Regular Governing Body Meeting - Second Wednesday
Wed, Dec 10, 2025 · Governing Body
https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/268

== Executive Summary ==
The Regular Governing Body Meeting on the second Wednesday covered a wide range of topics, including updates on the Municipal Court's innovative programs for youth and alternative sentencing, a comprehensive review of the Governing Body's procedural rules, and extensive discussion and action on affordable housing initiatives. The Municipal Court presented new programs like ERASE and SCORE, aimed at education and support for offenders, and committed to providing efficacy metrics within six months. The procedural rules review highlighted areas for refinement, especially concerning the hierarchy of laws and the application of Robert's Rules of Order.

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF), revealing discrepancies in its accounting and management, and leading to a Budget Adjustment Request (BAR) to rectify unspent funds. This discussion sparked debate about communication breakdowns and the need for improved oversight. The Governing Body also approved several professional services contracts for affordable housing units and spine infrastructure, demonstrating a commitment to increasing affordable housing stock. Additionally, the meeting included farewells to the City Attorney and City Clerk, who reflected on their achievements and the city's progress.

Key decisions included approving the AHTF BAR, several affordable housing contracts, and an amendment to the Midtown Master Plan to allow for more flexible development. A contentious animal welfare ordinance, prohibiting animals on medians, was approved after significant public comment and debate, with concerns raised about its impact on unhoused individuals. The Governing Body also granted an appeal for a historic window replacement, overturning a Historic Board decision, and approved a rezoning request for a commercial development. The meeting concluded with various appointments to city committees.

== Key Decisions ==
- Approved the agenda.
- Approved the consent agenda as amended, removing items 9H, 9I, and 9M for separate discussion.
- Approved a Budget Adjustment Request (BAR) to allocate $3,700,59 from prior year general fund balances to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
- Approved the main motion regarding the animal welfare/median ordinance, as amended, which prohibits animals on medians and includes increased fines for violations.
- Approved Amendment B to Section 5-8.4 of the animal welfare ordinance, clarifying language regarding individuals turning over abandoned animals to animal services.
- Granted the appeal for the Historic District Review Board decision regarding window replacement at 206 McKenzie Street, allowing the replacement of windows on primary facades.
- Approved Amendment Number Four to Memorandum of Understanding Item Number 18-1309 with Insight Public Sector for Microsoft 365 licensing.
- Approved the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with NMDOT and associated budget amendment and purchase order for public transportation service funding, including the purchase of six paratransit e-transit buses and EV charging station construction.
- Approved the request for exclusive negotiation to negotiate the sale of Tract H1A to Integral Design and Development LLC for the Blue Mesa Center for the Arts.
- Approved the exclusive negotiation agreement for parcels J1A and J1B for the New Mexico Innovation Hub.
- Approved a professional services contract with TWWG Development LLC for $935,000 to support 106 affordable housing units at Nuevo NWEA Ascia 4%.
- Approved a professional services contract with TWWG Development LLC for $565,000 to support 53 affordable housing units at Nova Akia 9%.
- Approved a professional services contract with the Santa Fe Community Housing Trust for $675,000 for the construction of 8 permanently affordable homes at Arroyo Oeste.
- Approved a professional services agreement with Homewise for $1,500,000 for spine infrastructure at Tierra Contenta Phase 3A.
- Approved a settlement agreement and release in the amount of $300,000 resolving Damian v. Hill, the City of Santa Fe.
- Approved attorney-client privilege next steps in Estate of Grace at all, the City of Santa Fe.
- Approved the Midtown Master Plan Amendment (Case 2025-10706).
- Approved the zoning map designation change from R3 to C2 for 1.49 acres at 3439 Cerrillos Road (Case 2025-10276).
- Approved all proposed appointments and reappointments to various committees and positions, including the Metropolitan Redevelopment Commission, City Historian, Poet Laureate, Audit Committee, Water Conservation Committee, and Santa Fe Women's Commission.

