Regular Governing Body Meeting - Second Wednesday Wed, Oct 8, 2025 · Governing Body https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/266 == Executive Summary == The Governing Body held a Regular Meeting where key discussions revolved around the formation of a new Conservation and Sustainability Division (CSD) within the Public Utilities Department, a proposed increase to the city's living wage, and significant infrastructure projects. The CSD aims to unify conservation efforts, improve collaboration, and enhance public engagement across water conservation, sustainability, and beautification initiatives. The Governing Body expressed strong support for this new division, which will be funded through existing budgets and grants, and will focus on areas like enforcement, community engagement, data-driven outcomes, and education. A major point of discussion was the proposed increase of the living wage to $17.50 per hour. Extensive community outreach and surveys revealed strong public support for the increase, citing improved financial stability and quality of life. However, concerns were raised by businesses about potential negative impacts such as increased costs, layoffs, and wage compression. Councilors emphasized that a living wage increase must be part of a broader strategy addressing housing affordability and childcare. The Governing Body also approved a significant bond allocation for road paving projects and an extension for the Guadalupe Street reconstruction project. Additionally, a bill to end the requirement of adding fluoride to the city's water system was approved, and a settlement agreement for a litigation case was authorized. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda by roll call vote. - Approved the consent agenda, with one item (B) removed, by roll call vote. - Approved the motion to approve the consolidation of Equipment Repairman and Utility Operator job descriptions with a vote of 7-1. - Approved the motion to change the agenda to prioritize "petitions from the floor" at 7:00 PM with a vote of 7-0. - Approved the paving program bond allocation with a unanimous vote. - Approved the second amendment for the Guadalupe Street reconstruction project extension with a unanimous vote. - Approved a motion to take an item off the table (due to missing packet materials) and bring it back to the governing body, which was then approved unanimously. - Approved a settlement agreement and release in the amount of $375,000 for Mark Lopez v. City of Santa Fe litigation unanimously (7-0). - Approved the bill ending the requirement to add fluoride to the water system by a unanimous vote (7-0). - Approved Resolution 2025-TBD, updating the water offset requirement fee, unanimously (7-0). - Approved appointments to the Arts Commission unanimously (7-0). - Approved appointments to the Planning Commission unanimously (7-0). - Approved appointments to the Economic Development Advisory Committee unanimously (7-0). == Motions & Votes == - Approval of Agenda — Passed by roll call vote. - Approval of Consent Agenda (with Item B removed) — Passed by roll call vote. - Motion to approve the consolidation of Equipment Repairman and Utility Operator job descriptions — Passed 7-1 (Councilor Michael Garcia voted no). - Motion to change the agenda to prioritize "petitions from the floor" at 7:00 PM — Passed 7-0 (Councilor Lindell and Castro were not recorded as voting). - Motion to table Item 10A (BAR for General Plan Update and Short-Term Rental Software) due to missing attachment — Passed unanimously by roll call vote. - Motion to approve the paving program bond allocation — Passed unanimously. - Motion to ratify the second amendment for the Guadalupe Street project extension — Passed unanimously. - Motion to take an item off the table (due to missing packet materials) and bring it back to the governing body — Passed unanimously. - Motion related to the item that was brought back (now with materials) — Passed unanimously. - Motion to enter Executive Session — Passed unanimously (8-0, with one councilor absent). - Motion to reconvene in Open Session — Passed unanimously (8-0, with one councilor absent). - Approval of Settlement Agreement and release in the amount of $375,000 for Mark Lopez v. City of Santa Fe litigation — Passed unanimously (7-0, with two councilors absent). - Motion to approve the bill ending the requirement to add fluoride to the water system — Passed unanimously (7-0). - Approval of Resolution 2025-TBD (Water Offset Requirement Fee Chart Update) — Passed unanimously (7-0). - Approval of Appointments to Arts Commission — Passed unanimously (7-0). - Approval of Appointments to Planning Commission — Passed unanimously (7-0). - Approval of Appointments to Economic Development Advisory Committee — Passed unanimously (7-0). == Public Comment == Public comments covered a range of topics including: a personal reflection from Councilor Faulkner on community support during a difficult time; remembrances from Councilor Cassett for Assata Shakur, those struggling, and victims in Gaza; praise for a city trash collector's exceptional service; detailed and critical accounts of substandard conditions, disorganization, and questionable practices at Agape and Cassia homeless shelters; concerns from a union representative (ASME Local 39.99) about the city's employee retention, lack of pay for certifications, and inadequate career ladders; concerns about severe maintenance neglect at St. Elizabeth's shelter; satisfaction with progress in short-term rental enforcement and a call for strict application of penalties; support for the proposed living wage increase, with one community member stating, "17.50 an hour won't make me rich, it'll let me live"; concerns from another community member about potential business layoffs due to the living wage increase; and support for the water offset requirement fee update, calling it "entirely appropriate" and "totally fair." == Topics == - Water Fluoridation Policy - Water Conservation & Sustainability - Water Rights Offset Fees - Community Support & Service - Plaza Pushcart Vendors - Economic Development Advisory Committee - Noise Ordinance Enforcement - Arts Commission Appointments - Planning Commission Appointments == Full Transcript == I think he's tying his necktie, but I think we can proceed. Madam Clerk, are we streaming? Is there an off chance we could be streaming yet? We are live on YouTube. I love it. Okay, I'm going to get this show on the road. Convene the regular meeting of the governing body for October 8. It is by my clock 5:04 p.m. And let's begin with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilor Romero Worth. Salute to the New Mexico flag. I'm asking Councilor Lee Garcia to lead that, and if it's possible from long distance, zooming in, Councilor Chavez, if you could lead us in... No, can't, can't hear. That's a problem. Well, we'll, Councilor Faulkner will lead in remembrances, and Councilor Chavez, we'll get your link fixed so you can hear us and we can hear you. Thank you, everybody. Hey, I have had an exceptional couple of weeks. And what it has taught me is that community is interesting and that we can disagree philosophically, and we can oppose one another on what we think is right or wrong for our community as individuals. But when I needed my community this past week and a half, my community was there for me. And it only put me in a position where I think we all have been in these spaces where we have felt alone, and we have felt scared, and we have felt hopeless. And as leaders, I think we need to remember that we set the tone for community and that I got a valuable lesson this last couple of weeks in what community really means. And so I just want to thank the community. My son is very sick, and the community stepped forward a thousand percent. I had more help than I ever thought I would have, and for that, I'm genuinely grateful. And all it has done is inspired me to work harder and harder for the community. And I think all of us as leaders have faced those moments, and I think that's why we choose to serve. And I just hope the community understands that we care, and even if we don't agree, we care. There's not a person up here on the dais who does not care. And so I just am grateful tonight for the help and consideration that I received from my community. And I hope we all take these moments to recognize that we're of service and that we should do so with kindness and nobility and be humble and be gracious that our community has chosen to allow us to be in a position to be leaders. Are there remembrances at this time? Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you so much. Muchas gracias, Councilor. In that sentiment, I just want to remember Assata Shakur, who we lost this week in exile in Cuba. No one who is doing the work that we are doing should feel that they are not safe in their home. And so I want to send all of the blessings to the people also in community in Chicago, in Seattle, in Portland, in LA. We're with you. Stand strong. I would just call to mind people in our community who are struggling, who do need help, who may ask for all kinds of assistance in their time of need, and that this is a caring community and a caring city, and that we should all carry in our hearts and do our best to help others. We just had a brief ceremony a few minutes ago thanking several volunteers for the work they do simply because they love our city. Also want to thank the community for reading the names of the victims of the ongoing struggle, war in Gaza. People have died on all sides, and that tragedy is also something we care about here in Santa Fe. So let's keep our thoughts thinking of others, helping others, reaching out to others, and extending community love and support to those who need our help. Let's take a minute of silence. Thanks, everybody. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll? Councilor Cassett? Here. Councilor Castro. Councilor Chavez? I'm here. And I'm sorry, I just got sound, so I missed a lot of that beginning of the meeting. So I apologize. No worries. I'm glad it's working for you now. Thank you for zooming in. Councilor Faulkner? Here. Councilor Lee Garcia? Here. Councilor Michael Garcia? Present. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero Worth? Here. Mayor Weber? Present. You have a quorum. Thank you. Are there changes to the agenda that we need to be made aware of? There are no changes to the agenda. I believe there is one change that involves something that, and I know the City Manager would have called it to our attention if he were here. I think something is included on the executive session that will not actually be spoken of during the executive session because the team is not ready to talk about disposition of parcels. Apparently, a little bit ahead of ourselves. So can we strike that from the executive session? Do we need a motion to change that or what do we do? Or just don't talk about it? Yeah, Councilors, I didn't know that about the staff for retraction. So, if you think you can make a motion, I guess. Can we get a motion to just remove that specific item, the disposition of parcels from the... I believe it's... I don't want... 12A. Yeah, I'm hesitant to do it without the City Manager here to make sure I don't misstate it. We got to approve the agenda before... Well, let's just approve it with it on. Yeah, we'll approve it, then we'll see what we can amend it later. Move to approve the agenda. Thank you. There's a motion and a second to approve the agenda. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll on that motion, please? Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero Worth? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. And now, Madam Clerk, from the consent agenda, I believe one item in particular I know was removed. Were there others? No, just B. Motion to approve as amended. Second. Second. Is there discussion? Would you call the roll on the approval of the consent agenda as amended? Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero Worth? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. With that, Madam Clerk, can you take us to the first presentation on the agenda? First, 8A, update on the Conservation and Sustainability Division. And here to speak is Water Conservation Manager Christine Chavez. Welcome. All right. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the governing body. My name is Christine Chavez, and I'm very excited to be here tonight to talk to you about the Conservation and Sustainability Division, which is a new division within the Public Utilities Department. I want to acknowledge that the entire team is here with me tonight, and I'm going to be introducing them as I move through the presentation. But before I begin, I just want to extend my appreciation and gratitude to Jesse Roach, Deborah Trillo, Jonathan Montoya, Nancy Himenez, Andy Hopkins, and City Manager Mark Scott for assisting me with this reorganization and helping get this division set up. As part of the FY26 budget, there was a goal set to create a single unified division that brings together the city's critically important conservation and sustainability policies, programs, and projects. So, as of this summer, the Water Conservation, Sustainability, and Keep Santa Fe Beautiful sections were reorganized into the Conservation and Sustainability Division, and we've been calling ourselves CSD. So the first step as part of this reorganization was first of all to bring the entire team together and to try to look at the areas of each of our sections where our programs overlapped. And so every box that you see on this slide indicates a program area where we have overlap with every other section in this division. So for the Water Conservation Section, we have a very comprehensive K through 12 education program. We do extensive outreach in the community, and we have a lot of marketing strategies and platforms. We also really pride ourselves in saying that we're really successful in water conservation because of the different partnerships that we have. We certainly don't try to be the experts ourselves. We try to partner with the experts in the community and across city and city divisions. So with the Sustainability Section, there's the recycling program, which also integrates a K through 12 component, an outreach component, and a marketing component. And this section also was the recipient of a seed grant, and I'm going to talk a little bit more about that as we move through the presentation. But this grant will focus on energy efficiency and low-income housing. And certainly there's an overlap with the Water Conservation Section there as we look for water efficiency projects for low-income housing as well. With the Keep Santa Fe Beautiful program, they have a very, very successful Adopt-a-Median program. And for me, I feel like there's a lot of water conservation components there because there's 50 medians throughout the city that are planted with the right plants that have very little or no irrigation. And so there's just a demonstration for the public and for tourists of the types of landscapes that we really promote here in Santa Fe. And then another very large component of this program are the litter cleanups and beautifications supported by grants. And there's certainly lots of overlap there between sustainability and water conservation. So it was a very great exercise to realize that there is so much overlap, and these sections have been working in silos to some extent. And so really coming together and looking at our opportunity on how we can work together on all of these things has been a really exciting opportunity. So based off that work, what we decided to do was work on these different program areas. So the first is enforcement and compliance. We have enforcement now in three different areas to enforce the water conservation ordinance, the bag fee associated with the recycling program, and there's also an enforcement component and compliance component with the Adopt-a-Median program. Then we have beautification and community engagement. So this includes litter prevention, cleanups, and citywide beautification projects, data and performance. We are focusing a lot in water conservation on data-driven program outcomes. We feel like this can translate into the other sections as well. I think we've really done a good job in water conservation on our transparency, putting our scorecards on the website where the public can track what we're working on and see our progress towards those goals. And I think the idea is with this division is every section would have a scorecard, and we would be able to communicate in a similar manner to the public and to the governing body. And the scorecard process really does give us that accountability that we're really trying to strive for. Then we have education and outreach. And there's so much overlap there, but this is going to include public training, events, and education to our residents and to our youth, marketing, and public communications. Now, we'll have a unified engagement campaign under one umbrella supporting cross-departmental sustainability messaging. And then social equity definitely plays a part in all of these three sections. So, we're working on how to move forward with the programming that we have in place and figuring out how we can really strengthen it under this new partnership. My first introduction is going to be Peter Olsen. This is Peter. Hopefully, you all know him, and if not, you're going to get to know him a lot better, I think, with his work in this new division. We are reclassifying his position to be the Communications Manager, and Peter has a lot of experience. We're really excited to have him, and he's really been instrumental in helping kind of set this division up. Peter has been with the city for three years. Most of that has been with the Environmental Services Division. He was at the county for 10 years before that, eight years with the state with the Department of Public Safety, and 12 years as a Bureau Chief for KOB TV and the Roundhouse. So, we're very, very excited about Peter being on board and elevating this division and the marketing that comes out of it. We still will be working closely with the Comms team and using all of our combined resources to get messages out to the public. This ad to the left of the slide is just an example of the type of marketing that we're going to put out now. This is the branding for the new division. Before, we would just sort of try to market apps specific to each section. So, with the Ion Water app, he's designed an ad that talks about the two apps that come with the division now: the Recycle Coach app and the Ion Water app. So, it's just a demonstration of the type of overlapping messaging that we'll be able to get out to the public now. All messaging will unify under Sustainable Santa Fe, leveraging Santa Fe Save Water Santa Fe assets and channels. Marketing messaging will cover water conservation, recycling, beautification, and sustainability efforts with one consistent voice and brand. K through 12 education will incorporate multiple messages. So, we're not just going to be going into schools talking to kids about water conservation. Now, we'll be incorporating recycling and litter prevention. I'm really excited about that. The public will no longer have to go to three different websites, follow three different social media campaigns. Everything is consolidated onto one website where you can figure out what plants to plant, what trees to plant, what water conservation resources you have, the sustainability program and its resources, the recycling program, and if you want to sign up for one of our cleanups, you can do that with the Keep Santa Fe Beautiful program, too. So, we're really excited about combining all of these things and no longer maintaining all of these different assets. How is this funded? CSD is currently going to be funded out of current budgets and grants. So, this will include funding from the Water and ES and Environmental Service Enterprise Funds. Water conservation is also supported by the water conservation fee, which is paid annually by residents. Sustainability will be supported by the SEED grant, which I'll talk a little bit more about. The recycling program is supported by the bag ordinance fee, which is paid by vendors. Keep Santa Fe Beautiful is supported by the Litter Control and Beautification Grant and fundraising efforts by the Keep Santa Fe Beautiful nonprofit. Other revenue streams are being discussed. One of which is to help in the recruitment of water and wastewater operators. There's been lots of discussion, I know, with the committees on our goal to hire more water and wastewater operators, and we have the platform, we have the messaging, we have the marketing, we