying we're going to complete it June 30th, 2025. And then the last repeated is 2024-8. We initially said in the last audit we were going to complete it June 30th, 2025, and that has now been pushed back with this audit to December 31st, 2025. Now, given that there were some of these findings that were repeated that did not meet the plan date in the last audit, and we've got some that were shifting the dates, how confident are we in regards to setting these dates? Because I don't want false expectations being set. I want to ensure that we're working to ultimately put all of these repeated findings on that list of "we've resolved them" and setting much more realistic timelines, like was done with the finding we just spoke about, the Munis module. Is that a better path for us? Because again, we've got one, two, three, all four of them are saying we're going to be, no, one of them is actually we're going to complete it at the end of the calendar year, but three of them are saying we're going to complete in June. How are we on track with that? I mean, if we're not on track with it, let us know now. That way, great question, honestly. And I think the key thing you'll see on these findings, and I think is an important point to call out, is as AJ kind of said, a lot of these are repeated but modified. So I'll kind of walk through each of them and kind of say the progress we made, but why the attention on one piece of it still hasn't been completed because there's other layers to it that we just haven't, that was newly discovered as part of it. So on the first one, I think it was 2024-5, around the equipment and the real property. We took that as a stance from the city. I think the real issue that we had identified was things on inventory lists that were either unknown or, you know, did they actually exist or not? So there was a considered effort made to track that and get a clear, concise, accurate listing on these inventory lists, which was done and was rectified in this finding. What was modified and still exists is we found out is if some of these inventory assets are purchased with federal dollars, we need to be tracking those specifically and identifying as such, which is a piece we, you know, we weren't doing and we're aware of and we know we need to be doing that. So we need to resolve that piece to do it. So while we made progress on that initial one and significant to clear the first place, it still exists because we have to identify. And so that's why that deadline at least kicks to the next year because we obviously don't have any more time within that prior year that was closed, but now we're working to try to do that. And so we do feel comfortable that we should be able to fully resolve that, or at least we have a path that we're working on for that. The next one, I might have skipped one on there, but I'll talk about 2024-07, the pledged collateral. This is one that was ongoing with one of the local credit unions that we had. We did resolve that one, as you know, but over the course of the business, we've learned that we've been doing higher health insurance premiums that has created a collateralization need at a different bank that had normally not been an issue. So we obviously did not have the right monitoring in place, but now we do, and we are working to rectify that. So confident that that one will certainly clear itself out by the end of this fiscal year. So that date is one that we feel with the repeat finding on the cash appropriations in excess of cash balances, 2024-08. This is a significant change from where you'd see it in the last one. There was a handful of accounts that just had various issues, and that kind of was created based on the timing difference of where we were in our auditing timeline. I'll wrap it up. The result of this one was something new that we had done as the city started resuming auctions of its, you know, old assets and fleets of things that they were trying to get rid of. There was just an entry that was missed because it was a new thing that we were doing and incorporating into with the city's processes. Again, with the staff here that didn't get booked and barred in for it to generalize that money that would be covering the auction for it. So again, it was a one-off instance that existed because it was something new that the city was dealing with. Now that we're aware of it, will it materialize in other aspects? We don't know, but at least for that one, this was a totally different area for it. So while the finding repeated, it was on a totally different reason because of certain events. So I feel comfortable at least that one will be resolved by the timeframe that we had in question, but that doesn't necessarily mean others. There was one other one I may have missed, but did I at least, yeah, no. And with the other one was just 004 from this year. And feel free to get back to me after. I know my time has expired, but again, thank you to the team. Thank you to AJ. That's gear up for fiscal year 25 audit. So good luck. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We come back around. Councilor Lindell, you. Mayor, thanks for being here. I heard this on Monday night and had questions answered. I just want to join the chorus of saying, "Well done." The amount of work that you guys got done in the last 18 months. You know, I remember City Manager Blair sitting there with that time clock ticking down, ticking down, ticking down. And so we've got eight findings, six of them to be addressed by June 30th, 2025. That's terrific. Really good. We got two others that you've explained, and we understand why that timeframe is what it is. So, I would just say, carry on. Nicely done. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Mayworth, you have the floor. Thank you, Mayor. Doing my little time thing. I want to talk a little bit. Okay, so that question number six, where it says, "Is this a low-risk?" And I, it's, I'm having trouble bouncing through all these pages super quickly. "Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee." I think what I heard is that you said because we were late in the first, the last two, that's what gave us that designation. Did I hear that right? Mr. Mayor, Councilor Mayworth, thank you for the question. Not specifically just because of the late. Okay, so there's, there's a couple of things. Yeah, there, and it's either of the two years. So the fact is, and I'll just look forward, right? If the DCF, the data collection form, which is due 30 days after the audit is completed or nine months after year end, whichever comes first. So if you're a year past, you're already late, right? So the 23 audit was late, and so that will require high risk next year. Okay, because you have to go a two-year look back. But it's, it's audit opinions, it's program opinions, it's material weakness findings, it's material non-compliance findings, it's, have you been designated as high risk? It's data collection form filings. There's, there's like nine or ten different things that can make that happen. Okay, so it's not just one thing. It's not just one thing. Now, were you late? And yes, so therefore, yes, you would have been there. But there might have been other factors. I'd have to go back to the work papers. I have, I can tell you. Okay, just, just curious whether I heard that right. Also, you told us on Monday night that you described this window in terms of making corrections as being about a six-month window. Because by the time the audit comes out with the findings, half the fiscal year that you're in has already gone by, and so you really only have six months to make those corrections before you're into a new fiscal year. Am I saying that correctly? Can you make that point again? Yes, so what we talked about there from a window of findings is that, you know, we report the finding. They're not public. until that release from the state. Now, it doesn't mean that they haven't been discussed or gone through that process and making adjustments internally, but we have to follow up on those findings. And so we always follow up. Well, if I want to follow up and I look in July, it might have still been occurring, right? So because the finding occurs and it rolls into the next year, you get these reports, and especially if the board has to be involved or you have to allocate resources or something, you're six months past the fiscal year beginning. So if it's a, and I'm going to use the word pervasive, just if it's pervasive, you've been operating six months with that. So it's hard to correct it in that time frame. So you do have a shortened window as it relates to just the time that you hear about the finding to the timing of when it needs to be concluded, right? And that really struck me when you talked about that Monday night at Finance, because