== Motions & Votes ==
- Motion to approve the agenda — Approved.
- Motion to approve the consent agenda as amended, with items 9H, 9I, and 9M removed for separate discussion — Approved.
- Motion to approve the matter regarding the Affordable Housing Trust Fund BAR — Made and seconded (outcome not specified in excerpt).
- Motion to "call the question" (end debate) on an unspecified item — Approved 5-2.
- Motion to approve a "BAR" (Budget Adjustment Request) — Approved 5-2.
- Motion to change the agenda to move to "petitions from the floor" (public comments on non-public hearing items) — Approved 7-0.
- Motion to approve the WEX Fuel Card Contract (Item 9) — Made and seconded (outcome not specified in excerpt).
- Motion related to the fleet modernization discussion — Approved (Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes, Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes, Councilor Marworth: Yes, Councilor Casset: Yes, Councilor Castro: Yes, Councilor Chavez: Yes, Councilor Fulner: Yes).
- Motion to approve the resolution regarding the affordable housing properties — Made and seconded (outcome not specified in excerpt).
- Motion to approve the previous item (likely related to the land donation/RFP discussion) — Approved 7 Yes.
- Motion to approve Amendment Number Four to Memorandum of Understanding Item Number 18-1309 with Insight Public Sector — Approved 7 Yes, 1 absent for vote.
- Motion to approve the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with NMDOT and associated budget amendment and purchase order for paratransit buses — Approved 7 Yes, 1 absent for vote.
- Motion to approve the request for exclusive negotiation to negotiate the sale of Tract H1A to Integral Design and Development LLC — Made and seconded (outcome pending after presentation).
- Motion to approve the Blue Mesa Center for the Arts ENA — Approved (unanimous roll call vote).
- Motion to approve the New Mexico Innovation Hub ENA — Approved (unanimous roll call vote).
- Motion to table the Professional Services Contract for Affordable Housing Units — Made, then amended to skip to another agenda item.
- Motion to amend the agenda (skip to Item H) — Approved (unanimous roll call vote).
- Motion to approve the Rafina Lopez Lane Intersection Improvements — Approved (unanimous roll call vote).
- Motion to approve professional services contract with TWWG Development LLC for $935,000 to support 106 affordable housing units at Nuevo NWEA Ascia 4% — Approved 8-0.
- Motion to approve professional services contract with TWWG Development LLC for $565,000 to support 53 affordable housing units at Nova Akia 9% — Approved 8-0.
- Motion to approve professional services contract with the Santa Fe Community Housing Trust for $675,000 for the construction of 8 permanently affordable homes at Arroyo Oeste — Approved 7-0 (one councilor absent).
- Motion to approve professional services agreement with Homewise for $1,500,000 for spine infrastructure at Tierra Contenta Phase 3A — Approved 8-0.
- Motion to enter Executive Session — Approved unanimously by roll call vote.
- Motion to reconvene in open session and affirm executive session discussions were limited to specified topics — Approved unanimously by roll call vote.
- Motion to approve a settlement agreement and release in the amount of $300,000 resolving Damian v. Hill, the City of Santa Fe — Approved unanimously by roll call vote.
- Motion to approve attorney-client privilege next steps in Estate of Grace at all, the City of Santa Fe — Approved unanimously by roll call vote (Councilor Chavez recused herself).
- Motion to approve the ordinance regarding animals on medians (main motion as amended) — Approved (Yes: Councilor Romero Worth, Councilor Casset, Councilor Castro, Councilor Chavez, Councilor Faulner; No: Councilor Lee Garcia, Councilor Michael Garcia, Councilor Lindell).
- Motion to approve Amendment B to Section 5-8.4 of the animal welfare ordinance — Approved 8 Yes, 0 No.
- Motion to suspend the 11:30 PM meeting deadline — Failed to pass, then passed with Mayor's vote (5 votes needed).
- Motion to grant the appeal for the Historic District Review Board decision regarding window replacement at 206 McKenzie Street — Approved 8-0.
- Motion to approve the Master Plan Amendment (Case 2025-10706) — Approved 7 Ayes, 0 Nays.
- Motion to approve case number 202510276, adopting bill 2025-20, changing the official zoning map designation from R3 to C2 for the 1.49 acres at 3439 Cerrillos Road — Approved unanimously 8-0.
- Motion to approve all proposed appointments and reappointments to various committees and positions — Approved unanimously by roll call vote.