have the education in schools already. So, we're going to leverage that, and we're going to really help out the department in this area. Instead of paying a consultant to do that, some of that money will come back into the new division. So, we're excited about that. But there are other revenue streams that we're considering, and as we continue to evolve and have conversations, we think that there are more opportunities to develop other additional streams. I'd like to go ahead and start off with some updates on the water conservation section and some of the work that we'll be focusing on there relative to the new division. With that, I would like to introduce the water conservation team. I'm going to start off with Patricio Pacheco. Patricio has been with the city for nine years. He came to us as a temp employee and served as our enforcement officer for a summer and did such an amazing job that it was heartbreaking to let him go, but he came right back and got a full-time position as the Water Conservation Education and Compliance Specialist. Then we lost him for a little bit. He went over into Water Resources and gained a lot of experience and knowledge, but then we stole him back. So, he's back in water conservation, but he really serves in two capacities, and he really kind of helps keep the information flowing between the two sections. If you know Patricio, he is a pleasure to work with, and I'm just so happy to acknowledge him and the rest of the staff tonight. Then we have Robert Wood. Just to back up, Patricio oversees all of our commercial work. So, he's working with our businesses, our hotels, restaurants, and he manages that program for us. So, we have Robert Wood. We were just laughing outside that he is the staff member that makes us all laugh and keeps the job light. He is our Water Conservation Specialist. He's been with the city for 17 and a half years. He worked in the Parks Division as an IPM Manager and City Forester. During COVID, he was transferred back into water conservation, and he did say that he was so happy about that. So, I think everybody knows Bob. He's a pleasure to work with, and he focuses on our outdoor sector, so he's working on all of our outdoor conservation programs. Then we have Ramon Kiss, who is our Water Conservation Specialist. He has been with the city for 24 years. He worked in the Parking Division for 20 years. I will say that when he came over to us during COVID, he had no experience in this field whatsoever, never had worked on any of these different programs. Now he's multi-certified in lots of different areas. He helps support lots of our programs, and he's going to be focusing on enforcement of our water conservation ordinance, our bag fee, and he's going to help out with the Adopted Median Program, too. So, really proud of Ramon and all of his growth, and I'm just super excited that he's on the team as well. The Water Conservation Office, I just want to say there's a lot of work happening in this section, and the governing body will see some of this work coming through before the end of the year. One significant thing that we have done is we have completely aligned with the Santa Fe 2100 Plan and the long-range water planning, which is really important. I think it's really aligned us with technical tools that we have access to, including the AMI metering, the Ion Water app. We have supply and demand dashboards. We have the Stewards model, which allows us to kind of model what a program could do, how much water it could save. And we have access to a lot of technical staff. So, we're really fortunate for this alignment, and things are really coming together in a way that benefits water conservation. We have data-driven targets now. We're looking at dollars spent per gallon saved on a lot of our programs. We have a brand new 10-year plan that we're completing before the end of the year. We've done a really, really great job building community-driven programs, and now we're building that together with the data-driven programming approach. So, we're really excited about all of the growth that the water conservation program has had, and really under the direction of the Water Division and Jesse Roach, now we have access to all of these things that the program did not have access to before. So, that brings us to the Keep Santa Fe Beautiful program, and I think everybody knows that Carol Branch did retire earlier this year. She did a really good job with this program, and she built a lot of really successful programs. In lieu of her leaving, we also had another employee in this section, his name was Merrick Ellum. We bonded with him so quickly, and then he told us he was leaving for the Fire Department. So, we're really happy for Merrick, really sad for us, but we have a superstar really holding down this program right now, and her name is Michelle Romero Babcock. So, I just want to acknowledge Michelle. She has done an incredible job holding down this section and all of the work entailed, and she has trained her teammates to support her and to learn about all of the different parts of Keep Santa Fe Beautiful. Michelle has been with the city for 30 years. She worked in Parks and Recreation, the Santa Fe Police Department. She worked for the county as a firefighter. She didn't include that on her list, but I think that's just so cool, so I have to acknowledge her for that. She is a Program Coordinator for Keep Santa Fe Beautiful now. We pulled off a Toss event on a skeleton crew on September 20th. It was a great opportunity for this team to bond and really learn about the work and all of the work involved. Here's a picture of all of us before the event started. We were really fortunate to have a lot of the councilors be involved, Councilor Castro, Councilor Garcia, the Mayor was there, Councilor Romero Worth. I'm sure all of you participated in different ways, but we had a total of over 2,000 volunteers, 1,800 students, and 160 community volunteers. We had 15 schools participate, and some of them are listed on this list, and a lot of different neighborhood and community groups, including the Mayor's Youth Advisory Board. We had students out there. It was great to have them engaged in that activity. It did give us a chance to meet these different community organizations and establish these new relationships. So, I think it was a really successful event, and I just want to give a really big shout-out to Michelle for all of her work on that. Which brings us to the Sustainability section. The Sustainability section has been vacant now for almost two years. Back in 2018, when this plan was adopted, there were significant city commitments towards the goals in this plan, and we're excited to revive them. We're very excited tonight to announce that we have made a hire. Her name is Erica Renoud. She is an extremely talented woman, and we're very excited for her to come on board. She starts next week, and we have a lot to hand off. I hope I didn't scare her away, but we went through this list when we met, and she's super excited about it. One of the biggest things is we have a $1.25 million Community Energy Efficiency Development Grant, and it was awarded about a year and a half ago, and we have about two years to spend the money. So, it's a very ambitious project, and we're working to cover all of our bases. Part of that means that an ordinance has to come through Governing Body to accept that grant funding, and so you will be seeing that on the agenda hopefully very soon. This grant is going to focus on residential energy efficiency for low-income and disadvantaged communities in Santa Fe, and we were very, very fortunate to receive this funding. Another piece of the sustainability program that we're just covering bases on right now is the electrical vehicle fleet and the charge point stations, the greenhouse gas reporting. And then I was really excited when Erica interviewed because she said one of her first priorities was going to be to look at an update to the 2018 sustainability plan. And I think that's really important at this point to acknowledge what progress have we made against that plan, where are we now relative to the resources that we have, and how can we kind of reframe our goals within that context. So, that's going to be a really great opportunity to engage with the public, to engage with other city departments, with all of you and government leadership to figure out how we're going to proceed with the sustainability program. But we are very excited about Erica's hire, and I'm excited she'll be coming on board next week. So the next steps for the division: we want to fill the vacant positions. We have the sustainability coordinator. We want to fill the executive director of Keep Santa Fe Beautiful as soon as we can. We have an environmental program coordinator position that we want to fill. We have appointments to the Keep Santa Fe Beautiful board that we want to get situated. We have a BAR that will be coming to Governing Body because part of setting up the new division is we have to BAR in all of the budget elements from where they currently are into the new division before we can officially operate. And so you will be seeing that coming through soon. And then a really exciting announcement is that we have found a place for this new team, and that's going to be the Carlos Ortega Center. And right now it's covered in pool tables and basketball hoops, but we're hoping that a remodel is going to start here soon. So this is a layout of how this space will be redesignated for this new team. But part of the next steps too, once we continue to build this team out, is to continue to meet with other city departments, city councilors, the public, continue to make this a division where we're constantly getting public feedback, public input, and we're being very transparent about what we're working on. So with that said, we're very, very excited. I'm really excited to be leading this team and think they're just such a group of talented individuals, and I feel like we've already hit the ground running. So I'll stand for questions. Mayor: Thanks for the presentation. Let's just take it as it comes. Councilor Cassid, you're up first. Councilor Cassid: Sure. Thank you so much, Mr. Chavez. I'm impressed with all the work. I'm excited for the new space. I think a lot of the questions that I had were answered. Mostly it's how can we help you fill these positions? I do have a couple questions that I might ask you offline about the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board that used to exist and if that's any support to you. But yeah, please reach out to us and great work. Mayor: Councilor Chavez, can you hear us? If so, it's your turn to have a comment, ask a question, or participate in the discussion on this new sustainability effort. Councilor Chavez: Thank you. No, I think this is very exciting. I appreciate the education and how that's going to be packaged. I think it's going to be really beneficial for our community. So, no questions. Just kudos to you guys. Good job. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Your floor. Councilor Garcia: No questions, Mr. Mayor. Good luck standing up the division. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Lindell. Councilor Lindell: Thank you for the very, very complete presentations. Got a good team. Christine: We do. Councilor Lindell: Really do. Impressive, and people we all like to work with. So good luck with it and try to stick together as a team. Mayor: Councilor Faulkner. Councilor Faulkner: I'm just going to say ditto. That sounds like you guys know what you're doing. You're doing a great job and keep doing it. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor Marwood. Councilor Marwood: Thank you, Mayor. Welcome everybody. Great to see you here tonight and thank you for all the work I know you've been doing over the summer to support the coming together of these different siloed programs. And Christine, really always appreciate your enthusiasm and energy and inclusiveness in bringing everybody together and towards common goals. So congratulations and a lot of work ahead, but this is very exciting. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor Cassid. Councilor Cassid: Thank you so much, Mayor, and thank you, Christine, and everybody who's here. You know, I echo the sentiments of being very excited. I actually do have a couple questions. Sorry to break the trend. One, regarding the revenue streams, and you were talking about all the different revenue streams that were supporting these disparate programs. I believe that they would normally go back to fund said program. Are all those revenue streams going to be able to be used throughout the division? Or, for example, Keep Santa Fe Beautiful has been a nonprofit that's really been funded by donation-based. Is that something that, as Keep Santa Fe Beautiful's dollars come in through the nonprofit, do they have to stay there, or is this something that you'll be able to combine the various revenue streams for utilization across the division? Christine: So, Councilor Cassid, thank you so much for that question. We have had considerable conversation around that topic, and in the end, as part of this initial reorganization, we thought that it was really important that the revenue streams stay with the programs that they originally supported. And so, with the bag fee, that will support specifically the recycling program and the marketing and outreach that comes with that. Same with the water conservation fee will be specific to water conservation programming. The nonprofit for Keep Santa Fe Beautiful will fundraise specifically for the Keep Santa Fe Beautiful program. But with that said, I think that there's a very unique opportunity to think about how we design our program so that we're considering the goals of each of the other sections. If Keep Santa Fe Beautiful, that nonprofit, is fundraising for an activity for Keep Santa Fe Beautiful, I think those goals will be aligned with the goals of the division, which will include water conservation and sustainability, but they won't be mixed. They will stay unique to their individual sections. Councilor Cassid: Thank you for that. I appreciate that. And I see that makes a lot of sense because I know how hard that is. And also though, I know each of these programs, we always want to fund them more. So, I am hoping that you all will be able to leverage, and it sounds like you're already thinking about that, how do the various funding sources coming in allow you to leverage different projects in the division because all of these programs have individuals that work incredibly hard and there is so much that can be done. So excited that that would occur. Second question, this might be more of a comment. There are these other kind of programs that I get very excited about that I don't really know where they live. One of them is Tree Smart Santa Fe. Is that coming under your purview? Christine: So, we still need to, we're still working with different departments. I am working very closely with Melissa McDonald right now. We're talking about how we work on the tree thing because, just for instance, within this new division, the water conservation section is working on tree rebates. We work with the Municipal Tree Board on tree recommendations. We have a lot of tree resources. Sustainability, there is an urban canopy goal in that plan that we are trying to work towards. Keep Santa Fe Beautiful, we partnered with them a couple years ago to do a tree pilot in a lot of different neighborhoods, and we were tracking the progress of that. So there is a very large tree component already in the division without even reprogramming it. I think that there is an opportunity for us to integrate all of that into the Tree Smart Santa Fe program and have it be a more comprehensive program because again, all of these different pieces of tree work are happening in different sections. And so I think that's something we're going to continue to develop and work together on, you know, within, between city departments. Councilor Cassid: Well, that's wonderful, and I think it does really illustrate very beautifully why this collaboration and this connection between all these various programs is beneficial. The last one I would just say is more of a comment. The last Livability Series presentation talk was on stormwater management and green infrastructure, and Director Roach was there, and he could tell you a lot more than I could in technical terms. I think during that conversation we had brought up the fact that we were going to have this new division and how exciting was that because it felt like a place that something like this could really be explored and, you know, partnering with Parks and Stormwater and all of that work. So that is one of my votes for things to look at. But I'm really very excited. Can't wait to hear the updates on the various projects and how things go. So thank you all so much for being here. Thank you for your work, and very excited to see it grow. Thank you. Mayor: Thanks, Councilor. Councilor Garcia. Councilor Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for the presentation, and a lot of it is communicating with the community, that community outreach. Your team looks like you've set yourself up really well. Thank you all for being a part of it and looking forward to see how we service the community. So, thank you so much. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. I just add my own appreciation. Great team. Good to see everybody tonight. Thanks for coming down to get some recognition and some introduction and some support. Congratulations on pulling this together. I think the case you make for better results for our whole city because of more collaboration and internal leveraging is clear, and I think it's very timely with what's going on both with climate change and other issues that we are really stepping up to create a structure that supports the city's ambitions for sustainability and conservation. So, thank you. Great presentation and look forward to the updates that come. Good work. Thank you all. Christine: Thank you. Mayor: Madam Clerk, you want to take us to the next item, please? Clerk: Item 8B, results of the civic engagement on the living wage proposal. And here to speak is Community Development Director Alisa Montoya. Alisa Montoya: I have connected my laptop to the HDMI cord. It, oh, there we go. Almost there. I think you've got it, by George. She's got it. Mayor: Very well. You have the floor. Alisa Montoya: Mayor, City Council, a real exciting thing we're learning from these surveys. We now have looked at the City of Santa Fe survey that has had over 600 responses, and also the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce shared with us their survey results. And both surveys combined show that Santa Feans really care about making Santa Fe more livable, and raising the living wage would be one tool, one way that we could all work together to build a Santa Fe where everyone has the opportunity to thrive. But we know that to truly create a livable community, we need to look at affordable housing. We need to look at access to childcare. We need to look at transportation. We need to look at different ways we can support small businesses, small business owners, and workers who are facing challenges with inflation. So all things you all know well, just saying it out loud. So just a quick overview on the agenda, and my apologies in advance to Finance Committee members who have seen some of this information already. We are going to provide just an update on key activities around the living wage proposal. I'm going to give you just an overview of some key meetings we've had, a summary of community conversations, an update on the City of Santa Fe survey, and also the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce survey. Both surveys close in two days, so this is also an opportunity to draw attention to folks who have not yet completed the survey. I have flyers in the back of the room. If you haven't completed the survey, go ahead and you can screenshot it with your phone, and I have cards for counselors as well. But let's dive in because we have a lot to cover. So, an update around the living wage proposal. We have a recent committee endorsement. On Tuesday, September 30th, the Economic Development Advisory Committee voted 6 to 2 to endorse the living wage proposal. We also received an endorsement from the Honorable Robert Reich, the former US Labor Secretary, and the Santa Fe County Democratic Party. One thing we wanted to point out to you is in the ASME agreement, as a result of the ASME agreement, we now only have six city employees who are earning less than $17.50, at $17.46. So, almost there, almost there. We've had a lot of meetings. So, this is a sample of different organizations and groups in town. We've met with groups, we've met with leaders or leaders of these groups. So, we have the Chamber, we have Chainbreaker Collective, ASME, the hospitality industry, small business owners, Christa St. Vincent, Food Depot, Somos Pueblo Unido, and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, just to highlight a few for you. We also have had community conversations. At the Southside Library, we met with over 60 local community members. We had a Zoom meeting for individuals who could not participate in person. Also at our Go Local, Go Different launch, which is a program launched by our Office of Economic Development to encourage local residents to shop local. We also, as you know, had a public hearing, and we had about 20 participants speaking at that. Out of the community comments and conversations we've had, a few themes have come to the surface that I want to flag for you. One, it's wages versus rising costs. Participants in all sessions emphasize that $15 an hour is not enough to cover housing, utilities, food, and fuel. And then I have some quotes here for you as well. We also learned broad support for the increase. Many residents welcome the proposed increase to $17.50 an hour as a realistic step toward relieving financial strain, especially for families. "$17.50 an hour won't make me rich, it'll let me live." And thirdly, concerns about small business adjustments have been raised. Some participants are worried the increase could lead to reduced work hours, higher cost of products, and increased layoffs during tourism's low season. So, here's a quote: "I'm concerned that businesses say they can't afford it and they will lay people off." So, let's dive into the City of Santa Fe Living Wage Survey results. We've had over 600 people respond. It's really exciting. I want to just give you an overview of how and where we distributed this. We've had it bilingual, and it's in English and Spanish. Our Office of Economic Development sent it to over 10,000 residents in Santa Fe through e-blasts twice. The Office of Economic Development also sent it in their newsletter. The City of Santa Fe's Constituent Outreach Office also distributed it, and we have had community partners step up and offer to share the survey with their membership. So, this is interesting. 