we've done four audits in 18 months. So that window for making corrections has been even smaller. And yet we've fixed, what did you say, Director Oster, 38% from last year, from the last time we submitted an audit, which was when? Madam Chair: We corrected 69% of our findings from FY23, and that audit was submitted in May. Okay. So I, that just struck me as being, you know, an example of really how, I mean, it's extraordinary that four audits were completed in 18 months. But then when you think about the work that you all have done on findings to resolve them, and the fact that we have eight now, six of which are due to be corrected by the end of this fiscal year, one to be corrected by the end of the calendar year, and then one that's going to take a little bit longer that we've spoke about, that was talked about earlier, you know, again, pretty remarkable, I think, in terms of just what it takes to work on these things and the windows you have, and the fact that, you know, maybe we missed the mark in predicting them in the last fiscal year. But again, the condensed schedule, I think, needs to be factored into all of this. So I, I just want to say again, as has been said, really want to thank your team, Director Oster, Mr. Bon, for, thank you for coming on, I believe it was a year ago, and really helping to add to the team. Thank you to all of the directors across the city, because I think this was an extraordinary effort. Everyone had to be prioritizing this work, really critical to the operations of the city. And I, I too, look forward to, you know, staying on this path, continuing to make improvements. And I think you've really improved by leaps and bounds, and I, I, I want to acknowledge that. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Counselor. Councilor Cassidy: Thank you so much, Mayor, and thank you, everybody, for being here and for the presentation, and for it at Finance as well. You know, I don't, I don't have too many more questions. I really appreciate the finance team always does take an opportunity to meet with counselors, and those meetings to really discuss and move through these. A couple things I wanted to mention, though, aside from, you know, everybody has mentioned just the Herculean task that you all have taken on and been extremely successful with. This is really exciting to be here. It's very exciting to be in a place where we are on time with our audits. And as Councilor Marworth was just referring to, that this really does give us an opportunity to more quickly address them. Although, again, your ability to correct so many of these audits with such a condensed time period, and I remember this when the FY21 audit came out, that I felt comfortable that there was nothing on there that surprised me, that it had all been things that Director Oster had brought out, that our finance team was well aware of and was already working on. So I do really want to give you all credit for that, that this has been such a challenge, such a, such a heavy lift, but you all have been very aware of what the tasks are and have been able to take those on while also completing four audits in 18 months. I, I did want to go back to Matt's response to Councilor Garcia's question, because I think it actually brings up a really, and thank you for explaining, you know, what was different about those, because it, it does really show to me the iterative nature, the iterative nature of audits, and also why we, why we do them annually. I guess I would be curious, you know, you mentioned that there are some things that we found it over here and then it popped up again, you know, over in this direction. How are you able to take some of these and and be more proactive? You know, you mentioned that we didn't have this process in place. Now we do. So that we may be able to find these issues in in other areas. Are they something you can really generalize? Or, you know, it sounds like with the, with the auction, this was, this was a bit of a one-off. This was something new that we were doing and we were learning. But I'd like to hear a little bit more about how those modifications that are slightly different, how that feeds into the overall processes that then are more generalized throughout the city or in the department. Mr. Mayor: Councilor Cassidy, yeah, I think the evolution of the city and where we are right now is really starting, and where we're able to start getting ahead of these things or to better align ourselves to get to that point of getting ahead of these things is the staffing that we're finally first getting to. I mean, I think when prior to even when I came on and when Emily started, we had a quite a high vacancy city-wide, particular in the, in City Finance Department here, which, you know, is the flow through for a lot of stuff. It's sought for the expertise, and we just didn't have the, the, the people in place to do it, which is where we very much needed to lean on our, our contract consultant helps just to, to help us advance, you know, to fill in these, these gaps. And as these months have gone on and we've gone into these next fiscal years, these roles have been filled by professionals that, you know, have a deep understanding of what they're doing or willingness to learn and go above and beyond. Courts solutions, you know, where we were living in a world where we were looking at two years in the past and trying to maintain current year operations, and we're looking back one year, maintaining current year operations, then we're just looking back to just this current year that we're living in now that we're kindly and on there, we're able to maintain and spot things a lot quicker and identify things and put things into place to prevent, you know, are we perfect? No. Will we ever be perfect? I hope not. I mean, I, and I say that in a sense that, you know, I want us to always be striving to be, be working on stuff and not being complacent. And I think that's what's going on. We're working to leverage our technology and better bring our ERP and our IMUNIS to automate some of these things, to be identifying metrics to catch errors or, you know, mispostings, and also freeing up our time to better analyze, because we have, we have trends that are being established and, and we know things. So, you know, I think that's, that's sort of the things that we're working on, and it's proving to be what results in these things. And like I said, as new things come up, we, we incorporate those on. But at least as we're getting that flow in and we're all getting comfortable working, you know, as a team now with permanency of positions, it's certainly making things, results that we're seeing and able to resolve stuff. Wonderful. Thank you. I, I appreciate that. And as I always like to remind everybody, well, I guess four of us on here froze finance at a 40% vacancy rate during COVID. So I, I just always, you know, there were some big choices that we had to make during the pandemic that those staffing issues, we, we did what we felt we had to do at the time. And, and, you know, really appreciate the work that it took to restaff the finance department. And if I recall, that, that is, has not been an easy task, simply because of the, of the degrees of the training that is required, the fact that there are numerous government agencies and private entities that are also competing for these same individuals. And so I do think that really does speak to the leadership of, of Ms. Oster and the dedication of the team that we have that are willing, you know, to come and work for the city and really put their all into it. And I also really appreciate that comment about never going to be perfect, because I, I, I think that's a very, something that sometimes gets lost in government, is that we do always want to strive to be better. And in order to be better, we have to acknowledge where we have opportunities to improve without that being seen as a negative, but rather how do we continue to grow? So thank you for that. And, and I am happy to hear that that is the philosophy that you are bringing, because I do think that that will serve the city the best in the end. The last thing I just wanted to celebrate was looking at some of these that have been corrected since our last audit. And some of them have been here for quite a while. The internal controls over financial closing reporting, that was, you know, originally in 2017. This has been, I know, a very heavy lift that we have discussed maybe even ad nauseam, I mean, quite a bit within both Finance Committee and, and just a governing body. So congratulations on getting that one. And congratulations to the entire city, because I know that every single department is, is touched by this. And then we do have a number that, you know, we've been seeing since 2020 or 2021. And then, of course, the late audit report since 2019. So congratulations. Thank you all so much for the work. And I, you know, continue to, to look forward to watching these improvements come about as we continue to get some of these fixes online and continue to identify new opportunities to continue to improve. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Lee Garcia: Mayor, thank you. Yeah, just going back to the staffing levels, where are we at currently, Ms. Director Oster, your department? Thank you, thank you for the question, Mr. Mayor and Councilor Lee Garcia. So we have 57 positions in the Finance Department. About 12 of those are in our fleet division, and the remainder are located here at City Hall. And with the onboarding of our new capital asset accounting manager that Matt mentioned just earlier this month, we have a vacancy rate of seven positions. So that's about 12, 13%. Our goal is to fill all of those by the end of this fiscal year. Thank you. And again, that being said, I think we had a little bit of a discussion at Finance about our outside contractors. And, and obviously, Carr, Riggs & Ingram is, is a necessity for doing the external audit portion. The, or Clifton Larson Allen is our contractor that helps us do some of the legwork currently. And, and so back again, as we, we get to a higher staffing level, I think it is imperative that we continue to, you know, obviously it's nice to have the option to utilize them when needed. However, pulling back on that and utilizing our staff once they are completely and fully capable of, of going, you know, there's something that it does need to, to go with an outside agency, then, then obviously, you know, we have to do that. It was just more in, in, in terms of a comment and to, to understand for those that are listening where we are at with, you know, with, with our department. And so again, kudos. There was definitely a lot of keeping track of things over the last three years from the late audits. They're going side by side. You're doing two at the same time kind of thing. It was like, whoa, it was a roller coaster ride. So, Thank you for where we are at and continuing to look to the future. Mr. Bonifer, you have been a valuable addition to this team. I know you were recognized at the Finance Committee on Monday in regards to what your contributions have been to this process. I look forward to continuing to see you and those of your caliber to help us continue moving forward. That's all I have, Mr. Mayor. Mayor: Thank you, sir. I'm going to make a few comments, and then if anybody wants to go back around again, I'm open to another set of questions or comments. I think it's appropriate to follow up on what Councilor Lee Garcia said about just what a great effort this has been by everybody and how much we appreciate AJ, your amazing work. I got to watch you hard at work, and I know that you and your team have been enormously important to getting the city back on track, so thank you for that. It does take more than just the internal capabilities, although I'm happy to hear that the internal team continues to be built and continues to be productive. I think running any department, particularly something that is, you've heard me say this, Director Oster, the cerebral cortex of city government, it is people, it is processes, it is programs, and it's also partners. The people are increasingly in place, processes, as we read in the findings, are being improved, and programs are being implemented to make sure that this continuous improvement exercise is ongoing. I don't really have any questions, but I do want to point out that the audit is, in some ways, a point-in-time snapshot, and it's something we can all be very gratified by the findings: the low level of findings in general, the improvement in findings that have been cleared, and the overall ranking as having gotten the highest rating possible. I wanted to go back in time for just a minute and revisit not the snapshot that we're at in the moment, but the trajectory that we've been on for, well, really since 2017, September 25th, 2017, when McCard Accounting Consulting sent its report to then City Manager Snyder and then Director of Finance Adam Johnson. I want to just read for a minute from the executive summary of that 2017 report. It starts off by saying that this fraud risk assessment revealed that the City of Santa Fe has extremely high risks of fraud due to the almost complete lack of internal controls present in the city's system of accounting and financial affairs. The lack of internal controls is due to a series of issues, including an antiquated accounting system that requires multiple points of hand-keyed entry where errors or manipulations can occur, lack of control over computer access rights, complete lack of financial and other written policies and procedures, a lack of appropriate cash handling processes, a procurement and vendor payment system which is ineffective and lacks controls, ineffective revenue collection systems, and employees who have had no training for their jobs and thus use self-made workarounds for key business processes. I don't read that to cast aspersions or cast shade on anybody, rather to point out that this snapshot we have tonight as a point in time took a journey to achieve, a journey interrupted by COVID and by the need to really conduct hard efforts to bring us back on time and resolve findings and implement new processes and onboard new people and fix problems that were identified back in 2017. It doesn't mean we're done. It doesn't mean we've arrived at a point of satisfaction. I know that Director Oster, you and your team are committed to constant and continuous improvement and the communication of how that improvement is going. But in seeing this as a snapshot, I think we run the risk of missing the overarching trajectory of progress that the city has been on, not without bumps in the road, not without some challenges, but with ongoing effort by your predecessor, by Mr. Blair when he was here and made this a priority. I'm sure he's watching tonight so he can see this from his home, his apartment. It took everybody working very hard and everybody's commitment, including this governing body who voted the dollars and the time and the energy to make sure that you had the resources you needed to get us to where we are. I'm sure that commitment will continue going forward because as we all know, we only want to get better at this and continue to improve our performance in this year's audit and next year and next year and next year as we continue to win the confidence of people that our financial reporting and auditing processes are in place and the city is doing a good job managing the public's money, that the books are squared away and that our finances are in good hands. So thank you for all your hard work, everybody. It's a tremendous team and great leadership to get us here, so thank you. If you want to go back around, Councilor Castro, do you have some more comments or thoughts? Councilor Castro: I don't, just thank you all for your work. Mayor: Councilor Chavez, I know you're still with us. Do you want to add anything before we close out the audit commentary? Councilor Chavez: No, I have no other questions or comments. Thank you. Mayor: Councilor Garcia, you have the floor, sir. Councilor Garcia: No, you're good. Mayor: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Lindell: Very good. Mayor: I think we are all grateful to you and thank you for your presence and your hard work. It's really gratifying to have you all here, and AJ, thanks again. Madam Clerk, what's the next item on our agenda? Clerk: The next item is 8B, update on impact fees and Capital Improvements Advisory Committee. Regina Wheeler, Public Works Department Director, is here. Director Wheeler: Director Wheeler, you have the floor. Thank you so much, Mayor, members of the governing body. Good evening. We are here tonight to talk to you a little bit about impact fees, which we don't normally take a moment to discuss, but we have a need right now to reestablish our Capital Improvement Advisory Committee, also known as the CIAC. So we thought along with asking you for candidates for that advisory committee, we would also give you a brief overview of impact fees, what they are, how they work. So there is a memo in your packet which has the sort of lion's share of the key information, but I'll just speak through it a little bit. I'll start with what are impact fees? So impact fees are allowed, established by state law, where a municipality is allowed to impose and collect impact fees from developers to offset the impacts of growth on infrastructure. There are four types of impact fees that the City of Santa Fe collects: those are roads, parks, fire, and