== Public Comment ==
The public comment period featured diverse opinions, particularly on the proposed animal welfare ordinance concerning animals on medians. Several individuals, including representatives from the Street Homeless Animal Project and those experiencing homelessness, strongly opposed the ordinance, arguing it criminalizes homelessness, separates unhoused individuals from their companion animals, and lacks sufficient support services. They urged the council to reconsider and involve the homeless population in problem-solving. Conversely, some, like the Executive Director of Consuelo's Place, supported the ordinance, citing animal safety concerns and its potential to encourage the use of available resources. Other public comments included a proposal for eco-villages for youth rehabilitation, an announcement of impending litigation against the city regarding the Aspect Village Studio project, and criticisms regarding budget discussions, public records delays, and the impact of a new code on downtown parking. Daryl Blair presented a "homeless self-help" initiative, advocating for self-sufficiency and compassion.

== Topics ==
- Municipal Court Programs
- Cerrillos Road Rezoning
- Community Appointments
- Leadership Transition
- Community Support/Remembrances

== Full Transcript ==
Mayor, you are live.

Thank you very much. Let me just get organized. In one minute, we'll get everybody going here. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate all the help. All right, the gang's all here. The computer decided to reboot. Sydney.

Very good. Well, let me call this meeting to order. My clock reads 5:05 p.m. for the regular meeting of the governing body, December 10th. Let's begin with a Pledge of Allegiance. If Councilor Lee Garcia, you would please lead it. The salute to the New Mexico flag led by Councilor Chavez, if you would. And then Councilor Castro, can we ask you for invocation remembrances? Thank you. Please rise. Buenos noches a todos. Thank you everyone for being here on this last meeting of this year. It's an honor to be able to invoke this meeting and to thank some of our city's greatest leaders. Three people that will be sitting at this dais today who have been greatly appreciated. I just wanted to say a little bit about the difference between leadership and politics, which is something that we've been talking a lot about this year. And one thing that I do appreciate of everyone that I've been able to work with, I'm going to get a little emotional tonight, is how wonderful we've been able to have discourse, how well we've been able to create change together, how even in the face of disagreement, we've been able to come together for this community. And I do really appreciate all the work that everyone has done. So, thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your guidance. Thank you for the hard work. You are not going to be forgotten. You are going to be called upon regularly. So, please don't hesitate to let us know your opinions on all of the upcoming events. Muchas gracias.

Thank you, Councilor. Are there remembrances? Go ahead, Councilor Faulkner, and then everybody else if you have a hand. So, I know a lot of people who have lost so many people, it seems, in the last couple of months. I'm going to get choked up. But what we have to remember is that we have blessings. And I think that in this time, we can focus on what are the hard parts of being a human being, or we can focus on the blessings we all have. And I will follow in Councilor Castro's footsteps in saying that working with the three of you who will no longer be on council has been something that I have enjoyed. And I just hope everybody gets through this season and recognizes the blessings that we all have.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to remember a dear aunt of mine who passed away. She was one of my father's older sisters who was like a mother, kind of a matriarch to the entire family. Large families in New Mexico, as you know. She was an auntie that everybody loved and cherished. Always with a positive outlook, always with good counsel, and with a beautiful smile. They'll be laying her to rest tomorrow. All the well wishes to the family. Thank you.

Thank you. Council, any other remembrances?

I'd like to call to mind a friend of mine and of Santa Fe who we lost, Kevin Egan. He had a little write-up in the paper, but he deserves so much more. He was a very, very successful businessman, but he never talked about it. He talked about his family, a large and raucous family that he was inordinately proud of. And a heart that was as big as the whole outdoors. He was very community-minded. He served on our Airport Advisory Board. He had a background in airport management. Never tried to pull it out and show people how smart he was. He was a team player from the get-go. One story I remember was there was an individual who worked in one of our kitchens who was not making a lot of money and was in a horrible automobile accident that kept, there was no personal damage, but his entire car was demolished. And Kevin anonymously, without anybody knowing it, simply gifted a replacement vehicle so this hotel restaurant worker would have, he didn't ask for thanks, didn't put his name out there, just took care of business. And a wonderful man, great heart, great family, great success, but he didn't talk about success. He talked about values of a community and of a family. And I really miss Kevin already. I send love and all of my thoughts to his wife and family and what he did for our city. And with that, let's also remember those at this Christmas and holiday season who are struggling in our community, who may be dealing with their own hardships, own family concerns, with health issues. This is a community that cares, a community that sends out support, concern, love for everybody in our community and in our state. Take a minute and just hold everybody in our hearts on this December 9th. Thank you, everybody. Madame Clerk, nice to see you tonight. Could you please call the roll?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Councilor Cassett?