77% of respondents currently live in Santa Fe. And the non-residents said they previously did live in Santa Fe but moved away due to higher rising housing costs and limited availability. And a strong majority of former residents said they would move back if housing was more affordable and accessible. Who are these respondents? 45% of the respondents are employees, workers. About 21% are retired. We have about 11% of these respondents are business owners and managers. And if you look on the right, "What zip code do you reside in?" It's a real wide range. We feel real good about a wide range of people living in different parts of town who responded to the survey. We also wanted to get an idea of their household size. So, nearly half of the respondents are in two-person households, and 25% are in one-person households. So, you see it's in terms of family responses, individuals who live with probably children or older relatives, or more than one roommate. Those are the numbers of how many responded. We also wanted to look at approximate annual household income. So, over 30% of the respondents make over $100,000 a year. And then if you go down, we have about 72 respondents, making up 13% of the total responses, between $25,000 and under $50,000. And about 6% of the respondents earn under $25,000 a year. And a handful of folks, nearly 20%, preferred not to say. So, we just don't know. We asked how much of their monthly household budget goes to housing, and 44% between 25% and 50% of their monthly household budget goes to cover housing. We felt that was a significant statistic for us to learn. And about how much of your monthly household budget goes to childcare? So, as you see, most of the respondents either this was not applicable to them or they did not have children. But if we dig into individuals that do, the largest percentage here at 6%, these folks are paying more than $1,000 a month on, of their household budget goes to childcare, which is significant. So, these are key takeaways we pulled from the survey. One, there's strong community support. Nearly three-quarters of respondents support raising the living wage to $17.50 an hour. There are real affordability pressures that people in Santa Fe face. Housing remains a top financial strain. And work and resident connections. 77% of all the respondents, as I mentioned earlier, live in Santa Fe. Many who don't said they would move back. And we learned that there's balanced business perspectives. Business owners and managers were evenly split. Roughly a third foresee challenges, a third expect positive impacts, and a third anticipate little change. This highlights the need for collaboration and support for small businesses during implementation, should you vote to approve raising the living wage. We also learned that there are a lot of really shared community values. Respondents emphasize dignity, fairness, and sustainability, linking living wages to Santa Fe's identity as a community that supports its people. So, we asked folks, "How well does the current living wage meet the cost of living in Santa Fe?" And over 80% of the respondents from the universe of people I just described to you feel that it is not enough. We asked if they support or oppose raising the living wage in Santa Fe to $17.50 an hour. And over 63%, or 63%, strongly support, and then we have 7% somewhat support, and 18% strongly oppose. So, we also asked people what they would see as the main benefits of raising the living wage. And here's what they described to us: improved financial stability, the ability to meet basic needs, better quality of life, reduced stress, support for families and children, increased local spending, a potential economic boost, improved employee retention and morale, and then fairness and equity. We also asked individuals what they would see as the main challenges or risks associated with raising the living wage. And, higher business costs, potential layoffs or reduced hours. That's over 300 people responded with comments on that theme. There's a concern around inflation and higher prices, potential resistance from employers, potential challenges with enforcement and compliance. And we had about 26 folks respond to say, "There's no downside. Higher wages are both overdue and necessary." Let's shift over to look at the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce business survey. So, this is real interesting. I really enjoyed reviewing this. I'm sure I think you all have received this. I hope you've had the opportunity, but we'll review it right now. So, let's dive in. "What's the size of your business?" Nearly 40% of respondents in this survey are really truly small businesses between one and five employees. And then nearly 20% of the respondents are in businesses where there are over 51 employees. So, that's a really nice, I think they have a really nice range of respondent responses. So, overall, after reviewing their survey, they gathered feedback from 67 local businesses across a range of sectors, including hospitality, retail, education, professional services, and nonprofits. The results reveal a real nuanced picture that while most businesses pay above the current minimum wage and offer benefits, many express concerns about rising costs, housing pressures, and long-term workforce sustainability. So, here's also a sample of the different businesses. They had 67 respondents, about 40 businesses self-identified. So, this is a swath, or so you see a range. We have the United Church of Santa Fe. I'm not going to go through the whole list. You can read it. Del Norte Credit Union, Nothing Bundt Cakes, Esperanza Shelter, Red or Green Properties, Iconic Coffee Roasters, Looking Glass Yarn, The Kitchen Table, all the small businesses that most of us are, and businesses that most of us are familiar with. So, let's dive into their questions. "Do you hire interns or entry-level employees and provide training for them?" Wow. Nearly 70% of respondents said, "Yes, we do." "Would you support a temporary training wage below the minimum wage for new hires during their onboarding period if allowed by law?" Over 40% of them said yes, and a little under 40% of them said no. And then this unsure statistic, I think, is also significant. It shows there's opportunity for education on that topic. "Are you currently using the tip wage credit for any employees of the world of respondents into this survey?" It's a pretty small percentage, under 10% answered yes. And there you go. "What is the current pay range for your employees?" So, select the range that best describes your current hourly schedule. Get this. Wow. Over 50% of these respondents are already paying their employees over $21 an hour. And so, if we add the $21 an hour, the $19 to $20.99 an hour, we're looking at over 65, easily over 65% of the respondents are already paying their employees more than $17.50 an hour. "So, how many of your employees currently make under $20 an hour?" Over 50% said none. So, we also, they also asked about employee benefits and what benefits their businesses currently offer. So, over 40, over 50% of the respondents offer health insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance, paid vacation or sick leave. This is great. But what I tune into is the little under 20% at the bottom that are not offering any of these employee benefits, and I see opportunity for our Office of Economic Development to work with some of these small businesses that would like to expand their services and connect them with consultants and other resources to help them get there. I didn't mention at the beginning of this talk, my bad, our Economic Office of Economic Development Director Johanna Nelson is on Zoom, and so she's here participating if you want to ask her any questions on these topics. She's pretty excited to talk about it. "What are your biggest concerns impacting your employees?" So, we see here overwhelmingly cost of living and affordable housing in this Chamber survey has come to light. Would an increase in minimum wage cause your company to consider job cuts? Over 50% said no. Nearly 40% said yes, and a handful are unsure. Would an increase in minimum wage lead to higher cost for price of goods? Nearly 50% said yes, and a little over 10% are unsure. So, there was a lot of data, a lot of quotes. A handful of businesses spoke up and gave their opinions. So, we took a shot at just summarizing them, and we got these three buckets. So, cost of living and housing pressure. Here's a quote from the New Mexico Wildlife Center: "I fully support a living wage as a minimum wage. The cost of living in Santa Fe has cost our organization employees and potential hires. Without a doubt, the single greatest factor is affordable housing. Every time we lose an employee, it costs time, energy, and dollars we could be putting toward the work of meeting our mission." A living wage is a win-win. From Southwestern College, here's a quote: "A living wage means that my employees don't have to worry about their basic needs: housing, medical care, childcare. That makes them better employees and better citizens. Plus, they can afford to spend money in other Santa Fe businesses. It's a win-win situation." We also elevated to the top in the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce survey this idea of small business strain and wage compression. The Kitchen Table of Santa Fe: "We're a small team of six, and we're already stretched to cover labor and rent." Sports Clips of Santa Fe: "I already pay well above the minimum wage. Every increase raises expectations. Then I have to raise prices again. The real problem is living expenses and lack of affordable childcare." So, in conclusion, the data, the city data, and then the chamber data, we believe, really underscores that a majority of respondents support raising the living wage, and over 65% of business owner respondents already pay more than $17.50 an hour. Santa Fe's workforce challenges are not just wage-based. Businesses are willing to pay competitively and invest in training, but we also must continue to work on housing affordability, childcare, and workforce retention policies and programming. We do feel the sentiment is clear. Here's another quote from the chamber: "We want to do right by our people, but Santa Fe needs to make it possible to live and work here." Thank you very much. I am available to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor: Thank you for the presentation, and thank you to the chamber for making their data available. I know it's not finalized yet. Their survey is still open until the 10th, as is ours. So people can still weigh in. I know that Bridget Dixon has been doing outreach, and they've got a big event coming up, I believe, tomorrow morning, where they're going to be doing their best to get folks who come to that event to fill out the survey as well and maybe swell their numbers up over a hundred. So, but it's preliminary, and we will not treat it as definitive, but as a moment in time where the snapshot gives us the results so far. I know some people have had a chance to participate in viewing this data already. Let's just, we'll just, Councilor, I know you spoke out at the Finance Committee, but if you want to add any points now, please do. And we'll just try to keep the 10-minute rule and move forward. Mayor: In lieu of time, I did ask a lot of questions during finance. I am happy to see some of the results from the chamber, and we'll look forward to more to come. And basically just a comment, and so you'll look for at this moment. Thank you. Mayor: Thanks, Councilor. Councilor Cassid. Councilor Cassid: Thank you so much, Mayor. Also, I had the opportunity to see this at finance. And then, of course, we'll have a lot of opportunity to discuss the merits of this proposal when it comes through committee. Just a couple things. Thank you again for really underscoring that conversation that we had at finance around the fact that this cannot be seen as a single policy, and that there is simply no policy that will address all of the issues that were outlined. And what I said at finance is I really was encouraged by a lot of the conversation around what else is needed in Santa Fe because nothing was surprising. Everything is something that we have in some way, shape, or form already been working on. That there are advances at the state. I think childcare is one of the most interesting, considering we are closing in on the date when childcare is going to be free across the state. And I'm really interested to see how that's going to impact families, and very excited for that, quite frankly. But also a real workforce development conversation because we do not have the slots. So that's going to be something we're really going to have to look at. I really appreciated getting the preliminary chamber results in there. One thing that I would be interested in as we continue this conversation is, you know, there's a lot of data around what has happened in Santa Fe, what's happened in other communities. When people bring up some of their concerns, I would be really interested to see what data we can learn from the past and from other communities. So, the one quote that I found really interesting that you highlighted here was this conversation around, "I'm already paying well over this. However, I have this concern that this is going to raise an expectation and is still going to provide that challenge." And I would just be really interested to see how living wage increases impact businesses that are already paying over and employees who are already receiving over that minimum wage. So, as we continue to have that conversation, please bring that forward if it's possible. I said a lot in finance, so I'm good for today and look forward to really discussing this in depth, I believe, starting next week when we start to bring it through committees further. So, thank you. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor Merworth. Councilor Merworth: Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I would encourage folks to watch the Finance Committee meeting. I think we did have a very good conversation. And Senior Advisor Rod Gold was there. I think he made some important points, and I would just couple themes. I asked him, or I think I asked you, and he answered, perhaps. So, this whole idea, whenever we have this conversation about raising a living wage or a minimum wage, we get kind of, there are familiar arguments on both sides. And no question, we're seeing in the survey data how important this is to workers. And then, on the flip side, businesses having a spectrum of concerns. And I think we see this stuff, we see these arguments, and I'm just, the last time we raised this, or when we enacted it, did the concerns materialize? And I think Senior Advisor Gould talked about the fact that that law, as part of the implementation, said that there needed to be a study done within a certain period of time to see what kind of an impact it was having and how was it impacting or wasn't it impacting businesses. And I think it's really important now that we have this larger audience to just point to that survey and what it told us about the last time we went through this. And if you are prepared to just touch on that, I think it would be helpful. Mayor: Yeah, Mayor, Councilor Romero Worth, absolutely. So, in this proposal, there is a study required after it is implemented. And when the city implemented the first living wage, when they set that up to begin the process that has led us now to $15 an hour, they also required a study. But in fact, there have been two studies on Santa Fe. So there was one, I think, within a couple years after implementing the first living wage proposal, and then again in 2024, there was another study that looked specifically at Santa Fe. And what we found is there were a lot of business benefits. There was reduced turnover. There was cost savings around training because employees stayed longer. There was productivity and morale gains. Customer service increased because the quality of the workers were more stabilized because they remained in jobs. There was reduced absenteeism, and more people spent locally. We also learned that any employment impacts, which there were some, were small to negligible, and the earning gains were reliable and disproportionately benefited women, younger employees, and ethnically diverse workers. Councilor Merworth: Okay. Thank you. I just think it's important to underscore that. And those two surveys, or studies, I guess they weren't surveys, have been provided to the governing body. Are they available to the public? Are they on our website somewhere? Mayor: You know, if they are not, I would turn to Johanna Nelson to confirm. We'll confirm, and if they're not, we're going to make sure we post them on our website this week. Councilor Merworth: Yeah, I think that would be good to make sure that we're getting that information out to folks who want to dive in and be policy wonks. Just the other thing that I think came up with finance that I thought was interesting was that I think, and I think this may have come from the Economic Development Advisory Committee meeting, an acknowledgment that in the year before this policy is implemented, if it does get approval, it's going to be really important to work with employees and with employers. So, there are concerns about what this does for employees and other benefits. And there are concerns from, I think, employers that might benefit from individual counseling or small business navigation. There we go. There's even a word. So, I think that's really important that, you know, it may not be so much a policy to protect, like a across-the-board policy to protect some of these concerns that are being raised, but that we really are going to have to double down and working with individuals on both sides of this equation, employees and employers, around how this impacts them and how they can get help and how they can position themselves for success, I guess, is the thing. And that, I think, is a really important theme, and maybe you can touch on that. Mayor: Yeah, absolutely. Mayor, Councilor Romero Worth, that's a really excellent point. We, one thing that really excites us in the shop is we've already launched a small business navigator program with a focus on connecting small businesses with resources to help them grow their any competencies, or if they want support or they're facing challenges. We have a real robust program. I would love for our director, Johanna Nelson, of the Office of Economic Development, to tell you a little bit more, tell the group a little bit more about what those programs are because we're so excited about the potential to strengthen them and grow them and expand the good work that we're already doing to reach more businesses. Mayor, is she available tonight? I heard maybe she was on, but I don't know if she's... Mayor: Is she in the Zoom room waiting to be promoted, perhaps? Mayor: She has been promoted to panelist. I don't know if she had the benefit of hearing what we just teed her up for. Mayor, Councilor Romero Worth, Johanna, you have been promoted and can talk. Will you tell us about the good work of the Navigator program and our hopes that we're going to be able to grow it even more? Johanna Nelson: Great. Thank you, Director. Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, Councilors. Thanks for the prompt. I would love to highlight and enhance the great description that Director Montoya provided about our small business navigator program. As a reminder, we partnered with New Mexico State University's Arrowhead program to help us deploy a small business navigator program. What this means is that we have a coordinator that is housed in the Santa Fe Business Incubator, and Caroline Lee is that person. She's available to meet with businesses one-on-one to explore, discover those incompetencies that Director Montoya mentioned, whether that's marketing, business planning, workforce assistance, you name it. She identifies those needs and connects them to our resource partners. That's our one-on-one assistance. In addition to that, we also have our small business navigator website, and our resource partners that provide these business services are listed on the website. So, if you're a business owner, you've been working all day, you can also go to that website and you can search independently on an off-hour whenever is convenient for you, and you can find those connections and get a warm handoff and get the assistance that you need. I've mentioned it before, but it bears repeating: due to federal cuts, some of our business service providers are no longer providing services in Santa Fe. This means that now more than ever, it's important to really fill in the gaps. It is really good timing that we have started this program because we're able to fill in where those needs are. I would express that due to the conversations around the living wage increase, if we're looking at increasing the support with this program, we need the financial support to continue the program as well as increasing staff so we can meet those needs of our business owners. So, thanks for the opportunity to chat about that program. Mayor: Thank you. And that's all I have, Mayor. I just wanted to emphasize a couple themes, and I'm sure my time is up, so thank you. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor Faulkner. Your time is just beginning. Councilor Faulkner: I'm struggling with this one. I think I've made it clear that I'm struggling with it. I think there are things that we have not considered. I've talked to the Chamber of Commerce, and whereas when you run an analysis of how people answered yes and no questions, you get one kind of result, but if you read the comments from the businesses that replied to the survey, it's clear they're not in favor of it. So, one of the problems I have is that we're running surveys and we're collecting data. But the concerning part is I personally feel like the survey that was run by the city was leading. You can design surveys, because I've done it as a lobbyist. You can design these kind of data capture points in a way that kind of lead people to only one conclusion. So, I have a little concern about that because I did feel like the survey that the city ran was a little bit leading. I also have concerns that in talking to the Chamber, the results in the comments related to the answers were different than if you just took the yes/no questions. So, I have a lot of concerns. I'm concerned about how this is going to increase unemployment tax and payroll tax. These can run like 6% or more for a company. So, anytime you raise someone's salary, the business isn't just paying $2 more an hour. The business is going to be paying more than that in these taxes that they have to pay. So, I'm not against a living wage. I just feel like this may not be the best formula. And so hopefully, as we go through the process, we can work on some amendments and we can do some things to protect small businesses. If 40% of the small businesses are concerned about this, that's almost half of the small businesses in Santa Fe, and we know that most of the people in Santa Fe work for small businesses. So, right now we're being told by the business community that almost half of the business community feels like they cannot take the weight of the living wage. And so, whereas I'm again not opposed to a living wage, I'm not 100% sure that this is the right formula. It's not considering things like if someone's on government subsidies, what happens if they go 1 cent over? They lose their government subsidies, which includes healthcare and SSI and SSDI and a whole bunch of things that help people manage their lives when they're at-risk population. So, I'd like to have more conversations about that. I'd like to have more conversations about again, unemployment tax, payroll tax, a litany of things that aren't contemplated in this legislation. And so, I'm not against it, but I just I'm looking forward to having a robust discussion as we move through the process of committee and kind of leaning into the conversation. Hopefully, as a governing body, we will find something that will work. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Lindell, we'll come to you next. Councilor Lindell: Mayor, thanks for the presentation. I've heard basically this presentation at Finance. I don't really have any questions about it. I just have one comment that I'm not really surprised by this data. I think it's pretty clear. I think the questions that Councilor Alner just brought up, I think we have or we will have answers and comments to those, and I don't see those as roadblocks at all, maybe until they're answered. Speed bumps, but I think we've got a lot of data on this and a lot of information, and really and truly, none of it really surprises me. So, thank you. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Garcia. Councilor Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for the presentation. I look forward to diving deeper into this, both sets of data. I'm assuming once both surveys are concluded, we'll get kind of a refreshed set of data. Am I hopeful in that understanding? Mayor: Councilor Garcia, yes, definitely. And I think Johanna may have sent to you all already the updated raw data that we want to make sure is available to all of you so you can kind of look at the raw data and pull what you want from it. But you're absolutely right, at the end of this week when it closes, we'll be updating all of this information. Councilor Garcia: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You mentioned in your part of the presentation at the beginning that it, excuse me, that it went to EDAC, that it was postponed in a committee. How did it go to another committee after it was postponed in one? Does that violate our process of procedures? Mayor: Councilor Garcia, it's my understanding that it does not violate our process and procedures. Very counselors, EDAC would have gone first under our rules. They were waiving a rule to allow it not to go first. So now it's following your rule. Councilor Garcia: But once it gets postponed, it stops the process. It can't move anywhere else out of that committee. Mayor: Councilor Garcia, it doesn't proceed to the other standing committees. Councilor Garcia: Okay. So, I mean, that's to me maybe a loophole because once it's held in a committee, it should be stopped in that committee because it then can go to another committee for work and whatnot. And I think that's not the intention of, I mean, especially in the intention of why I supported it being held up in Public Works and Utilities, is that there wasn't information. And now what happens when there's more information that EDAC might not have, and it might change their opinion? I think that's the whole reason and justification. So, lastly, it's more so a comment. As mentioned, there's going to be amendments coming forward with this, and I've already submitted an amendment, which is to make any changes effective for City of Santa Fe employees, effective 90 days after passage. My hope is that that amendment will be ready to be heard at Public Works and Utilities at our next meeting. So, I just want to encourage us that folks can't get upset if it gets held in a committee if amendments aren't prepared in time. It's plain and simple. That's the process. And we can't have folks getting upset if we postpone it to hear amendments because that's the right of the committee. So, I just want to encourage that any amendments that have been submitted, they're presented or given to at least the sponsor in sufficient time so they can be presented at the council level, I mean, at the committee level. And I don't, but I, and I just maybe to expand on that, a committee that they sit on, because for example, I sit on Public Works and Utilities and Quality of Life. I don't want an amendment to be prepared only to be introduced at Finance, which I do not sit on, nor do I have an opportunity to vote on. So, I just want to encourage us as we're going through this process to allow for counselors to have their amendments prepared in sufficient time. Thank you for the presentation. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor Chavez. I see you, and I apologize. I see you struggling with your health. So, stick with us as well. Councilor Chavez: A little bit of a cough, so I'm sorry ahead of time. So, I thank you for the data. I appreciate the data. I do want to ask if we could get, could we get a map of locations of businesses that were surveyed? Like if we could get where those businesses, like who responded to the survey and where they're located. I just think that would be insightful. Go ahead. Mayor: Councilor Chavez, we can ask the Chamber for that. Well, actually, we could do it as well because we have the names of the businesses that participated. But we'll collaborate with them on that. They may have that completed. And the city survey was anonymous, or wait. Councilor Chavez: No, and I was talking, yeah, I was talking about the Chamber's survey because we have business names on that. I would, it would be nice to just see a map. My other, so I support what this is, a raise in a minimum wage. This isn't a living wage because we all know it's impossible to live on this wage in Santa Fe. But it's a start. I think it's progress. I also think we're not necessarily set up foundationally to support this without monitoring it very closely for negative impact. For example, I have a huge concern that families didn't respond to the survey. I'm a family of four. I'm a single mom of a family of four, which means my big concern is cost of living, right? Like I, you know, I do not fall in that wage category that's low, but I still struggle supporting a family of four because of cost of living right now. And I imagine many other families are in that same, in that same situation. We all are, whether you have a family or not. But when you have a family, it's really difficult, especially when you're a single-income household. And so there's the other side that I think the community just needs to be made aware of. And you know, it was very clear that in the business survey, they said that there may be an increase in cost, and we already have an increase in cost. And so there is this impact, and I know Councilor Faulkner mentioned it, you know, the formula and whether we're looking at all components and sharing those components very transparently with the community and all the diverse living situations that our community exists in. I don't know if we're there yet. What is, what, what I appreciate, I will say, is I appreciate that there is going to be this monitoring, this ongoing monitoring, like it was done before. I think we need to look even more closely than what we did before. We heard a lot of good data, right? Like it was presented in a very positive way for the living wage. But I think that there are real concerns, and like I said, my big one is those families. Being in education, that's who I'm surrounded with. Surrounded with parents who are trying to survive, feeding multiple children and family members. And that voice is really important right now because I think this living wage isn't going to impact them, but the cost of what it may do when they're going and buying necessities is definitely going to impact them. And I just want us to look very closely at that. That's a huge concern for me. But I do appreciate the data and I appreciate the plan to look closely at the process. I think that we have a lot of work to do, and we all know that, in addressing the real issues that is beyond the living wage. So, those are just some comments, some things, some concerns that I have. Some big picture items that I don't think have been emphasized enough. So, I just wanted to shine light on that. But thank you for your work. Thank you for sharing the data with us. I really appreciate that. Mayor Weber: Thank you, Mayor Weber. Councilor Chavis, if I may, just really quick, I agree with you that we had hoped to receive more responses from families. But we also recently launched a survey around childcare in partnership with our Community Services Department. So, as those results begin to come in, or once that survey is closed, we'll have data specifically speaking to families and childcare that we can point to. And I also want to point out that when the internal decision was made to propose a raise to $17.50, looking at different economic studies that we'll be able to get more in-depth in as we continue to discuss this, we really found that in having the least impact, like the least negative impacts, $17.50 was a sweet spot. And we look forward to sharing data on that down the road. Thank you. I just have one more question. Sorry. Did we partner with the schools at all in trying to get surveys? Because that's where our families are. So, our families really don't have time to see surveys online, or it's just they don't have time to go to meetings or forums. I've always said this since the beginning of my term, is that Santa Fe Public Schools, our charter schools, are huge partners in communicating with the people that we need to serve, which is our families. They will partner, they will send communication out, they will blast it, they will send things home with students. That would have probably been a really important piece to capture that community. And maybe as we monitor the impacts, that is something that we could look to do. Mayor Weber: Councilor Chavis, thank you so much for that comment. That's really spot on. We did not share the survey with the schools, but we are partnering with the schools now on the childcare survey. So, we got it right the second time around, and we get better every time. Thank you. Thanks, Councilor. I hope you feel better. It's clear you're struggling there. So, like I said, stick with us as long as you can. Councilor Castro, you have the floor. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Director, for the presentation. I'm going to time myself just in case. All right. This is a super important piece of legislation, and this is a really important project that has been in the works for quite a while. I am, it's not a secret, very disappointed, but $17.50, I think that is absolutely not enough. And I think that the research and the responses that we've gotten, which are self-selecting, and yes, we could do a better job, agreed, suggests that a majority of businesses, in particular in the industries that we're concerned about, are paying far above $17.50 and I don't think would be in danger of closing or reducing businesses. I do resent the idea that there are certain industries or businesses that are using government funds to supplement the income of their employees. I think that it is completely unacceptable for somebody to be working full-time and still qualify for any type of impoverished income-qualified services. I think that it's important that we think of being a business owner. And I know that it's not always honored in this room, but I have been part of a small business for my entire life, third generation coming on, and it is a responsibility, not a right. When you employ people, you have a responsibility to take care of those folks and to provide for them and make sure they have good working conditions. It is not a right that you're able to give people poverty wages and allow for them to continue to be in a condition that is unsustainable. So, I have plenty of amendments that I would love to see, but in particular, I'm going to be looking at the amount. We have seen that it is definitely feasible to go at least to $20. And when we look at the living wage calculator from MIT, which is where we're basing a lot of the research that we have in the community, zero children, one person working, we're looking at $24.42 for a living wage, which is correct, as Councilor Chavis suggested. This is not anywhere near a living wage. So, I will leave my comments there. Thank you so much, and I hope to see an increase. Thank you, Councilor. I want to thank you for putting this together. It's very comprehensive. I think the questions we're hearing are incredibly helpful in terms of the work that will now be done committee by committee. I know that Professor Riley White has played a role in analyzing much of the data and providing advice. I just want to double-check, is he going to be available for some of the meetings so that the questions that have been raised about, will this have impact, will this spiral into an inflationary cycle, issues that he as a professor of economics at UNM and department head, I hope will be able to be present to directly address? Mayor Weber: Yes. As this proposal moves through committee, and you know, if should committee vote to advance, committees vote to advance it back to governing body, Professor Riley White will be available. Great. Thank you. That's my only question. I appreciate you. Thanks for continuing to plug away on not just substance, because that's important, but I think the process is equally important to make sure that a large response rate is sought and it's diverse and we look for data to guide us. And this is very informative. So, thank you very much, Madam Clerk. What's the next item on our agenda? Item 9B, request for approval of a budget amendment resolution, BAR, from the Wastewater from the Water and Wastewater Enterprise Funds to salary and benefits in the total amount of $1,500,000, sorry, $5,495 to reclassify 87 positions in the Public Utilities Department. And here to speak is Interim Public Utilities Department Director Jesse Roach. I'll entertain a motion and then we'll get to Director Roach. And then we'll have, oh, we have a motion, we have a second already. And then Director Roach, I assume not everyone who's watching and listening is familiar with this proposal. Why don't you give us the overview and then Councilor Garcia was the member of our governing body who pulled it, so he'll have the floor to ask questions. Mayor Weber, members of the governing body, I'd be happy to do that. Thank you. The Public Utilities Department operates two utilities, well, three utilities, but water and wastewater are similar utilities. In those utilities, there are three water treatment plants. And there are also a collection system for the wastewater utility and a distribution system for the water utility. All the operators that are employed in those different skill sets have state requirements associated with their certifications, and that determines the level of operator they are. This proposal would combine many different job descriptions into a single water utility operator job description and with five rungs. So, we sort of call it a ladder with five rungs on it. That is entry, going from entry with essentially no requirements, no experience requirement, no certification requirement, up to lead, which is four years of experience required and a level four operator certification. That will do a couple of things for us. One is, through time, the target salaries that we pay at the different utilities have diverged. And so, we're going to make them, the sort of the target salaries will be the same across the utility, which