police. So they're established by state law as well as by city code, so there's combining code there. The law directs that the city shall have an Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan, which establishes the rates that will be charged to the developers. It also establishes the projects that will be implemented to address the impacts of growth, and then those projects become eligible for the use of impact fees. And the state law also establishes an advisory committee should be in place to advise the governing body on certain aspects of the impact fees. And our code has it as a nine-person committee. The last time that we had a significant conversation about impact fees was in December of 2020, when the current Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan, IFCP, was adopted. It's time to update the IFCP, and since that time in December 2020, the Land Use Department has asked Public Works if they would be willing, if we would be willing to manage impact fees since we do have a vested interest in having those funds available to make sure we can bring these projects to fruition. And so we agreed to that. And so it's time to update the IFCP. The CIAC has a role in that. It'll be a really interesting time to be on the committee. We'll be updating the list of projects that are eligible. We'll be assessing some, we'll be reevaluating the land use assumptions that come up with the rates that are paid, and then of course, ultimately developing the IFCP and bringing it to the governing body for approval and adoption. So that's when we adopted the last plan in December 2020. One of the challenges had been that the impact fees were not being deployed quickly enough into the community. And so Public Works has been working really hard to bring a lot of really important projects to the community. And so you can see in your memo a list of 15 projects that have already used impact fees. Many of these projects are complete, which is great. And then two other ones, one that's mentioned in the memo with the $1.1 million for Fire Station 5, building an equipment and training building, which they desperately need. So we're really excited to be able to support that project along with the governing body supporting it to give them some money that they can really use to build the proper facility that they need. As well as the item that's on discussion on your agenda is another project. It's actually additional funding going to Agua Fria for your South Meadows project to get that done. And how these impact fees are used is as gap funding and match funding for grants. So really across the board, the city is paying about 25% of the cost of most of these big capital projects now, and grant funding is paying 75% of the costs, which is exactly the case in Agua Fria South Meadows and many, and often the city's paying less probably on average. So that's kind of a history or and a background basis. And then so the CIAC itself is a nine-member committee. We're asking each elected official, each governing body member, to provide us with a candidate recommendation. People can live anywhere. They don't have to live in your district. They don't even have to live in the city or the county. But there are three areas of expertise that must be represented on the committee, and that is we need to have representation from real estate development or building industries. And each term is two years and may be renewed, and the committee will meet quarterly. I think that concludes my presentation, Mayor. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Mayor: Thank you. Really helpful. Questions for the councilor? Councilor, go ahead. For the councilor, I'm sorry, for the director. Councilor Garcia. Councilor Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Director Wheeler, you mentioned those three categories. Is there a reason why just those three categories? Because they are pretty specific. Well, whether it's, I mean, it's basically the development world, whether it's developer, real estate, or building industries. Why not an everyday average resident who feels they have the insight to help contribute to this committee? Director Wheeler: Well, they certainly can. I think as it says in the memo, it's not less than four. So four of the seats of the nine-person committee have to represent those areas, but after that, it can be anybody, right? So, and that's per our code. But I think then it presents the challenge. We have to coordinate who's going to fill those four slots, who's going to fill the remaining five slots. Thank you so much for that question, Mayor, Councilor. We'll be happy to sort that out. I think if you guys could just get us resumes and recommendations, and we can give feedback and do a little bit of an iterative process because you're right, it would be hard to coordinate in advance, but we'd be happy to get the applicants and then give any feedback about additional things that we need if that sounds reasonable. Councilor Garcia: Okay, thank you. Director Wheeler: Thank you. Mayor: Other questions? Councilor Casson. Councilor Casson: Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Director Wheeler. Definitely looking forward to getting this back up and running. I've received a few questions about this in the last couple of months, as you and I have discussed. I just had one quick question, and this might be a typo, but where is it? I was looking at the list of where funds have come from, and it says that Swan Park came from roads. Should that be at parks instead? Thank you so much for the question, Mayor, Counselor Cassett. Actually, that is the road to Swan Park, so it's a big new road. We did decide the parks, you can see that the parks impact fees are a smaller revenue source than the roads impact fees. So, since that project was eligible for roads, we put it in the road category. Got it, that makes sense. Thank you. And then I am curious about a couple of things. So, in terms of, I understand the C is critical in deciding what projects go onto the IFCI. What really determines, are there guardrails other than them being these four categories of roads, parks, fire, police? Are there other ways that these projects actually show up onto the IFCI, or that they have to take into consideration when they're making those recommendations to us? Thank you so much for that question. There are guardrails on it quite a bit. This is actually a quite constrained space with state and city law. One of the guardrails that's really important is the project has to address the impacts of growth. So, projects like reconstructing South Capital roads, or reconstructing a road that needs a maintenance repair, that's not eligible. But when you're improving a facility, you could expand a road, you could add a lot of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are needed now because of growth. But the project has to address the impacts of growth. The other guardrail is that it's supposed to be on our ICIP. So, we make sure that as we do the ICIP process, that we think about projects that address the impacts of growth, make sure we get them on our ICIP, so then they're eligible for the IFCI. Wonderful, thank you. And then my last question actually has to do with, so these are supposed to address the impact of growth. When I look at just a snapshot of the list, it does seem to align pretty well with where we are actually seeing growth. But as the counselor, where I, as I like to mention in our previous pipeline of residences, residential pipeline, District 4 does have the most residential units within the pipeline. And then of course, District 3 is not too far behind. So, is there any conversation around aligning the growth with the district or with the area that may be a certain area that crosses district lines, that is really taking on the burden of that growth? And again, when I'm looking at this, I'm seeing, I'm seeing a lot that's happening over in our area. So, Richard's extension is of course a huge one, Lopez Lane, South Meadows, all of the Swan Park. So, really, seeing a lot that do align, but some that don't necessarily. So, are there any requirements there? Is that something that is taken into consideration? And if not, I'd like to see that. Thank you so much for that question, Mayor, Counselor Cassett. It's a complex matrix of what projects move forward or projects that get funded, basically. And the governing body prioritizes our projects largely when we do the ICIP process. And as you know, we have conversations and we get input from the community. That's what goes into our capital planning. And we understand the importance of them both from communication with constituents and communication with governing body, as well as from our Master Transportation Plan feedback on crashes, accidents, watching