Here.

Councilor Castro?

Councilor Chavez?

Councilor Faulkner, here.

Councilor Lee Garcia?

Here.

Councilor Michael Garcia?

Present.

Councilor Lindell?

Here.

Councilor Romeworth?

Here.

Mayor Weber?

Present.

Mayor, you do have a quorum.

Thank you. Are there any changes to the agenda, Madam Clerk, that we need to know about?

No, Mayor.

Thank you. And items that have been asked by council members to be taken off of consent.

Yes, Mayor. Move to approve.

Yeah. Okay. Sorry.

I jumped, I jumped the gun here. Approve the agenda. We have a motion. We have a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed. Motion carries. Now, let's talk about consent. Madame Clerk, sorry to jump the gun on you.

Mayor, we had three items removed from the consent agenda. Item 9H was removed by Councilor Romeworth and Councilor Michael Garcia. And item 9I was removed by Councilor Michael Garcia. And item 9M was also removed by Councilor Michael Garcia. Approve as amended. Second.

There's a motion to approve it as amended and there is a second. Is there any discussion? Madame Clerk, can you call the roll on that for me?

Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Cassett?

Yes.

Councilor Castro?

Yes.

Councilor Chavez? Councilor Faulkner?

Yes.

Councilor Lee Garcia? Councilor Michael Garcia?

Yes.

Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romeworth?

Yes.

Mayor Weber?

Uh, yes.

Motion passed.

Thank you. I don't know if I get to vote on that or not. Only if it's a tie. Yes, that's right. My apologies.

No problem. Councilor Lindell is keeping score over here. With that, Madame Clerk, if you could take us to our first presentation, that would be terrific.