will allow for people to move from one division to another division and also will address what has become a discrepancy, especially from between wastewater and water and also from both utilities to other neighboring utilities. So, this is, we feel, will make us more competitive regionally and allow us really to pursue the only thing that I've seen work consistently in the five years I've been here, which is build our own operators. And so, we want to pay our operators more. We want to give them a 20% bump to incentivize moving to the next level, getting the next certification. And we want to load those operator ladders up so that we can provide the opportunity to move around to where operators are needed within the utility. Thank you. That's a great summary. Councilor Garcia, you were the member who pulled this. Why don't you take the floor and ask questions? Sure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Mr. Roach, for the update. Now, when we begin to, I guess, reclassify positions into a more of a condensed job description, I got, it immediately raises concerns for me because not every job is the same, and not every job is the same, and people should be paid in regards to the duties that they're completing. And so, I started to look at the different positions here, and it looks like a vast majority of folks are being changed or moved to what's going to be potentially classified as a utility operator lead. And when you start looking at some of these positions, they're very different in the nature of the work that's being done. And some paid higher, some might be at the rate they need to be at. And what I mean by that is you look at, for example, you got a position right now that's classified as a laborer, and they're making $17.51 an hour, but they're being bumped up now to $41.47. Same class, same proposed classification of utility lead. Pipefitter lead, this is the current title, pipefitter lead. They're being paid $31.66 an hour, moving up to $41.47. But then if you look a little deeper, there's a pipefitter entry, which is $20.58, and they're also being moved up to $41.47. That creates compaction in the workforce. How can we justify the range of current salaries and everybody then moving to one salary when there is definitely a disparity in the work product, the work output? Thank you for the question, Councilor Garcia. I want to point out that the vacancies are being reclassed from whatever their level they're at now to a lead. And what that provides for us is budgetary flexibility when we hire. That allows us to post a position. So, we will post a vacancy for a utility operator. And if we get somebody with a high school diploma and nothing else, then they would be able to become an entry. There's a target of what we pay the different levels for this job in the memo. And so, I'll just sort of briefly mention it for folks listening who aren't accessing the memo, that an entry, a utility operator entry, would get $20 an hour this fiscal year. A utility operator basic, the next level up, which requires a year of experience and a level one certification, would get 20% more, or $24. Similarly, intermediate, which is the next step, another certification and another year of experience, $28.80. The next one, $34.56 for advanced, and finally $41.47 for lead. If we budget the vacancies at the level of the lead, which is 80% of this recommended BAR, it then allows us to post the position, and if we get a lead, we can hire them as a lead immediately without going through the paperwork of getting more budget to that position. If we get them as an entry, we hire them as an entry, and we have leftover budget associated with that position, which then would revert in the next budget cycle because they would be budgeted where they are. So, I'm hoping that that's a beginning to an answer to your question, which is in that table, we're showing all vacancies going to lead, but we're not showing you can only go up to whatever level you can get to based on your certification. Okay. So then what happens in the instance where you don't get any lead operators and folks apply for a different position? They're not a level four. Do they get paid the lower rate? Yes, so then in that situation, if you get three applicants, you can take the best applicant, be that an entry-level or an intermediate with a level two certification. Whoever you as the hiring manager decides is the best applicant for your team, you take that applicant and you pay them at the target level that's commensurate with their experience and certification. Okay, thank you, Director Roach. And then, given that this is again a great number of positions that are proposed to be reclassified, 87 positions, what are the conversations with our union? Is union representation here? I can't see behind the screen. They are. Can I have union come up, please? How are you doing, everybody? Elsewhere, this is Lewis DLA, speaking for ASME Local 3999 out of Santa Fe. Questions, counselor? What is the union stance on this reclassification? What's been proposed to the governing body tonight would not have ASME support. As it stands, the thing that we will give Jesse Roach credit on is he hit the nail on the head that the issue is that we could train our staff in-house. That is the only way that we can get people into level four operating or into lead, which would be a level five. Those are the only ones where employees who come through the door, high school diploma, they can see a path to development, knowing that they can go to a job that has a decent standard of pay and living in hours that they can work on. Our primary objection to these utility operators is that it's turning what is a staffing crisis for these departments into a plug-and-play operation where folks who work at the Upper Canyon Road site, if there's a shortage at BDD, they will be moved there. Those are different sites. There are different expectations for both of them. We see problems with that. And then, of course, the opposite, where someone at BDD, if there's a shortage at Canyon Road, they would send them up there, to say nothing about the wastewater issues. The problem we're having at the wastewater plant really doesn't have much to do with how management's run; it's that it's an old facility, and the city has to put in big money to reinvest into it. Okay. Mr. Roach, what do you say to that? Because this is very problematic if the workforce is saying this is not a measure in regards to how to actually address the issue at hand. With all due respect, I disagree with that assessment. There will be specific, we have many job descriptions in the city which say assignment-specific duties associated with a specific assignment. And so if you have a water level three, you can't go operate as a wastewater level three. So there's going to be a difference between what sort of certification you have. Now, I will say it is absolutely our intent to train our operators to the highest possible level and then give them the opportunity. We don't see success when we tell somebody to do something that they don't want to do. What we see success with is carrots. Here's an opportunity for you to move over here to a different position and a different plant and make more money. That's the way that I would like to set it up, and that's the intent of this proposal. No other questions. Mayor: Mr. Mayor, I have a couple hands up. Councilor Cass and then Councilor Castro. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. Kind of on that same topic, one of the conversations we had at finance was this concept around redundancy and around, as you said, obviously if somebody's only certified in water, they can't do wastewater, but in the ability to make sure that these really important functions continue to function. And so part of this would allow, if there is that flexibility or if there is that dire need, that we have staff in-house that would be able to help fulfill that need as opposed to going out for contract. Was I understanding that conversation? You weren't, I don't believe you were there. This was a Jonathan. Was I understanding that correctly? And is that's what I came away with? Mayor Weber, Councilor Cassid. Yes, and I listened on Zoom, or I listened in on that. So yeah, I think it's correct. We do want redundancy, and on the water side of things, if we can build level fours, then we do have redundancy across the water side of things. But there's also a benefit to water operators knowing what's happening at wastewater, wastewater operators knowing what's happening at water. And so one of the other pieces here is to provide opportunities for cross-pollination from the bottom up, entry-level opportunities to work at the different plants and work towards both certifications, water and wastewater. We are going to follow this proposal with a proposal to have retention-based incentives based on the level attained. But what, and then I think the next piece that we start to try and figure in this puzzle is some sort of an incentive for somebody having a dual certification because we've created this operation superintendent, which is sort of the management level that goes right above this ladder, and we have a floater superintendent that we created, and the idea of the floater was to have them move around to all three treatment plants. So we recognize a huge benefit to having workers from entry-level all the way to supervisors moving around where possible and where it makes sense. So I will agree that we do want to have that redundancy. I will disagree that we're going to, that we want to do it by making somebody do it. We want to create the opportunity. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Because I think that that was an important piece of the conversation and really tying in, you know, we've had a lot of conversations around contract work in the utilities department, and this, you know, you hinted that this was going to be part of that conversation, that this was coming, and this was, you know, looking at how we decrease our dependency on contracts, looking at current staff, because, you know, this conversation around growing our own has been really important. How is this going to impact our current employees in utilities right now? What opportunities, you know, that will may open up, if any? I mean, is it going to open up new opportunities for them, or not? Were those opportunities already there, and this is just making it, they have to jump through less hoops, and we have to deal with less red tape in order to allow them to access those? This will create immediate pay increases for many of these operators. And so that that is one piece of it, and this bar that we're asking for, that's roughly a million dollars. Almost $200,000 of it is for existing employees for the remainder of this year. So that's going straight into paychecks. The other $800,000 I mentioned was basically for hiring flexibility. But then the other thing it gives is a target, a 20% move to the next level. And so it was, it's great that Christine was here earlier talking about, you know, our attempts at communication or our outreach, because that's another piece of this. If we can create a career here where we can go tell a high school student who maybe doesn't want to go to college, hey, come work for us. You'll start at $20 an hour, and within five years, you could be over $40 an hour. That, that's to me compelling. That's how we grow our own. This is the piece of it that makes it very clear we have vacancies everywhere. There's no, there's, it's never going to be, there's not an opportunity here. And I think bringing this all together in one place makes that easier to see for potential employees and also our existing employees is work hard, get another year of experience, test for your next certification, and you get a 20% bump. Thank you. That is a piece of this I didn't actually even think about in terms of those entry-level positions. Assuming that we, if we do pass this, I'm hoping some conversations with the schools and how to really start to filter individuals who would be interested and would excel in this area and, you know, make sure that we capture them quickly. So the high schools as well as, you know, speaking with the community college, would highly recommend developing those partnerships. So thank you, Mayor. No further questions. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Castro. Perfect transition. We actually are starting, Director Roach and I, to talk about working with Santa Fe Public Schools and the community college. So we'd love to bring you in, Councilor. It's in the early stages. We're working with procurement. Thank you so much. A lot of the questions I had have been asked, and the one that I didn't hear was about facilities. So I'm really excited about us being able to do dual certification. I know that we have some folks that are certified in a lot of spaces that are very valuable, and we want to get more. I heard a little bit about facilities being different and having different skill sets needed. Is that something that will be a concern? Mayor Weber, Councilor Castro, I think there's always some differences, but I think where we've ended up is with these really divergent job descriptions that also don't recognize that there are a lot of similarities. And that's not something I really recognize, being come from a background in water, is how similar a lot of the processes are at wastewater. I mean, really at water and wastewater, we use gravity to settle things out, and then we use a filter to get out the really small stuff. It's similar processes at wastewater. So yes, there are differences between facilities, and BDD uses different filtration technologies than Canyon Road. And the wastewater treatment plant uses different filtration technologies than either of them. But the ability to move through all three facilities and see all those things during a career, I think leaves an operator in a position of saying, hey, like, I think there might be a different way to do this. Now, when it comes to our operators, and we call them operators also, who are in the field either repairing main breaks in high-pressure water lines or, you know, clearing blockages in low-pressure sewer lines, there are some differences there for sure, and there's going to have to be specific, you know, incorporation of that in their job duties, but there are also similarities, and it's, it's helpful for us to have eyeballs who have seen what the wastewater collection system is like, who also understand what the water distribution system is like. I definitely see the benefit, and so I imagine that will be an update in the training and procedural side of this whole reorganization. Well, and so also the state certifications that are required are specific to water and specific to wastewater. And so, yes, the trainings are different, and eventually if you're only going to do water, you're not going to end up doing sewer collection or wastewater. But we're trying to break down those silos a little bit so that we can get some folks. Not everyone's going to want to do everything, but there'll be a few. And those people are going to have ideas that are really going to benefit the utility. And the idea is that we're offering that opportunity to folks who would like to be cross-trained. No further questions. Thank you so much. Thank you. I can't see if Councilor Chavez's hand is up. If it is, Councilor, and you want to weigh in now, let me recognize you. If it's not up, no problem. I'm okay, Mayor. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for just checking in. I want to, I hope not unexpectedly, put our City Manager on the spot a bit. City Manager Scott, you've undoubtedly had this conversation before in other jurisdictions and in other practices. I wonder if you could provide a little, not specific to Jesse per se in this proposal, but how you have seen things like this work out. Does it turn into a positive? Does it help grow your own team? Does it provide advancement career ladder? What if there are downsides? What might they be? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The, yeah, I've had to deal with this issue in numerous cities, especially in the last half of my career. It's become harder and harder to find people qualified to do these particular functions. It's hard to get qualified at these different levels. It's a lot of work. These are valuable people in our organizations that attain this level of expertise. I've listened and admired the conversation of this governing body over the last few months as you all have talked about wanting to grow our own. I've wanted to grow my own in several cities and had limited success in many cases. I think this proposal is the best proposal I've ever seen in this regard. And everybody in the team knows I haven't had anything to do with it. So, I give the credit to Public Utilities and all of you for having put this on the agenda as an issue that needed to be resolved. I think this career ladder approach will allow us to actually keep people. My problem in my career is that my cities have trained people that then became employees of other places. And some of these skills are transferable in the private sector. They don't have to stay with the cities or the counties. And so, as I looked at this proposal as it came across my desk, I was very impressed with it. I think it's affordable. I think it's sustainable. And I think it meets the objectives that you've all been looking for. Thank you for stepping up and answering. I appreciate it. Other questions? We have a motion. Oh, yes, sir. Mr. Director Roach. I just want to give credit where it's due. Jonathan Montoya was here at Finance Committee. He, in many ways, he is where this idea started. He is the, he runs the Canyon Road facility and he said, "I have a job description called Equipment Repairman and I have a job description called Utility Operator or Water Utility Operator and they really do very much the same thing. I think we should try and combine them." And, oh, by the way, when I used to work in Los Alamos County, again, like the ideas you get from other utilities, other places, everyone was an operator. And so, we took it from there and we ran with it. And it's probably not going to be perfect, but I'm really excited to see where we can go with it. Thank you. If there are no other questions, we have a motion on the floor and a second. Madame Clerk, can you call the roll? Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. No. And I'd like to explain my vote. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Maestas. Yes. Councilor Cassutt. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved. Councilor Garcia, you wish to explain your vote. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wholeheartedly do support looking at programming that does grow our own, especially in this instance where, having to hire contractors at an exceedingly higher rate than what we would hire employees, it's direly needed. But I also want us to ensure that we're listening to our workforce. Those are the experts that ultimately do the daily work that we need to ensure we're following their proposals, their suggestions, and ultimately working in collaboration to figure out a process that works for everybody. Thank you, Councilor. It's 7:00. I would entertain a motion to change our agenda and go now to petitions from the floor and after that resume regular order. So moved. Second. Motion to now go to petitions from the floor as it is 7:00 PM and then after that we'll go back to regular order with our agenda or discussion. Madam Clerk, would you call the roll please? Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Maestas. Yes. Councilor Cassutt. Yes. Councilor Castro. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved. Very good. Thank you. We will now go to petitions from the floor. If anyone, we'll start with folks here in the chamber who would like to come forward to the podium. The Clerk will keep time. Everyone will have a two-minute opportunity to speak. Hopefully everyone will observe and respect that rule so no one goes over. And then we'll go to people who are here remotely on the Zoom room. But let's start with folks who are here. Please just give us your name and let us know what you want to speak about. Hello, my name is Elizabeth Weston. Apropos of almost nothing else that has been discussed or will be discussed, I want to make a comment, a positive one. On the other hand, what I'm about to say does relate to pretty much everything. And that is on Tuesday, that's the day at my house where recycling and trash go off to their next journey. And of course those are two separate items and we are provided with this wonderful city with two separate containers. And I've lived where I live now in the South Capitol since the middle 80s of this current century. But I was very puzzled this Tuesday. I went out and I was actually in my nightgown, but I had other things on top of it, like a raincoat, and so I looked presentable in Santa Fe style. Back in where I grew up, I would have been moved away. But I by mistake, I lifted the blue container, recycling, where I carefully wash things and fold them up and, you know, I do all that good stuff. I find details entertaining. And it was disgusting smelling. Meanwhile, the fellow in the magic truck that took the trash was moving away. So, I ran after him. He saw me in the rearview mirror and he paused. And I want to get his name because I want to tell him personally. I thought it was great. He has longish hair, very friendly. He said, "Yes, ma'am. What can I do for you?" Because it looked weird. I don't blame him. I said, "Well, you know, that blue container is full of horrible stuff." Point is, he backed up. Traffic was weird. Somebody was moving in. There was a short-term rental thing that was going on. It was a lot of activity at that early hour. He was a class act. It felt great. I really wish I had a candy bar I could give him. I will another time. He backed up. He took, he said, "You're absolutely right. It's a great thing. I'll put it in the trash container." And off he went. Bravo. Thank you. Thank you. We always like to hear when our team does a great job. So, thanks for sharing. Yes, ma'am. You have the floor. Hope. You may need to pull the mic down closer to your mouth, though. Can you hear me now? Yes. Thank you. Okay. My name is Hope. I want to come here to address the issue of homelessness in the city of Santa Fe. I'm a homeless woman who believes that the services being provided to us do not benefit the homeless, the city, or the people. Shelters in town do not necessarily need more money. They need to use the money given to them more effectively. I've stayed in two homeless shelters here, the Agape shelter and the Cassia. When I was at the Agape, I experienced many issues that would impede a homeless person's ability to obtain employment or housing. For example, the mailroom was wildly disorganized and stacks of unsorted mail sat in piles around a small room presenting both a fire hazard and a logistics problem. If you want homeless people to get a job, you're going to need IDs, social security cards, and these things come through the mail. If you're going to a job interview, you need a shower. There were only two working showers in the Agape shelter. Unfortunately, the light sensors in the shower did not function properly. There was often garbage on the floor. So, one found oneself showering in the dark standing on garbage. The only way to get the lights to work, to come back on, was to jump up and down or wave your arms in the air frantically while you showered. If someone were injured, they would have to be taken to the hospital and the bill would be paid for by the taxpayers. You can't get a job if you're burned alive or if you don't have a roof or if the roof over your head burns down. There was a large hole in the ceiling of the facility. And when it rained, water got on the floor. Once the water came close to dripping on a plugged-in TV set that had been placed right under the hole. This could have started a fire. Their credit, they moved the televisions. Urban Alchemy received $1.5 million from the city of Santa Fe to run this facility. It should not be raining inside. I currently stay at Cassoplia, a dry shelter for women and children. I was given a drug test that came up positive for morphine. I found this rather amusing as I had not had a recent hospital and morphine has not been a street drug since the Harrison Act was passed in 1914. Two weeks later, I was given a second drug test to determine if I had gotten over my horrible morphine problem, and my drug test came out clean. The drug tests that are bought with your money don't work. In the short time I've been there, I've seen two women evicted for failing drug tests, and they're now on the street. Although residents are often written up and threatened with eviction for small rule violations, paid staff members are allowed to do as they please. Thank you, ma'am. Just last night, I was awakened by a scream. A young pregnant resident cried out for a desk. No one from the staff came into the room to see what was wrong. Ma'am, I think your time's up, but thank you. And if you have that written out and you want to send it as an email or print it out somehow, we'd be happy to have that. Thank you. Hello again, everybody. Lewis Dillo with Ask Me Local 39.99. I just wanted to speak on the $1 million proposal we just put through the bar resolution. Obviously, that doesn't immediately impose things on the city, but again, where ASME sits right now is we don't support the resolution where we do want to give some credit to both Jesse Roach and DRI, who was his predecessor. They do have a good idea here to try and address some of the issues, but where ASME sees the most effective things the city could do, first thing they can do is when it comes to a city employee's work history is to keep track of it. I have people in both Upper Canyon Road, the wastewater treatment plant, and the BDD who tell me one of their biggest issues is when they're applying for jobs at the city. The city doesn't know who they are. It's not a matter of respect, but I would expect the city institution to keep track of the employees who've worked for them and how long they've worked for them and ideally in what capacity they've worked for them. If for no other reason than we can show you're an in-house staff, we can move you up. Everyone benefits from that. Another thing they brought up is the educational one. This would be cheaper than changing everybody's job description. What it would be for employees who go from their level one certification to their level two, to their level three, to their level four. Regardless of what their job classification is, as soon as they get those certifications approved, the city gives them some kind of acknowledgment and pay increase to say, "You have a skill. We will put this skill to work. Here is what we will offer you to do that." That will be much cheaper and it's something my membership is specifically asking for out of these departments. A third thing to bring up is the career ladder that we've touched on multiple times. I have people who are walking in through the door for the first time. Again, those high school people who don't have college degrees, who want to stay at the city, they want to be here. They don't want to jump ship, but they're feeling that when they go through this career ladder, they're not getting anywhere. They get their level two certification, they'll be assigned the extra work tasks, they're not going to get anything for it. No thanks, no praise, just more work for them. It's a problem and it's demotivating and it's an incentive for that employee, should they follow through on this and become a charge operator that has wastewater level four certification, drinking water level four certifications, that's going to tell them, "Go look in the private sector because they'll double your pay." One of our main issues with this is that it's having one employee take up to three different employees' jobs and for what amounts to less than a doubling of their salary. It's something I hope to work through with Jesse Roach over the coming weeks and then bring it to you all. Mayor: Thank you. Could you please pull the mic a little closer to yourself? There you go. Thank you. Max: Can you hear me now? My name is Max Montoya. Good evening, Mayor and counselors. I thank you all for the opportunity to express my concerns. I was seeking services from St. Elizabeth Shelter for ongoing issues that I had, and they did approve me for their services. Once I got there, I'm disabled. I have trauma, traumatic brain injury, many physical injuries. When I got there, it was raining. There were leaks. Preventable maintenance that should have been done. I've been exposed to mold. So I asked, I said, "There's leaks around the doors. I'm a carpenter by trade. I have many years experience. I will do this for free for you." What I was told was, "That's too much paperwork," and "Thank you for offering your services." Well, on July 31st of this year, we had that real horrible rain where I was sleeping out there in the dormitory. We had over three-quarters of an inch of water in the sleeping dormitory from lack of maintenance, just replacing the weather stripping. To my investigation, this has been going on two years at St. Elizabeth's. Now the mold issue, it's behind the walls. I mean, you can smell it. It's terrible. I ended up having a mini-stroke and went to the hospital due to my traumas, anxieties, and my health issues. And I did leave St. Elizabeth because of their lack of preventable maintenance. What I'm concerned about right here is the other disabled people that get services from St. Elizabeth, the elderly and the sickly, and they just get sicker because they have not addressed these prevent maintenance problems. So I'm concerned for them. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Max: Thank you all. Thank you for coming down tonight. Maryanne Stickler: Mayor, counselors, my name is Maryanne Stickler, and I'm here to speak about short-term rentals. I had a chance meeting with Lamboy the other night. It was so fortunate for me because I hadn't gotten any updates on what was going on with enforcement, and she told me that there had been an October 1st meeting of the Quality of Life Committee. So I dialed that up and watched and got up to speed on how that conversation's going. I'm really happy to know that there's a contract, that there is actually already some progress. It sounded from the meeting that the provider has already scraped a couple of the platforms and come up with over 200 illegally operating short-term rentals. So that's great progress, and I was just, it was just such a chance meeting with Heather. I was so happy that I'd run into her and found out that information. The concern I have is how those illegal operators are going to be addressed. The good news is that our current ordinance actually provides for consequences in terms of fines and penalties, and even the suggestion that illegally operating short-term rentals would have to be perhaps on a list and wait a year until they would qualify to apply for a legal permit. So I'm really hoping that these provisions for enforcement will be followed. I've spoken over the last 15 months to Mark Bertram, Mike Lofton, people that were on the Planning Commission in 2020 when this was passed, and other counselors who actually were part of that negotiation. And my understanding is it was the intent of these enforcement provisions that the fines would be significant enough to not only dissuade people from breaking the law, but would help to offset the cost of enforcement. So I again, I'm thrilled to know that this is moving forward, and that I would really hope that the specific provisions in the existing ordinance would be used as guidance for consequences for people who are illegally breaking or who are consciously breaking the law. One more statement. I just want you to imagine if you've lived in a house in a neighborhood with one or more illegally operating short-term rentals in your proximity, and you find out finally the city is enforcing the ordinance. There's going to be consequences. They're going to shut down these illegal short-term rentals and then wake up in the morning and find out they just got a permit. I mean, it would be just so disheartening to think we've come this far with enforcement only to just turn around and lead them through the permit process and have them keep operating. So please, please use the guidance that's provided in our existing ordinance. Mayor: Thank you. Maryanne Stickler: And thank you for your work on this. I really appreciate it, and I'm sure everyone in Santa Fe appreciates it too. Mayor: Thank you. Anyone else here in this chamber who wants to come forward and address some matter that's on your mind? If not, Madame Clerk, is there anybody in the Zoom room who is awaiting their turn? Clerk: There is no one in the Zoom room. Mayor: Very good. In that case, let's resume the agenda and go back to the next item. Item 10A, requests for approval of a budget amendment resolution, BAR, to appropriate unused funding from FY25 in the total amount of $1,225,850 from the general fund to land use contracts for the general plan update and short-term rental software. And here to speak is Planning and Land Use Department Director Heather Lamboy. Councilor: Move to approve. Councilor: Second. Mayor: There's a motion and a second. Director Lamboy, I think an overview would be very helpful, please. Heather Lamboy: Yes, thank you. Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. There were a lot of things we got approval for Planning and Land Use Department last year and our one-time funding. And while we were able to begin some of them, we weren't able to encumber all of the funds from last year, last fiscal year. And just to give a little bit of an update, the development manual, which is one of those items, we had an RFP. We have selected a consultant. We're doing the contract right now, getting the paperwork done, and that will launch, provided we have this funding, in the next month or so. So there's also some carryover funding relative to the general plan update and land development code update we got from that one-time funding. The Avenue software that Ms. Stickler just recently discussed is underway, but there's some funding there that we need to account for with the contract and just a few others. But the intent is to make sure that we meet those priorities that we have set for ourselves in improving our processes as well as getting through these very, you know, foundational code and general plan updates. Mayor: Thank you. Are there questions? Councilor Michael Garcia, go ahead, sir. Councilor Michael Garcia: Maybe I'm missing something, but there's not an attachment for this item. So there was an attachment when it went through our Finance Committee. Did something get dropped from the packet accidentally? What's the, what do, I'm not, mine isn't open, Council, right now in front of me. Clerk: There's no attachments for this agenda item. Just one moment. Mayor: Well, if it is the pleasure of the council, I'm sorry that the attachment is not there, but I'd certainly be happy to postpone this to the next council agenda to make sure all the information that you need is available to you. I mean, I'm, I'm, I just wanted to, I guess, and this is not pinpointed at you, Director Lamboy, but it was just even a recent meeting ago where one of my colleagues said, "Well, there's no information there. We've got to postpone this." And I'm not of that mindset. If we can get the information tonight, I'm okay with moving forward with this. So if it's possible that you can send it to the City Clerk so it gets posted for the public to see it, and that way we can quickly review it. I'm happy to table this while we go through the next items and then before we come back, before we go to matters from the City Manager, hopefully that gives folks maybe enough time to review it and approve or deny. That's my proposal. I don't think we need to move it to the... Heather Lamboy: I would certainly support that proposal and happy to hustle. Mayor: Okay, Councilor Cassett. Councilor Cassett: Technical question. I know that we sometimes have challenges editing Civic Clerk until afterwards. Are we able to do that now? Because I wouldn't want us to do that and expect that to occur but not be able to due to the software because I know it locks out at some point. But I'm not sure if it's an override that you can override. Clerk: Sorry, Councilor Cassett. I think I'm able to download the document and send it to the governing body. I don't know if I'm able to publish, put it on the agenda to publish it. The truth is that the packets don't necessarily need to always have their full information. It is an item or a caption on the agenda, but I'm happy to send that to you. I do find it is not in the packet. So I can try to fix the packet, but I don't know if I can. And then it is still available to the public from the Finance Committee agenda and packet. And that would still be accessible now for anybody who is listening and would like to look at this at this moment in time. Councilor Cassett: Mayor, Councilor Cassett. Yes, that's where I'm pulling it from right now. And then tomorrow, you are able to add things in after the fact, correct? Clerk: Yes, that is correct. Councilor Cassett: Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Just wanted to make sure the technicalities were there. Mayor: Happy to entertain them. Move to table until we can get the packet material. Councilor: Second. Mayor: Okay, there's a motion to table this until the packet gets distributed. Madame Clerk, could you go ahead and call the roll on that? Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lindell. Councilor Maestas. Councilor Maestas: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Cassett. Councilor Cassett: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Fulner? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion to table. Very good. We'll get the documentation out as quickly as possible and do as much as we can to make it available. Would you take us to the next item? Item 10B, request for approval of budget amendment resolution BAR to allocate $10 million from the 2025 GO bond to FY26 Complete Streets revenue, WIP design, and WIP construction for paving projects planned for FY26. And here to speak is Public Works Director Regina Wheeler and Complete Streets Project Manager 2, Marcos Esavl. Motion second. Motion to approve this, and there is a second. Director Wheeler, do you want to give us an overview of the proposal in front of us, please? Thank you so much, Mayor, members of the governing body. This is a really exciting moment. It is the moment that we put the first tranche of the $25 million paving bond that was approved by voters into budget and get ready to actually execute these projects. I'd like to just remind everybody that, you know, we call them paving projects, but they really actually are a lot more than that. Not only do we rehabilitate the pavement on these roads, which of course is of prime importance and focus, but we also have to upgrade all curb ramps to meet current ADA requirements. So, there's quite a bit of concrete work. We're thorough and review the sidewalk and curb and gutter conditions along the segment and try to get those repaired before we start the work, whether it's through working with the private property owners or whether it's work that the city executes. The roads will also receive new striping and new continental-style thermoplastic crosswalks at the intersections, which is a big upgrade. These new crosswalks you've seen on Guadalupe, they're very much more visible, much safer for pedestrians. It's our new style. We also have to coordinate with utilities to make sure that we raise or lower water valve openings, manhole covers. So, there's quite a bit of work actually to fully scope this work, get our vendors out there, pull in the quotes, and be ready to issue the purchase orders. And I'm happy to tell you that while this is the moment where we get the funding, that work has been going on for six months. And it's been being led by Marcos Esavl of local fame from the Pothole Palooza leader, and who is now the Project Manager 2 that will be leading these bond projects and reporting back to governing body on a regular basis about how the process, the progress that's being made on those projects. And I'll let Marcos just say a few words about how he's working with the vendors so that we can accomplish this. This is actually three times as much work as we've ever done in a single year. But with Marcos's advanced preparation, we feel really confident we're going to make some really good headway. Just as a little reminder, the last time we had an allocation like this for paving was back in 2017. We did an $11 million tax gas tax bond at that time that funded paving through 2020. And then in 2022, we started making the approximately $3 million appropriations towards paving. And now we have this, which is really helpful to have the money so that we can issue all of these POs in advance, and Marcos can tell you a little bit more about why it works with the vendors. Thank you so much. Thank you, Director. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, councilors. I just wanted to let you know, briefly, when we are considering the road work and what we're going to do, we do absolutely take into consideration multiple factors. We do want to make sure we're addressing roads that are absolutely a safety issue. We want to be addressing our roadways that are our arterial roads, right? Primarily first, then our collectors and our residentials. What we're trying to do with this bond specifically is we have so many roads that need so much work that it's easy for the residentials, the smaller collectors, to not get much attention. What we are trying to do with this bond is not only address those important roads like Airport Road as a top priority. We want to go ahead and zoom into those areas that we're in while we're there at the time. That's going to help us with our productivity. For example, if we're on Airport Road and we do need to get South Meadows, we need to get Jaguar, we need to get those areas, and specifically those areas because of the influx of housing that's coming into that area, almost 7,000 new living units in the next few years. We want to jump on top of those roads while we're there and while we can. And that does help with mobilization. It helps with scheduling, and it helps us advance the amount of work we can do because contractors are already in the area. They can go from one street to another instead of having to pull off, go to another job for somebody else, and then reschedule us. But we're trying to utilize various contractors in those same areas to knock those areas out ahead of time. So that's kind of where we're going to try and get the huge increase in productivity going in those areas. Thank you. Are there questions this time regarding the M? Good. Thank you both for your presentation, and we look forward to the updates as the work actually begins. I think everyone is eager to see some of these very hard-scrabble roads get the attention they need. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll? Councilor Lindell? Yes. Councilor Marorth? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Falner? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Thank you both. And could we read the next item, please? Item 10C, request for ratification of the second amendment to the cooperative project agreement number 23-0597 with the New Mexico Department of Transportation to extend the agreement term through December 30th, 2025, to facilitate federal closeout of the Guadalupe Street reconstruction project. And here to speak is Capital Projects Manager Romela Glorioso Mas. Move to approve. Second. There's a motion and a second. Thank you for being here tonight. If you could tell us about this request. Mayor Weber and councilors, before I begin discussing my agenda item, I would like to introduce Mr. Odicin, a construction project manager for the Guadalupe project. I invited him to attend this meeting in case you have any questions regarding the construction of the project. Also, if you have any questions about the businesses, I think that Director Joanna Nelson is attending online. With that brief introduction, I would now like to proceed with my agenda item. So, the NMDOT and Federal Highway Administration have agreed to extend the term of the cooperative project agreement for the Guadalupe Street reconstruction project from October 5, 2025, to December 30, 2025. This extension will allow for a more efficient federal closeout process. The federal process for closing out projects is a lengthy one. To give you an example, it took us more than three months to close out the Anyad Rincon Trail, which is a much smaller project compared to Guadalupe. The deadline to return the amendment to NMDOT by the week of September 15 did not allow sufficient time to obtain the governing body's prior approval. Pursuant to the Santa Fe City Code 2-4.6.B, the city manager is authorized to approve agreements seeking or accepting funds when timing constraints prevent prior governing body approval. In accordance with this provision, the city manager approved the amendment on September 12th, and the city clerk recorded it on September 14. Staff now request that the governing body ratify this amendment. That's all I have, and Cody and I, or Director Nelson, are happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilor Castro. Thank you so much, both of you. Cody, it's been an amazing project. You guys have done a great job. I know there's been some frustration. I want to offer you the floor to see if there's anything that we want to update the community about in terms of the Guadalupe Street project and maybe discuss with them sort of the pressures that we're under based on state DOT and other standards of our inspectors. Yes, Mr. Mayor, Councilor Castro. Yeah, currently we're currently working on the punch list, which is the corrective work for the contractor. Anything that was damaged or was out of scope has to be replaced. Right now, we're currently at 85% of that list. And we're currently working on the final closeout package with NMDOT and the Federal Highway Administrations. We've gone through all of our pre-final inspections, which is what produced our punch list now. So we're currently working on that. There are very small outstanding items to be completed for the project. But 100% of the construction is complete. All of our signage is complete, and as well as your brand new doorway marks. So the construction for the project is complete. It's just some small exciting items that are left. Perfect. And I think there were a few adjustments that the city had hoped for, but the state DOT and the highway association maybe didn't allow us to do some crosswalks and some things that we wanted. Correct? That is correct. Yes, ma'am. No further question. Thank you, Councilor Garcia. Go ahead, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Cody and Romela, for the update. You had mentioned that it took three months for the Patty Rincon closeout. You're asking for two months here, and you said this is a much bigger project. I want to make sure you're getting sufficient time to close out this grant. Is two months sufficient time? We believe so. The difference is that in Kanyar Rincon, we started the audit too late, while with Guadalupe, we are audited almost every three months. So NMDOT and FHWA will do physical inspection. They go to the field and inspect sidewalks for ADA compliance. And so by the end of October 5th, we have all those punch list, and we were able to work on those punch list before the pre-final walk-through on August 27th. Also, every three months, FHWA and NMDOT audit our files. So that's the big difference, and we are, and this is the second federally funded project that we're closing. So Cody and I are more familiar with the process, and we are more ready this time. We are more prepared this time. Okay. And my only other question is, does the federal shutdown impact your reporting processes? Because I know the federal government is closed right now, and I assume your reporting is done through an online platform, which is not shut down, but any technical assistance support that you might need for the closeout is non-existent. So I guess, does the shutdown impact any of the reporting that you need to do? No. Okay. Because those FHWA representatives are employed by NMDOT. Gotcha. Okay. Just want to make sure again that because, and the only reason I'm asking is we've only got a handful of meetings left for this year, and I want to make sure that you're planning in advance. That way we're not coming in January asking for an extension because we didn't meet the end of this year timeline. So your confidence, I will rely on your confidence, and good luck. Thank you. No other questions, Mr. Thank you, Councilor. Other questions? Madame Clerk, we have a motion and a second. Could you call the roll? Councilor Romero: Yes. Councilor Cassett: Yes. Councilor Castro: Yes. Councilor Chavez: Yes. Councilor Fulner: Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Councilor Lindell: Yes. Mayor Weber: Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. I believe we have in our email inboxes the packet material that was requested. At least it's shown up. I think it's shown up for everybody. Move to remove that item off the table. Second. There's a motion to take that item off the table and bring it back to the governing body. Madame Clerk, can you call the roll? Councilor Cassett: Yes. Councilor Castro: Yes. Councilor Chavez: Yes. Councilor Faulner: Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Councilor Lindell: Yes. Councilor Marworth: Yes. Mayor Weber: Yes. Motion is approved. Very good. Thank you. Councilor Garcia, you flagged the absence of that material. It's now available to us, at least, and I don't know whether the posting has had any—no, but people could find it from the prior meeting. Were there specific questions, Councilor, you wanted to raise about the item or just note that it had not been packeted properly? Well, it was twofold. I wanted to raise that the item didn't have materials because that then would lead me to having questions, but upon review of the materials, I don't have any questions. So thank you, Director Lamboy. Thank you, Councilor. Any questions from other members of the governing body? Madame Clerk, we have a motion that was previously on the floor. Could you please call the roll? Councilor Castro: Yes. Councilor Chavez: Yes. Councilor Faulner: Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Councilor Lindell: Yes. Councilor Marworth: Yes. Councilor Cassett: Yes. Mayor Weber: Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Thank you for being here tonight, Director Lamboy. Much appreciated. Madame Clerk, can you—well, I guess, yeah, take us to the next item, Madam. Item 11, Matters from the City Manager. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm just going to admit to some things. I pretty much live my life feeling guilty that I haven't updated you all on everything that I need to update you on. And I first of all, I want to acknowledge that that's probably the truth. So I want to try to do the best I can to catch up on a few of those things. I recently sent you all a written update about the status of things going on at Midtown. My intention is to do an oral presentation to the governing body at the next governing body meeting to give you an update. I'm very, very pleased with what I see out there. Things are moving along. There's a lot to feel good about and I think a lot to feel good about the future. And so I'm anxious to give you that update. One of the other projects that I have had for some time that I'm anxious to get off of my desk is the Soldiers Monument report, the options report on that. The consultant has 99% finished. I've got a draft report. I do wish to check with the State Historic Preservation Office, which had deferred comment until they could see the draft report. So I'd like to go do that. I will follow your collective lead on when and at what point that becomes a public document. I think they've done a very nice job on it. I'm happy to have it become a public document. But I did want to give an update on that because I know there are a lot of people waiting for that. And I'm sure there's other things that I will follow up on. It is my ethic to do my best to keep you informed on things and I'll continue to do that, but it's a busy time and we've got a lot going on. I'm sorry that some of this is a little slow. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. City Manager. Can I ask a quick question? I mumbled and fumbled my way through what I overheard you, I thought, saying about a need to change something about the executive session caption, but I didn't get it right. So, do we need to do anything different? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don't think so. Talking to the City Attorney, I think the caption is fine. There was some thought there was an item that would be ready for tonight that isn't. But I think the caption still is correct. Thank you. I wanted to make sure we didn't fumble further. Only me. Thank you, sir. Next item, Madame Clerk. Item 12, Matters from the City Attorney. Thank you, Mayor, Councilors. I first just wanted to let folks know that we're back to fully staffed in the Office of Records Custodians. Donnie Ricon and Ariana Trujillo have started over the last few weeks and have started to gain access to all the various databases that that team uses. And we're still also using temp services to supplement and authorizing overtime as well to work on our backlog. So with the fully staffed team and with all of those supplements that were authorized by the governing body, we are hopeful to continue to make progress there. The overall numbers are down significantly because of the crash reports. It's going to come down to, I think, the 6 to 7,000 range from the almost 11,000, which is amazing progress. So we're continuing with that as well. And then I wanted to congratulate Rebecca Manuk Herman for her first oral argument in front of the Court of Appeals. So we had the Old POS Trail case last week on Tuesday in front of the Court of Appeals. So all three parties gave oral argument. Oral argument is not common in front of the Court of Appeals. We've only had two of our Court of Appeals cases have oral argument. So if you see her, congratulate her. She did an excellent job representing the city. The Court of Appeals bench was very well prepared, had reviewed the whole record, made reference to various parts of the oral discussion that the governing body had with the community and with the parties in the case. They referenced specific video, they referenced specific pieces of the written record. They were very engaged. So congratulations to Rebecca on her argument. And then also congratulations to Katherine Garcia Gyos. Again, the Dixon Awards were on Thursday, so we got to go, one of her team and I and her family and her husband got to go, give kudos to her on the crash records project. And she got to go up and speak about her project. And we had members of the community come up afterwards and ask how we're helping other municipalities do the same thing and whether we've spread the word, which we have. And she'll be part of a gathering of various records custodians next week, actually talking about what the city has done and all the various customer service improvements she's put into the process for the City of Santa Fe. And with that, I'd also like to recommend we go into executive session to discuss two different exceptions to the Open Meetings Act: discussion of pending litigation, Mark Lopez v. City of Santa Fe, and discussion of property dispositions, specifically the disposition of parcels on the Midtown property located at 1600 St. Michael's Drive. Mayor Worth: Mayor, I move that we enter into executive session pursuant to the Open Meetings Act Section 10-15-1 Part H subparts 7 and 8 for discussion of pending litigation and discussion of property disposition. Second. There's a motion and a second to go into executive session. Is there discussion? Madame Clerk, could you call the roll? Councilor Chavez: Yes. Councilor Faulner: Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Councilor Lindell: Yes. Councilor Romero: Yes. Councilor Cassett: Yes. Councilor Castro: Yes. Mayor Weber: Yes. Motion is approved. Very good. Thank you. We will go into executive session. For those watching and listening at home or here in the chambers, we'll be moving through this material and come back as quickly as we are able to. Thank you. Clerk, I assume we are still streaming live. Yes, we are. Very good. I believe Councilor Marworth has a motion to make. Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act Section 10-15-1J, I move the governing body reconvene in open session, state for the record that the matters discussed in the closed session were limited to those specified in the motion for closure. Second. There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Please call the roll and note that Councilor Chavez has checked out for the night due to her battling that illness problem. Councilor Falner: Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Councilor Lindell: Yes. Councilor Romero Worth: Yes. Councilor Cassett: Yes. Councilor Castro: Yes. Mayor Weber: Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. If you could then take us to the action item coming out of executive session. 13A. Approval of a settlement agreement and release in the amount of $375,000 resolving pending litigation regarding Mark Lopez v. City of Santa Fe at all. D-101-CV-2023-02458. Move to approve. Second. There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Please call the roll. Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Councilor Lindell: Yes. Councilor Romero Worth: Yes. Councilor Cassid: Yes. Councilor Castro: Yes. Mayor Weber: Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Next item, please. Item 14, Matters from the City Clerk. I just have a couple things. So, we have three new hires starting in October. We'll have a front desk person for the City Clerk's office who will be joining us on the 25th. We have a new Senior Graphic Designer, Megan Daly, who will be joining us on October 12th. And we have a new Public Defender who will be joining us on October 13th. We're very happy. That means we only have two positions left and we are—we have tons of applicants and are in the interview process. I also passed around a rank choice voting guide that we put in our utility billing. Front side is in English, backside is in Spanish. If you want any of these, we are happy to give them to you. But it's a little how-to. We have completed four of our trainings. Our fifth one is on Thursday at Pasato. I think that that's a senior center. They have been very fun and very engaging. It has been a blast to be hanging out with seniors and doing rank choice voting and listening to stories. It's been a blast. Let's see. Halloween, we are happy. We have some sponsorships going on and people from the community have been very supportive. So, we're excited about this event. And then Indiegv has launched. It's very internal facing for our constituent services system. So, on the website, the only thing you see is a new form that can be filled out by any member of the public, but internally we have a ticketing system that we're utilizing, we're learning a lot about, and we're processing. That is it. Item 15, Communications from the Governing Body. We'll go from the inside out. Councilor Lindell. Okay. First of all, early voting has started. Get out and vote. I did that today. And Saturday the 11th is National Coming Out Day. And you deserve to love. You deserve to love safely. You deserve to celebrate your queerness in the light of day. I hope that we take that to heart ourselves and that we put our arms around those that are living in fear, and it's unfair. And we need to let them know that you're there for them and that we love them. Secondly, I just want to briefly say how special people are that work for this city. Some of you may have been at my wife's celebration of life, and you heard that Maria Sanchez took on the task for over 20 years of putting a cooler out every Monday for the refuse crew, which meant that she delivered over 5,000 drinks, which is kind of amazing. Monday is the day that our refuse is picked up. And at 5:30 on Monday, my doorbell rang, and the man that's driven the truck for our pickup for years stood at the door with a bouquet of flowers and said, "No one ever treated him nicer." The end of his shift, he went out and got flowers and came to the house. We work with very special people, and I'm deeply grateful. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Garcia: Nothing tonight, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. I have several things. One, we are gearing up and we are getting ready for the second annual Posada for the Southside. It's going to be December 18th. We're already working on it so we do not tax city staff with our craziness that our leadership team has. Number two, the Northern New Mexico toy drive is a passion of mine. I'm now on the board, and we are estimating we've taken on CYFD, and so we're looking to raise funds and get volunteers and get as much in as we can because it's about 10,000 kids in Northern New Mexico that do not have Christmas coming likely. And so I'll be sending out emails to everyone in the city, and I'm working with the Economic Development Department to send emails out to all of our partners in the community. We have some great partners. We have Anorm, we have Sam's Club, Coca-Cola, Change Reaction, Albertson's, Target, Homewise, the Housing Trust. We have a massive group of people who are going to help with this. But I think this year, given the circumstances, we're going to need all hands on deck. So, you will be harassed by me endlessly on these two things. And we also need volunteers to help with the toy drive. The third thing is I would just like to thank Lillian Montoya and the team at St. Vincent's who were incredible. I said this earlier, my son is very ill, and Lillian and her team took incredible care of us and made sure we got what we needed and got my son into a stable place, and so I just am very grateful for that. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Maywart. Well, I don't have anything tonight. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. The only thing I have is I want to wish my big brother a very happy birthday on October 10th. He's in California. I don't get to see him very often, but I love you and I miss you, and I am glad that you will always be older than me. Mayor: Councilor Lindell. I don't have anything tonight, Mayor. Let me just say a couple things quick. First, last night was a special night here in Santa Fe. For those of you who were at either the Pogue Awards or the Mayor's Arts Awards, the City of Santa Fe showed itself to be quite a remarkable place. The artists who got recognized were incredible and represented diversity and a broad set of incredible artist skills and community participation. And the folks and organizations got recognized at Pogue, the same. I don't think there's a city in America that can match what happens here in Santa Fe when it comes to either community engagement and volunteerism or just arts and culture. We just blow the doors off the place. Coming up on Monday, you have Indigenous People's Day, and I believe there'll be a very exciting pow-wow again this year. Congratulations to the sponsors who put that on. It's a big deal, and they're really making it work and bringing people back into the city on Indigenous People's Day to celebrate that pow-wow. Lots going on even as the seasons change. So, and as Councilor Lindell says, be sure to go out and get one of those "I Voted" stickers. What's the next item, Madam Clerk? Clerk: Introduction of legislation. So item 16A, consideration of Bill Number 2025-22, adoption of Ordinance Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Councilor Jamie Cassutt and Councilor Sydney Lindell, a bill amending SFCC1 1987 Section 5-2 to define abandonment and unattended animal. Section 5-5.4 to prohibit keeping an animal on any median. And Section 5-8.4 to specify that abandoning an animal will incur a fine, creating a new Section 5-8.4 unattended animal, prohibiting unattended animals and imposing a fine, and amending Table 15-12.1 to increase the fine for abandoning an animal from $200 to $500. Impose a $200 fine for first unintended unattended animal offense and a $500 fine for subsequent offenses and impose a $200 fine for keeping animals on medians. Councilor Cassutt and/or Councilor Lindell, words to say about this? I will actually defer to Councilor Lindell, who has been the champion for animals on this for the last 12 years, and I was very, very honored to have the opportunity to work with this before we bid you adieu. Thank you, Councilor Cassutt, and Councilor Castro has also joined on as a co-sponsor. So, thank you to Legal and thank you to Councilor Cassutt for grinding this out. It sounds so simple, but it's never very simple. Figuring out these definitions that are workable, that are usable. I mean, this is about animal welfare, pure and simple. That's all. Trying to make life better for animals and making sure that animals are not abused in this city. It absolutely reveres our pets. So, it's kind of my last hurrah, and I think it's work that we just, maybe it got put aside for a while, but let's get it done before the end of the year and make sure that we continue to prioritize always animal welfare. Great. And just really quickly, I also wanted to honor Councilor Lindell. I unfortunately had to deal with a situation of animal abuse, and we've been seeing a lot of these incidents in our district, and she has really stepped up to not only speak to our city employees on the best way to handle them, but do it with care on all sides. So, thank you so much. Mayor: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Could you take us to the next item, please? I believe this is a War and Peace Part One. Clerk: 16B, and thankfully City Attorney McSherry will be helping me read this. So, consideration of Bill Number 2024-17, adoption of Ordinance Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Mayor Alan Weber and Councilor Jamie Cassutt. A bill repealing and replacing SFCC1 1987, Chapter 14, Land Development Code, clarifying and consolidating various references to code violations into one violation section, specifying that the applicant or the property owner have the burden of proof for establishing non-legal nonconformities, reducing the early notification requirement for city capital improvement projects to those exceeding $250,000. Renaming special use permit to conditional use permit. Removing Historic District Review Board's (HDRB's) authority to recommend personal property acquisitions. Requiring archaeologists to hold a New Mexico State Burial Excavation permit for certain work. Removing waivers of qualifications for archaeologists by Archaeological Review Committee. Increasing permit building heights for residential districts and non-residential development. Establishing densities and height by right for certain residential zones exceeding 10 units per acre. Creating a parks and open space zoning district permitting additional flexibility for certain structures and situations regarding setbacks. Eliminating residential suite, hotel, motel, and ecological resource protection overlay zoning districts. Reducing the length at which an archaeological clearance permit is required for sewer and utility main construction. Removing alcohol sale regulations for the Airport Road Overlay. Identifying a strategy to review and approve land uses not specifically listed in the summary table of allowed uses. Clarifying that duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and residential complex are permitted uses. Creating use categories and subcategories and reorganizing some existing uses into new categories within the table of allowed uses. Requiring trees to be integrated into storm water infrastructure in the Airport Road Overlay District. Removing certain prohibitions for vehicle parking at residences. Allowing accessory dwelling units to be the maximum allowable height in the zoning district. Establishing design and dimensional standards for residential compound development. Regulating in-ground and above-ground pools. Regulating AR agricultural home occupations. Reassigning the use laboratory research or testing from industrial to commercial. Regulating outdoor dining. Updating telecommunication facilities code to be consistent with federal standards. Establishing new sub-district regulations in the historic district overlays. Specifying primary facades for significant structures and the strategy for identifying primary facades on contributing structures. Updating definitions for facade and elevation. Prohibiting enclosures of existing porches and polls on primary facades of contributing structures. Requiring window depth and other characteristics of windows and doors be preserved in historic districts, increasing affordability incentives, including administrative review and density bonuses, specifying that open space requirements in the C2 district are per dwelling unit. Expanding options to reduce on-site parking and exempting the Business Capital District from parking requirements in Table 74. Reducing required off-street parking spaces, requiring electric vehicle charging stations for all new developments, distinguishing parking regulations applicable to bicycles from those applicable to vehicles, and requiring long-term bicycle storage and parking, eliminating content-based sign restrictions, imposing a variety of new regulations protecting the city's terrain and storm water management, imposing new landscape standards for plants and trees, eliminating allowance for high and low-pressure sodium lamps and mercury vapor. Adding LED as the permitted lamp type and decreasing permitted incandescent watts from 160 to 150. Sunsetting the Business Capital District Design Review Committee and Long Range Planning Subcommittee, defining numerous terms, embedding graphical depictions of processes and making non-substantive chapter organizational changes. We'll be performing this all month. Coming soon to a theater near you. Okay. I think it speaks for itself. If this is the longest ordinance title in city history, and I think that we should discover that and, yes, recognize the talent that went into this. In this book of world records. Next item, please, Madam Clerk. Clerk: Item 18, public comment on bills. First public comment, no action. 18A, consideration of Bill Number 2025-6, adoption of Ordinance Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Mayor Alan Weber, Councilor Sydney Lindell, Councilor Pilar Faulkner, Councilor Michael Garcia. A bill relating to the Santa Fe Traffic Operations Program amending Section 24-4 to remove the requirement for Police Department oversight, provide for the use of cameras that detect vehicle noise violations using an automated compliance enforcement system, and impose a fine for system-detected vehicle noise violations. Mayor: All right, very good. This is an opportunity for public comment. Is there anyone in the auditorium who wants to speak to this? Please step forward now, and the Clerk will clock it out at two minutes, and then we'll see if anyone is on the Zoom. My name's Elizabeth West, and after that War and Peace, was that a joke? That for Halloween? It was a clean sweep. The witches would enjoy that. But this, this most recent thing having to do with attempting to do something about a noise ordinance is not perfect. There is no such thing as perfection. I say that to myself every morning, and it's okay. But in this case, I'm in favor of this attempt. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone on Zoom with a hand up? Madam Clerk? There is no one in the Zoom room. Very good. Then let's move on to the next item. Final action on legislation public hearing 19A, consideration of Bill Number 2025-17, adoption of Ordinance Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Councilor Carol Romero-Wirth and Councilor Jamie Cassutt. A bill amending SFCC 1987, Section 25-1.8A, to require the City of Santa Fe to continue to monitor the naturally occurring fluoride levels in its water system through representative sample locations and to end the requirement to add fluoride to the system. Very good. This is a public hearing. I think Director Roach, do you want to take just a few minutes at the start of this public hearing, if you have a way of framing this for us, and then we'll entertain public comment and a motion, and then comment or debate from the governing body. Mr. Mayor, members of the governing body. Sure. The current ordinance asks that the city water utility add fluoride to the water to a target level of one part per million. Federal guidance has suggested that the target level be 0.7 parts per million since 2015. So, our ordinance is out of date. And recent, although unsettled, science suggests that there is a risk of potential reduced IQ in children at the federal guideline. And so the proposal here is that, and I guess by way of background as well, there is naturally occurring fluoride in the surface waters that we treat. It varies, but on average, I think it's fair to say that the water treated at BDD has a value of about 0.6 parts per million. The water treated at Canyon Road has a value, once it's been treated, of about 0.3 parts per million. And the water that we measure in the system has a value around 0.5 parts per million. Again, that's in comparison to a federal guidance of exactly 0.7 and a current ordinance requirement of one. And so it is the view of the water utility that in light of this, and in light that we do have equipment to add fluoride to the water, but it's fallen into disrepair and needs to be updated. And so we estimate on the order of $400,000 to $600,000 of capital investment would be needed to bring us into the ability to accurately dose, and an ongoing cost of $30,000 to $40,000 per year. That at this moment, in scientific and public health uncertainty, we pause and we continue to monitor fluoride levels and report those fluoride levels, but do not add additional fluoride at this time. Thank you. Is there anyone in the room or on Zoom who wants to speak on this matter? It is a public hearing. Please. This turns into an interesting evening. I actually think this seems like a good idea. Thank you. And we continue to have a Zoom room that is not active. That is correct. Okay. I'd entertain a motion and then... Move to approve. Second. There's a motion to approve this and a second. Is there discussion, questions? No, sir. Right. Madam Clerk, we have a motion and a second. If you would please call the roll. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell stepped in. Oops. She has had to go take care of other matters and is excused. Councilor Romero. Yes. Councilor Cassutt. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Thank you for being here, Director Roach. Next item on the agenda, please. 19BB, consideration of Bill Number 2025-9, adoption of Ordinance Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Councilor Sydney Lindell, a bill establishing a 10-year Plaza pushcart vendor license for which vendors who have completed 25 consecutive years of vending are eligible to apply. Unfortunately, Councilor Lindell has had to step away, but we're familiar with this from it's going through the committee process. It is a public hearing. I don't know if anyone wants to speak on this item or not. Not required. Move to approve. Second. There's a motion to approve this and there's a second, and not a lot of people lining up to testify. Is there discussion from the governing body? Could you call the roll, Madam Clerk? Councilor Romero-Wirth. Yes. Councilor Cassutt. Yes. Councilor Castro. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. And we have another public hearing coming up next. Item 19C, consideration of Resolution 2025-TBD, sponsored by Councilor Jamie Cassutt and Councilor Carol Romero-Wirth, a resolution updating the water offset requirement fee chart to more accurately reflect the current market value of water rights. Director Roach, I think again, we, this is a public hearing, but these are significant issues and I don't want to give them short shrift. If you wanted to give us the overview on this item, please. Mayor Weber, members of the council. Yes. This is an overdue resolution to update the amount that we charge for water rights. And essentially, depending on the size of a development, a developer can pay us a what we call a fee in lieu of bringing water rights, and we put a price on that, and we haven't changed it since we established it. So it's been, I think, 15 years. I don't have the number right in front of me, at least. And so this would bring the rate, which is around $16,000 an acre-foot now, up to $36,000 an acre-foot, which is consistent with what the county charges. It's also the exact amount that was charged in a recent transaction that we were privy to, and seems like, and is also anecdotally, the amount that seems that water rights in our water bank are trading for. So I feel that it's representative of the cost of development. Thank you. Is there a motion? Move to approve. Second. There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion on this item? Yeah. Councilor Michael Garcia. Just a quick question. Why a resolution and not a bill? Resolutions don't carry the weight of law. Councilor Garcia, my understanding of this, and I may, and I'm happy to defer to the city attorney, is that it was established by resolution in administrative order, and so we're changing it by resolution. Councilors, the reason we're having a public hearing and we put it on notice is because it does regulate the public, but it's called for as a resolution. And there are certain things in state statute and in our ordinance that call for certain fees to be adopted by resolution. It is confusing, I agree. But we do take these extra protective steps to allow the public to have notice and opportunity to be heard when we do this type of thing. Thank you. I want to just quickly reconfirm what you said about the county rate. Could you just one more time confirm what I thought I heard, which was this would bring us to the same rate that the county has been charging. Mayor Weber, that's correct. Thank you. Yes, Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Is this consistent with also private individuals who own water rights on the market? Councilor Garcia, it is. What's interesting is that when you go to buy a water right, you can find somebody who will sell it to you for less than $36,000 an acre-foot, but then you have to transfer it. And so we have tried to buy water rights for less, and then during the transfer process, which is costly, had them protested and eventually not been able to do them. So, what this $36,000 actually represents is not just the cost of acquiring the water right from the Middle Rio Grande, but the cost of acquiring the water right and moving it into the Buckman Wellfield, which is where we need it. That is the true cost that is reflected in our water bank where developers who have done that work will sell to other developers if they have excess water rights. So that's truly what's being measured here is not just the cost of the water right, but the cost of the water right moved into our Buckman Wellfield where we need it. Transaction fees included. That's right. Any other questions? Madam Clerk, could you call the roll? I asked if there was going to be testimony, but if you would like to come say something, please do. It is a good subject and Mr. Director Roach has got his finger on this one. I am really actually glad to be here to speak in support of this. I think it's entirely appropriate. Will I have to pay a little bit more? It's totally fair. And if a developer is made aware of this kind of thing, that can't do anything but something good. So I approve of it. Thank you. Any other comments? Not seeing any other hands. Madam Clerk, could you call the roll? Councilor Cassutt. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Romero-Wirth. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Thank you, Director Roach. You're on duty. Next item on the agenda, Madam Clerk. Item 21, appointments. 21A, Arts Commission. April Cleveland, appointment term ending 10/27. Woka Yepa, reappoint term ending 10/27. Robin Robinson, reappoint term ending 10/27. Move to approve. There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Could you call the roll, Madam Clerk? Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Romero-Wirth. Yes. Councilor Cassutt. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Next item, please. 21B, Planning Commission. Thomas J. Ryland, reappoint term ending 06/2027. Second. There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Could you call the roll? Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Romero-Wirth. Yes. Councilor Cassutt. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved. And we have another appointment coming up after that. 21C, Economic Development Advisory Committee. Mary Odin Frown Glass, reappoint term ending 06/2027. Mariah Tomar, reappoint term ending 06/2027. David Pettz, reappoint term ending 06/2027. Kenneth Resnik, reappointment term ending 06/2027. Dulce Marty, appointment term ending 06/2027. Motion. No. Move to approve. Second. Councilor Cassutt, did you want to say something about this? This is a committee you're very attached to. I am. And I, I'll be quick because I know I'm between us and adjournment, but I do want to just brag on EDAC right now. The group that has been assembled here and appointed over the last couple of years is phenomenal. These individuals are very diverse in their backgrounds and opinions. The conversations that they have and the insight that they bring. I have learned so much from them. I am so excited about this committee and the work that they continue to do. And these four reappoints and the addition of Ms. Marty is just, I'm over the moon and really excited to see what they do. So, very proud of, very proud of everything that happens in that room. Thanks. Thank you. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll? Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Romero-Wirth. Yes. Councilor Cassutt. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved. Very good. That completes our agenda for tonight and we are adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Let's go home.