the performance of intersections that we see them as the developers come in with their traffic studies, where intersections are decreasing in performance and where things need to be addressed. So, we're watching that whole landscape. And then we're also watching the landscape of funding. And I think it really does end up being that the money goes where it's needed because the legislators supported, and we get money from the state, and it becomes high on the ICIP. And then we apply for them for grants, and the granters see the needs, and we get grant money for it. So, it is the most highest priority projects that get the most attention and that we seek the funding for, and then those projects that get funded get deployed. Okay, thank you. I do appreciate that. I know that that's something we've had conversations about is how we leverage different funding sources. And again, it does, when I'm looking at the list, it seems to actually work out quite well because most of these, a lot of them, are addressing areas where there is a lot of growth happening, a lot in districts three and four. So, sorry, actually, this brought up one more question. I know we've had conversations in the past about our ICIP and whether or not the order, we often talk about it in terms of our legislative priorities, and whether the order after that first five, which matters but doesn't, does that order actually, I mean, you know, that's a, we've been told in the past that the numbers don't actually matter too much. So, now I'm curious about the order in which things are placed on both the IFCI and the ICIP. And I think I said all of my acronyms correctly. Thank you so much for that question. We have begun to use the ICIP list to order it so that the top 10 are actually very important to the city. Even though that doesn't mean anything to the legislature, staff comes to understand it. We meet with all the heads of the departments to understand their needs. And so it gives us a lot of visibility into across the city needs. And so it, that's, it means something to us, but the legislature doesn't take it into any extra consideration if it's anything beyond the top five. So, it's our planning purpose. But our Master Transportation Plan does help us prioritize. You know, we have traffic engineers on the ground that are giving us feedback. We have engineers in the development review process, they're giving us feedback. We have our governing body, we have our constituents. It's a very dynamic situation. And I wanted to point out as well that not only do we look for traffic failures, but we're also looking to support affordable housing development. So, you see Pell Soul extension is on there. That's a really important project to us. And so I think, you know, constant communication with the governing body, with, you know, through our MO, through our constituent services, keeps us focused on the projects that are really needed. Okay, thank you so much. I appreciate it. Really, really looking forward to getting this process started. Again, I've received a few questions on this recently, and I know there are a number of people who are very involved in this world who are watching, and I think we'll also be eager to get this moving. So, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Counselor. Mayor: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Director Wheeler, for bringing this forward. I've been wondering when we were going to do this, so this is exciting. My last appointee was a younger person. I did that on purpose, constituent, with a financial background, and certainly was not connected with any of the three real estate development or construction sectors that you mentioned need to be represented here. So, I think, and you know, I remember we had a lawyer, and so it's, it is, it does have elements of folks outside of the three sectors, as I recall. I just want to take issue with something you said. Does that, if it's outside of the top five, it doesn't matter to the legislature? Something like that is what you said. And I would just want to make sure everybody knows that the legislature can't fund anything that isn't on the ICIP list. So, while they may focus on the top five in terms of how they work to fund or use their capital outlay to help the city meet its top five priorities, it's, I think, and I can't remember who required it, I think it's DFA maybe, where you have to be on the ICIP list in order to be funded by the legislature. So, just want to make sure everybody's aware of that. Thank you for that correction. In fact, thank you so much. That's much better wording. It's not that they don't care, it's just that we're not expressing a priority to the legislature by anything after the top five. But everything on our list is considered for funding, and we often get bits of funding. For instance, the district priorities are items that are not in the top five that often get very well funded that are pointed out by the governing body. And as you say, any project that's on the ICIP is eligible. Right, thank you. That's all I have there. Thank you. I just wanted to add something very quickly. We actually had a Complete Streets Town Hall last night that was super informative and had some really great, amazing information. So, thank you so much for your work, and continue the good work. Thank you, Director Wheeler. One more time, what, how, what you had laid out some thoughts about how quickly we could be presenting our nominees or collecting our nominees, getting this done. What's the timetable for the governing body to produce names and start the process of getting the membership reinstalled? Thank you so much, Mayor, for asking for a deadline. It would be ideal if we could get them in no later than two weeks, if we could get the candidates. And then we could, it would be moving through the process. It'll go through the city clerk, and then you'll find it on an agenda, and the mayor will appoint. Beautiful, thank you. Lee Garcia, sorry, I didn't see your hand, sir. Mayor, can you just give a quick rundown, how, how do we attain the funds for the ice, for the impact fees? Certainly, thank you for the question, Counselor Garcia. These are paid by developers as they go through our land use process to get approved for and permits for development. So, they're offsetting the cost of the impacts on infrastructure with these fees. Okay, thank you. And again, to kind of elaborate a little bit on Counselor Cassett's comment in regards to development in the areas, obviously we do see the stress that comes from more and more people utilizing the roads and the stress that it also adds to our infrastructure, whether it be sewers or things of that nature. I mean, we see the added additional responsibilities and stresses of just annexing people into our city. And so these are all really big things that I think are important, very important for our city. I mean, I see Airport Road, you know, look at the amount of traffic on there now. And not to take away from other areas of the city, but definitely for the developers that are actually, that's where the money is coming from. And so put it back into the areas that are getting developed. And so just a comment, that's all I have. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Counselor. All good. Thank you, Director. We'll get the process going, and that'll lead to the appointments, and then this body can go to work. Thank you for bringing this forward. Appreciate it. Madame Clerk, I'm looking at the clock, it's about 20 to 7. We do have an action item in front of us if you want to pick that up for us. Item 10A, request for approval of a budget amendment resolution, BAR, to allocate road impact fees in the total amount of $933,000 to Complete Streets Roadways WIP construction for the Agua Fria South Meadows intersection improvements project. And Romella Gross Moss, Complete Streets Capital Projects Manager, is here. Let's see, can we get a motion? Move to approve. Move to approve. Motion, there's a second. I think for the people who are not familiar with this, it's wonderful to see you here. Could you give us an overview of the project and the the nature of the requests. Please, thank you. Mayor Weber, members of the council, good evening. So, the Old Santa Fe Trail and Zia Road intersection improvements project is 40% complete with construction. Improvements include ADA compliance sidewalks, safe driveway access, bike lanes on both sides of the road, lighting, and traffic signals improvements. The project has been delayed, and I apologize. I know the frustration from the public and from the council, but it has been delayed due to challenging processes to secure right-of-way and public utility issues. For this project, we had to negotiate with 11 property owners to secure right-of-way