Certainly, Mayor. The first presentation is the biannual Municipal Court update/budget. Here to present is Judge Chad Chidum of the Municipal Court. Your Honor.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Counselors, I appreciate you having me here today. A lot of what I wanted to talk about, we kind of discussed at the other meeting room in regards to our goals around the budget process. So, I am going to be brief as usual. But before I get into what I want to talk about, I did have some exciting news today. I ran in here a little bit late, well, late for me. I like to be here really early, but I had a meeting with the Administrative Offices of the Courts and they asked me to be a mentor judge for another new incoming Municipal Court judge. So, I really think that's an honor. I spent a little bit more time on the phone with them than I thought. So, if I'm out of breath, I ran in here. But anyway, I wanted to at that last meeting where we talked about the goals and stuff, I stated that I want to give you a little bit more detail on our court program. I kind of brushed over them a little bit. But before I get into the details about our court programs, I would like to introduce you to Blake Gordon. Ms. Gordon is the Court's Programs Director. She is a licensed mental health counselor and she is tasked with helping me implement, develop, and keep some of these programs running and updated, in addition to trying to keep some metrics into how successful we are. And the goal was to use her expertise as a mental health counselor to develop these programs to make sure we are following best practices. Amongst other things, as you know, the court's programs are designed to help with public safety and reduce recidivism, in addition to at no cost for these participants. I think that's very, very important for the public. I want to touch on our DWI Drug Court program. I keep saying we're the only certified treatment court program. I want to keep reminding, bringing that up. But I would like to note on our DWI Drug Court program, since June, we have had six graduates. And that's, they're completing intensive outpatient treatment which involves group counseling, individual counseling, all kinds of things. So, since then, we've had six graduates and I'm really excited about that. Our Outreach Court/Veteran Court is still going. However, I bring this up today because our goal is to double the amount of service providers that are participating in our program. We are constantly reaching out to service providers to refer their clients to our program if they discover that someone that's working with them is, has a court case at the Municipal Court that we could potentially recognize what they're doing already to meet their court requirements. Talk about the Erase program. That's the rebranding of our First Offenders program. The Erase program is a three-hour class and it, the acronym stands for Education, Responsibility, Awareness, Skills, and Encouragement. This is an alternative sentencing pre-trial diversion program. It's for non-DWI offenders. It is a three-hour class that they would attend at no cost to the participant. And some of the topics that are included during this three-hour class presentation is some defensive driving. We often order people to do defensive driving classes for traffic offenses and whatnot. However, not everyone can afford to pay for that. This is an opportunity to meet that requirement. They can take this class. In addition to defensive driving, we throw, we talk about substance use awareness, mindfulness, anger management, self-control versus impulsivity, self-advocacy, life choices, theft, and we always talk about Santa Fe Connect, giving people resources they can use. We are constantly spreading the word of all the resources that are out there in Santa Fe and Santa Fe County and we give them a little general information on expungements. So, if someone has something on their record, they take this class, we give them guidance or information to where somebody might petition to the Municipal Court to have that, their record clean. So, that's the Erase program rebranded from the First Offenders program. The last program that I really want to touch base on today is our Score program. The goal is to have this ready and implemented by April 1st. This is geared towards young adults ages 18 to 25 year olds. The Score stands for Supporting Change and Opportunity Through Reflection Education. This is a bit longer. This is a four-block or four days, every for three hours. They have to come back four times. And included in these blocks, in these trainings, is going to be, we talk about self-control, anger management. A lot of the things that we talk about in the Erase program, but much more in depth. We talk about mindfulness, self-reflection, critical thinking, and social skills, life skills, vocational resources, and we also talk about trauma, substance abuse supports. Now, that's again up and running, hopefully by April 1st. We are going to, we do offer already the Erase program in English and in Spanish.

Since June, 88 participants have successfully completed that. Of course, we also, with the SCORE program, are absolutely looking to include English on April 1. So that is my presentation. Thank you again. I'll stand for any questions, and I may ask Ms. Gordon to help.

Mayor: Thank you. Thanks for being here and thanks for the report and update on old and new programs. Anybody have a question for the judge, and/or a comment? You want to go ahead, Councilor Faulkner?

Councilor Faulkner: I have to say, Judge, you have come up in many discussions that I've been having with legislators, as well as some of the people I'm working with to help solve problems around youth incarceration. And so, you're doing a stellar program, and I appreciate you, and you are the talk of the town around this subject.

Judge: Thank you.

Councilor Faulkner: Yeah. No, sir.

Councilor: Thank you so much. I just want to take the opportunity. We are going to be talking a little bit about some legislation that might come before your bench soon. Can you tell me a little bit about alternative payment methods and what that looks like if I'm a person that is not able to pay a fee? Do I have any alternatives?

Judge: Absolutely. So, often, before assessing a fee, I will do an evaluation of someone's ability to pay, and I try to be creative. It's often these, I ask questions to defendants, and it is an open court, and so I try to be creative in getting some answers out without embarrassing the person. We do all kinds of things. Today, someone owed some money, and I put them on a payment plan. You could tell in their face. I said, "Well, what's going on?" Well, they're searching for jobs, or for a job. And I said, "Okay, in lieu of money, bring me five job applications with proof that you've submitted them, and I will take that in the fine that they were imposed." There's community service, is always a choice. If someone is seeking assistance from somewhere else, LifeLink, I always use that example. There are just so many different examples that you could do. You just have to be creative. You want to hold someone accountable? Absolutely. But you do not want to create a vicious cycle where they're not paying, they're back in the court, they get a warrant because they didn't show up because they were too embarrassed, you know, different things like that. So, we use a number of different things with our teams: perfect attendance at school, extra tutoring classes, all kinds of things. Anything you can imagine, we've tried.

Councilor: Wonderful. No further questions.

Judge: Thank you, Mayor. Yes. Go ahead, Councilor Nassie.