and for property owners to secure public utility easements. We're down to one. We are anticipating meeting to finish the public utility easement with one property owner at the end of March, early April. As soon as we obtain that last public utility easement, we can move the privately owned electric. We thought this was, when we received certification from PNM that our project does not have an impact on utilities, we did not anticipate that four electric poles were privately owned. They were not owned by PNM. So, PNM will not move those poles without public utilities acquired. This project currently has state funding of $3.8 million and $189,000 of road impact fees for city match. Additional funding is required in the total amount of $933,000 to complete the project. This project is included in the Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan and is eligible for use up to $3 million of road impacts. City staff is requesting for the governing body to approve the use of $933,000 in road impact fees. Thank you. Thank you for the clarity of that explanation of the situation and some of the complexities that you've hit in the course of overseeing this project. Thank you very much. Questions? Yes, Councilor Lee Garcia. Mr. Mayor, thank you, Ms. Glorias. For information, obviously, we've communicated about this quite often. There are many people in the district that both Councilor Fowler and I represent, and we hear about this often. I mean, it's in a school area. There's a lot of traffic in that area, and quite frankly, the people are frustrated with it. So, thank you for that comment because acknowledging the fact that, I guess my question really just goes towards the increase. So, we already had a dollar amount that we had identified as project cost, and so because of this additional, is it to move the poles? What is the extra cost? Mayor Weber, Councilor Garcia, thank you for that question. The $933,000 was included in the estimated total cost of the project. But there was one capital project that was, that was, we thought was no longer a priority, and that we were going to use that funding to complete this project. However, as of two weeks ago, that capital project became a high priority for Public Works again, so we can no longer use that funding. So, because this project is eligible for road impact fees, then we are asking the governing body to approve the use of that funding. But this is not a new need. This was, this was included in the project, the original cost of the project to construct, but we just did not come to the governing body to get that funding because we thought we could use funding for this capital project that was not, two years ago, we thought was not a priority project. This project or another project? Another project. Which was that? Sandoval Montezuma. So, how were we going to pay for the $933,000 initially without using impact fees? Were we going to use a different fund? No, that's why I'm coming to the governing body to obtain $933,000 in road impact fees. Thank you. Just clarification. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Very good. Anybody else? Much appreciated. We have a motion on the floor and an explanation as to the need for the money and the delay. I appreciate, as Councilor Garcia said, there are many folks who are wondering why this hasn't moved faster, and I appreciate you taking that up very directly. So, thank you for that. We understand it. I myself was so frustrated. You feel, we started this project in 2020, I think. You feel it very personally. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll on the motion, please? Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Councilor Lindell? Yes. Councilor Romero Worth? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Let's keep going. I think when we get close to 7 o'clock, or as we approach the time when we usually have communications from our matters, what am I trying to say? Matters from the floor. We'll move our agenda around. But City Manager, why don't you take the floor at the moment? Thank you, Mr. Mayor, governing body. It's lovely to be with you again this evening. I'm pleased to advise that we have seven lateral police transferring to our Police Department, which I think speaks to the fact that the efforts we've made to make our department more attractive than perhaps others, and the programs that we've put in place to attract lateral transfers who are individuals who are ready to hit the ground and get going to benefit our community. Nothing wrong with the police academy where we train them, but it's a long process, and so I'm just delighted to say that we do have seven joining us, and that's it, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Thank you for subbing in again tonight, Mr. Randall. Much appreciated. Madam Clerk, I think we may want to, not quite now, go into executive session, but modify our agenda so we can be here to take petitions from the floor at 7. Motion to table item 12. Second. There's a motion to table item 12, and there's a second. Why don't you call a roll on that, and then we'll resume our agenda and come back to it accordingly. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romero Worth, I think she had to step out. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. We miss Garcia Lee Garcia. Okay, Madam Clerk, that brings us, I believe, to Matters from you. Yes, I wanted to present a couple of things. So, we just did the exercise of submitting our accomplishments for the budget session, and I brought up some information that I thought might be helpful to learn about our Constituent Services team, our Mail and Duplications team, our Clerk team, and our Comms team. So, in terms of data for 2024, from January 1st, 2024, through December 31st, 2024, 9,070 work orders were submitted to the City of Santa Fe, and by the end of the year, 8,448 work orders were closed. I wanted to kind of give you a breakdown of what that looked like. So, our highest level of work order submission was illegal dumping. Our second was road maintenance, and our third was graffiti. We also did a tally of information just from the month of January. So, just January 1st through January 30th, so far in that month, 602 work orders were submitted, and 491 work orders have been completed. Again, there the top amounts are the, well, actually the top three are a little different than the overarching. Sorry, the overarching are illegal dumping, road maintenance, and other. Currently, our totals are illegal dumping, road maintenance, and graffiti. Switch those around. The other highlights that I wanted to give were, our Mail and Duplication team was very proud of this. They adopted the UPS NASPO agreement, which provided significant savings to the city. They bulk mailed 17,180 pieces of mail and produced 573,372 black and white copies and 156,573 color copies. They approximated that they saved the city about $446,436 in outsourced duplication fees. So, they're very proud of those numbers. They've been working hard. Our Comms team increased the emails sent to constituents. So, they sent out 1 million emails, a growth rate of 40%, which is pretty cool. They also worked pretty hard in updating the public-facing social media platforms, streamlining the communication intake process for different departments to reach out to them and get graphic design, event planning, communications. They've really been innovating and renewing the content and helping Economic Development, Midtown Recreation, and libraries. So, I thought those were some helpful updates. I know our Clerk team is just steadily always working on the governing body packets, all of the packets for all of the committees. They oversaw, just in this department, 10 city-sponsored events. We'll be doing the same 10 events this year. So, I just wanted to highlight that for all of you, and that concludes my update. Thank you. That's quite a lot of information. I mean, those numbers are really impressive. I don't know if you want to send out an email that gives us a chance to read those at our leisure rather than trying to write them down as quickly as you went through them. But a lot of efforts to be the front door of city government to get information both in from constituents and back out to people who are looking for answers. Thank you. About seven minutes to seven. You want to go to commission, go to the next item, which is Communications from the Governing Body, and we'll go to petitions from the floor with an amendment to our agenda, item 14, Communications from the Governing Body. So, Councilor Castro, let me start with you, and we'll just go down the line. Sure, thank you so much. I do want to just thank staff that was there last night for that Transit and Complete Streets Town Hall. I really encourage folks to check out some of the changes to our service. Unfortunately, we have lost some drivers, and so we've had to make some changes. If you have any questions, please reach out. And I also want to thank the City Clerk, the Tourism Department, all of the folks that I emailed today about language access. They jumped on that immediately, and so I really appreciate that. Thank you so much. Thank you. And I will get to, first we have Councilor Chavez, and then I hope Councilor Garcia will come back. But Councilor Chavez, you have something to participate with the city, the governing body's commentary. Over to you. Thank you, Mayor. I don't have anything other than tomorrow is Santa Fe Day at the legislature, so I hope that we see everybody at the Roundhouse. You know, it's a great time to, you know, be there, be present, be active in some of, you know, the voice of creating policy and just showing face. So, I will be there, and I look forward to seeing everyone there. Thank you. Thank you. We'll come back to Councilor Garcia when he comes back in. Councilor Lindell, you good? Cassett? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to say that I met with our new Constituent Services Manager today. Really appreciated him taking the time to reach out and introduce himself and really speak with him about, you know, how to best work together and the work that he is looking to do in Constituent Services. I really appreciate that. He has a lot of experience within municipal government, both here as well as in the City of Española. So, excited that I had the opportunity to meet him and just want to thank him and tell him that looking forward to working with him. Other than that, you know, Happy Valentine's Day to everybody, and hope you guys all have a wonderful day. I know I am looking forward to making heart-shaped pizzas with the kiddos and my family. So, hope you all have something just as wonderful planned. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Lee Garcia, and then Councilor Michael Garcia, we'll come back to you next, sir. Nothing tonight, Mayor. Thank you. Okay. Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just want to invite the public to the Cañada Rincon Trail opening that's happening on Friday. This has been a project that has been in the works for, gosh, a decade plus. And so, it's just an opportunity for more interconnectivity for bicycle and pedestrian activity. It's February 14th. The address is going to be the Camino Francisca, Avenita Ringor area, and it's happening rain, snow, or shine. So if it's snowing, still come join us. Fun. Thank you. A couple quick thoughts, and then we'll come back to the petitions from the floor. A tip of the hat to our colleagues over at the county for the resolution that they passed last night. We are shoulder-to-shoulder with that resolution that speaks to the commitment we have as a community to recognizing Santa Fe County as an immigrant-friendly community, with no effort to identify or discriminate people on the basis of their status. I think it's really a good thing when the city and the county are in lockstep on that. Thank you to everybody who has come out lately over the last couple weeks to add their voices to the rights and significance of people in our community who are feeling very much fearful of their status in Santa Fe and in the country at large. We'll continue to work together, and I know Councilor Castro is making an extraordinary effort to do outreach and bring people together to really stand as a community and articulate our values that are in our city charter, in resolutions, in the immigration committee that you all voted to approve at our last governing body meeting. This is an ongoing effort by all of us, and I think it's a critically important one that we continue to demonstrate our citywide, countywide commitment to everyone who lives and works here, having equal respect, equal dignity, and the support of our governing body and the county. I want to, I got a wonderful email from the general manager of the Inn of the Anasazi, who I think many of you know is just a remarkably generous individual in terms of his efforts to support programs like our paid internship efforts. But he was bursting with pride, and I would be remiss if I didn't report that the hotel, the Inn of the Anasazi, according to I believe it's US News, was the 34th best hotel in the United States of America, having the year before been the 192nd best hotel. They scooted up the rating ladder to be number 34. They moved from the third best hotel in all of New Mexico to the first best hotel in all of New Mexico, and by default, the first best hotel in Santa Fe. So to Lutz and his team at the Inn of the Anasazi, congratulations. That's really wonderful recognition, not just because of the hotel, but because of how much Lutz and his team really do give back to our community. Councilor Castro: Thank you so much. No, I just wanted to mention how it was very much in lockstep with how immigrants add to our community. So thank you so much. Mayor: Good point. That completes my small tip of the hat. It now is 7 o'clock on the dot. I'd entertain a motion to go to petitions from the floor at this time. Councilor: So moved. Councilor: Second. Mayor: There's a motion to go to petitions from the floor. Is there discussion? Then we'll go back to our regular order of business. We'll take some things off the table, but let's first go to petitions from the floor. Could you call the roll, please? Clerk: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romero Worth? Councilor Romero Worth: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Cassett? Councilor Cassett: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Castro? Councilor Chavez? Councilor Chavez: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia? Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia? Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Mayor Weber? Mayor: Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. So with that vote, we're going to adjust our agenda so that as we try our best to go to petitions from the floor at 7:00. There are no public hearings on the agenda tonight. So any topic you would like to address and bring to the attention of the governing body, if you're here in the room, please come on up to the podium. The clerk will keep a clock so that everyone adheres as much as possible to our two-minute respectful time limit, and we'll have people here and then on the Zoom room have an opportunity to bring matters forward for the governing body. Speaker: Good evening. Can you hear me? I think you can. Yes. Stephanie Beninato. I'm actually here because your Zoom link didn't work. I did email all of you, but nobody responded. All it is when you hover over it is an ID number, and that ID number doesn't work because I tried to go in through my own account, and that number didn't work. So there are probably a lot of people who probably have the same problem. I'm here today to talk about three things. One is public records requests. I have requested city records, city staff records, and reports, and I'm not being, people aren't reading them properly. So I asked for recreation staff reports about certain accusations about me, and I got no police reports. I didn't ask for police reports. I asked for city staff reports. The other one I asked about had to do with, I'm sorry, I'm blanking out now. Oh, had to do with maintenance of machinery at Petz, and I was given something about Fitness Superstore. I didn't ask about Fitness Superstore's maintenance of machines. I asked about the city's staff maintenance of machines because Fitness Superstore doesn't maintain them all, and your staff should absolutely know that. So not only did I not get it responded to, I got a fraudulent response. I'm also wanting to point out that your Public Works Department, they don't even know what the definition of street is. A street is from the outside of the sidewalk to the outside of the sidewalk, across rutter, curb, vehicular part, et cetera. Last week, the 80-year-old woman went out to a hearing, and a new employee was told by the head of Public Works that the street didn't really include the sidewalk, and that of course, if they had public damaged public property, the street, the vehicular part, you would actually, they would actually do something. The street, the sidewalk, it's all the same thing. It's the street. It's public. And if the city is damaging public property, they should pay for it. One thing I just wanted to bring up, and I'm asking your indulgence on this, is last week, or when you heard the appeal, the Historic Board appeal from I think it was Santa Fe Trail, I think it was in the 700 block of Santa Fe Trail, significant building to contributing buildings, you got run around. First of all, you had Lisa Martinez telling you stuff that as the former head of Land Use, she should know was not true. You have Paul Duran, who I really like and really tries hard, but he's not an expert. He's an archaeologist who's just learning about historic preservation. And the one that really gets me is the whole twisting into a pretzel about Resolution 19-20920. And I'm just going to read this to you because it's about English. Voting shall be considered in the following manner: A majority of the members shall constitute a quorum. Each member, excluding the chair, shall have one vote. The chair may only vote in case of a tie, when they have to legally. When a quorum is, this is the important part, when a quorum is present at any meeting, the vote, singular, the vote of the majority of the members present shall decide any question brought to that in front of the body. So if you have a quorum of four and you have three voting members, all three have to vote. Miss McCur has told me that's a reasonable interpretation. It's actually the correct. Mayor: I just want to finish, please. Speaker: Yeah, I know, but you're way over. Correct interpretation because vote is singular. The reason she says that is that Robert's Rules of Order don't want a majority vote. You're a governing, you're a self-governing city. You can make your own rules. The City Council has a super majority requiring five votes always. Thank you. So again, when you have two people out of seven voting, this is why people get upset. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the chamber tonight who wants to come forward for petitions from the floor on any subject? Is there anyone on the Zoom room who would like to speak to us? Clerk: There are two people in the Zoom room. If you would like to speak, please raise your hand. I'm not seeing anyone raise their hand. That is correct. The link was not working. We're trying to work on it. But can you ask them one more time if you're in the Zoom room and you wish to speak, please signify so we can call on you. No, neither person is raising their hand. Mayor: Okay. In that case, I would entertain a motion to go back to our regular order and take the item that was tabled off the table. Councilor: Make a recommendation if you'd like. Can we just go to introduction of legislation and hammer that out, and then we can go to executive session if you would prefer? Is that the sense of the body that it's better to go to the rest of the agenda after the idea of an executive session? Is that the sense of our group? I'm perfectly happy to do that if that is your preference. So what we'll do is we will move forward now to introduction of legislation. Madam Clerk, if you want to read item 10A, am I correct on that? Yes. Oops. So item 15A, consideration of Resolution Number 2025, sponsored by Councilor Jamie Cassett and Councilor Alma Castro, a resolution authorizing the sale and consumption of beer during the 2025 Santa Fe Century on May 17th and 18th, 2025, pursuant to Section 23-6.2C, SFCC 1987. Would either one of you like to speak to this? It's pretty self-explanatory. Thank you. Councilor Cassett: But I do want to encourage anyone who does want liquor permits, get to us early. It is a little bit of a heavy lift for staff. Thank you. Councilor: Pretty self-explanatory. Fun event. You should go. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. The Santa Fe Century. Item 15B. Clerk: 15B, consideration of Resolution Number 2025 TBD, sponsored by Councilor Amanda Chavez, a resolution authorizing representatives and agents for an agreement with the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration regarding appropriation number G317, New Mexico Department of Transportation Control Number C5223170, to acquire easements and rights of way for and to plan, design, construct, and improve Pacheco Street, including pedestrian and bicycle improvements between West San Mateo Road and Alta Vista Street. Any comments, sir? Councilor Chavez: Thank you, Mayor. I think it speaks for itself, but I do want to say that it is a very positive and exciting thing that we do have these items coming forward in regards to road improvements. I think it's what the community wants, and this is just one of many that have come through, and like I said, I think the item captures what the improvement will be. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you. Items then 15C, Madam Clerk. Clerk: 15C, consideration of Resolution Number 2025 TBD, sponsored by Councilor Amanda Chavez, a resolution authorizing representatives and agents for an agreement with the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration regarding appropriation ID number G3169, New Mexico Department of Transportation Control Number C5223169, to acquire easements and rights of way for and to plan, design, construct, and repair Governor Miles Road from Richards Avenue to Don Drive. Mayor: Mr. Chavez, any more on this one? Councilor Chavez: I think that this is something that's very exciting for our district, and I'm sure Councilor Cassett will add to it. And I think that Richards and Governor Miles is somewhere where we really want to see complete street concept come through for safety and to, you know, promote safety, especially for pedestrians. And I think our community members in that area are looking forward to some improvements on that road. Thank you. Mayor: And Madam Clerk, we go next to. Clerk: So item 12, Matters from the City Attorney, has been tabled. Councilor: Remove from, move to remove from the table. Councilor: Second. Mayor: There's a motion to bring that off the table. Is there a discussion? Could you please call the roll, Madam Clerk? Clerk: Councilor Romero Worth? Councilor Romero Worth: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Cassett? Councilor Cassett: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Castro? Councilor Castro: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Chavez? Councilor Chavez: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia? Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia? Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Lindell: Yes. Clerk: Mayor Weber? Mayor: Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. So we go to the City Attorney. City Attorney: Thank you, Mayor, Councilors. First, I want to thank Randy Randall for his service. service and interim city manager. Last time I thought I had missed my opportunity to do it while he was here, and I was pleasantly surprised I get to do it tonight. Thank you, Randy. I just want to let people know that the assistant city attorney position is in the Bar Bulletin this week, and it will be in one more Bar Bulletin in February. So please encourage anyone you know who might be looking. I've already heard from one federal employee who might be interested, and that might be the case for others, I would guess. Then I do want to recommend that we go into executive session to discuss pending and threatened litigation pursuant to Section 10-15-1, Subpart H7, in particular, a quarterly litigation update, including but not limited to a discussion of Hill et al. versus City of Santa Fe and Education Retirement Board versus City of Santa Fe. Very good. Councilor Mayworth, I'm looking to you for a motion. I move that we enter into executive session pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Section 10-15-1, Subpart H7, attorney-client privilege, discussion of pending and threatened litigation. Second. There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, can you call the roll? Councilor Cassutt? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romero-Wirth? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. We're going to go into executive session. We're going to have to come back here. Although we don't have any additional legislation to consider, we do need to round out the meeting, and we're going to need a link from the executive session to Councilor Chavez so she can join us remotely. We are currently in executive session. Thank you, everybody. I will entertain a motion from Councilor Mayworth. Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Section 10-15-1 J, I move that the governing body reconvene in open session and state for the record that the matters discussed in the closed session were limited to those specified in the motion for closure. Second. Is there discussion? Madam Clerk, can you call the roll? First off, could you bring me in as a panelist as well as Amanda Chavez, please? Councilor Castro? Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romero-Wirth? Yes. Councilor Cassutt? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Unless I'm mistaken, that completes tonight's agenda. That does. In that case, we are, thank you, everybody, adjourned. Thank you for being here.