Councilor Nassie: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Judge, for being here. And I really, truly appreciate all the work that you do. I'm curious about some of these court programs. Obviously, they, you know, they're diversion programs. We're hoping they reduce recidivism. How long does it take to really be able to assess the efficacy of these programs and the variety of objectives that you have for them? When will we start to have these results and, you know, be able to analyze and say, "All right, this one's really working. This part's well. Maybe we tweak this." I know it can be a little complex because, you know, it's not a perfect science, but...

Judge: Absolutely. But, and that's part of the, one of the goals of all these programs is it's not going to be easy, right? But we're going to get some metrics. We're going to try to get some stats and things like that for you. And I hope by my next presentation, I hope in six months from now, I can come back and say, "Hey, we've had this success," or, "You know what, we've changed this because we discovered it wasn't working." Things like that. Well, hopefully in six months or so, when I come back and make my next annual presentation, I'll have this.

Councilor Nassie: Wonderful. I'm very excited to hear that, both just for our community, but also, you know, really an opportunity, as Councilor Faulkner was saying, you know, the criminal justice system is a hot topic these days. And so, I'm really eager to see the results of these programs and hopefully that can help inform other municipalities and other courts in the state. So, I really, really want to thank you for your work, for your creativity, for the way that you approach this role. I think that it is very encouraging, and I am very happy to see you on that bench. Thank you.

Judge: Thank you. I appreciate it. And if I may, these are all tools in the toolbox to apply to each individual specifically. We try to, some tools don't necessarily work with that individual. You have other tools, but the more tools you have in your toolbox, I think the better effective it would be. So, thank you very much for your time.

Mayor: Any other comments, questions? Thank you, Your Honor. Thanks for coming down to see us. Madam Clerk, what's our next presentation?

Clerk: Mayor, the next item is the annual overview of parliamentary procedure pursuant to SFCC 1987 Section 2-1.11. And presenting is Councilor Carol Romero-Wirth, Parliamentarian, and Aaron McSher, City Attorney.

Mayor: Thank you for putting this together.

City Attorney: Thank you, Mayor, Councilors. And Councilor Romero-Wirth, feel free to jump in at any time. Yeah, can I give, can I give?

Councilor Romero-Wirth: Absolutely. So, what year was it? 2020 that we did a, 2021, 2022. There we go. All right. It's a blur. In 2022, we did a major overhaul of the Governing Body's rules of procedure. And I have known that as we've been using those rules and seeing how they work in practice, I know that the City Attorney has been taking notes and paying attention when we've come across things that maybe we didn't provide as clearly, or that maybe there was something we missed. And I think what you're going to see here is the product of her note-taking as we have used those rules in the last three years. And I think it's, you know, something for the Governing Body to consider going forward, whether these are changes that we'd like to make. I think some of them are very good, and now that, like many things, now that we've had experience with the rules, I think we can do some fine-tuning. So, I just wanted to mention that, and I'm very grateful that you were taking those notes over time.

City Attorney: Thank you, Councilor Romero-Wirth. And I did have the opportunity to sit down with Marcy this afternoon, too, and compare notes with her. So, that was also helpful. So, I refined some of my comments based on that conversation. So, thank you, Marcy. So, the annual parliamentary procedure review does include a framework that's not just the Governing Body's procedural rules. So, I'm going to put them in context. But what I've done this year is put things that are changes that impact the Governing Body that are not our own rules. Although one is our charter, which was approved by the Governing, by the voters this summer and fall. And then there, in green, I've included some ideas to consider that relate to what Councilor Romero-Wirth just mentioned. And then there's also some statutory changes at the state level that have impacted our procedures, which is why we're having our organizational meeting on a Thursday in January, or while I'm not going to be there, but while the Governing Body does that. So, that's one of the things that has changed this year because of a state statute that applies if we don't have a charter provision that overrides it. So, we don't have anything in our charter on that point, the timeline for our organizational meeting. So, I will start. We're doing this for a few reasons. The code requires the Governing Body to adopt a complete set of rules of order. The Mayor is required to select a Councilor to be the Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian is required to receive procedural training in parliamentary procedure upon appointment. The City Attorney or designate is supposed to receive periodic training in parliamentary procedures, which we've done. And Councilor Romero-Wirth, I think, also did some of those online trainings. So, we have recommendations for online training should anyone be interested. Various attorneys who have advised particularly the Planning Commission and some of those other committees that use more rigid rules have taken those trainings. And then the code also requires that we do an annual overview of the procedure. And so, this year we're highlighting some changes and ideas as well. So, our parliamentary law is more than just Robert's Rules because it's all the rules that apply to how we hold meetings and how we make decisions. So, we do have provisions of the New Mexico and U.S. Constitutions that apply. So, things like due process come up all the time in our meetings. And equal protection during public comment, for example. We have state statutes that apply, such as the Open Meetings Act. We have our City Charter. We have state statutes. This is an addition to this presentation that apply when there's not a conflicting charter provision. There weren't many state statutes about procedural rules really, but they did amend the section on municipalities this year to add some that do provide guidance where our City Charter does not. Those come after the City Charter. Then we have city ordinances regarding legislative procedures, and we have our procedural rules, and then we go to Robert's Rules at the very end. And then we also have customs. Customs are, you can use a custom until someone challenges it if it conflicts with an actual rule. So, once that happens, then you have to follow your rule. But until then, customs are okay to use if they're allowing the Governing Body to complete its work in an orderly and fair way. So, some of the examples we already mentioned are due process from the Constitution, First Amendment limitations. So, that's like not disallowing certain viewpoints during public comment, for example. We're not allowed to do that, and that comes up in all of our, all of our meetings. We couldn't say, "Only come up to the podium if you are in support of this matter." But we're not allowed to say that. Statutory parliamentary law, we have the requirement that we publish our ordinances two weeks before final action. That comes from the state statute. And the Open Meetings Act, lots of rules there. So, now we have this requirement that certain statutory parliamentary laws apply if the city's charter does not conflict. So, there are some new requirements that have come up there, and some do conflict with our charter, and therefore our charter governs, and other ones our charter is silent. So, the new section that was added, among others, says that in the event that a home rule municipality has adopted procedures in the municipality's charter that conflict with the provisions of Chapter 3, Article 11 or 12, which are about the Governing Body and the Mayor, the municipality's charter shall govern. So, where we have a provision, the charter governs, but where we are silent in the charter, even if we have an ordinance that conflicts with the statute, the statute will govern our procedures on that point. And if, and if the statute conflicts with our local rules, it will also govern, but only if our charter conflicts will statute not govern. So, an example of this is the organizational meeting, which there's a new section in 3-115 of state statute that requires the Governing Body to hold an organizational meeting no earlier than 15 days, but no later than 21 days. Extremely specific, and excluding the day we would have traditionally held our first meeting of the year.

And it is required that at the organizational meeting, the mayor shall submit for confirmation the names of persons who shall fill the appointed offices of the municipality. However, anyone who's still in office remains in office until they either resign or there's a new appointment, etc. Our charter is silent on the timing of our organizational meeting. There are other provisions about appointment in our ordinances and timing, but the organizational meeting timing is not in our charter. So, we have to follow the state statute in this case.

Here's an example of one of a new procedural law in state statute that does not apply to the city because our charter does conflict, and that is actually for the appointing of a vacant governing body member. So, state statute requires for a vote at the next meeting immediately following the vacancy to fill the vacancy if the vacancy has not been filled within 15 days after the vacancy occurred. So, statute says at the next meeting or within 15 days. City charter says within 30 days of the vacancy the appointment has to happen, and then the approval can happen up to two meetings later. So, pretty significant difference in timeline.

So, a change to our charter that relates to parliamentary law is one that's already been referenced tonight, and that is that now the mayor's vote is limited to ties and matters that require the mayor's vote for the governing body to act. So, we'll talk a little bit about the other types of things that might require the mayor's vote for the governing body to act as well this evening.

City ordinance also has parliamentary law, which is the assigned roles for the mayor, the clerk, the city council, city attorney, and city manager during governing body meetings, and the ordinance requiring fiscal impact reports for legislation before it appears for introduction, and the ordinance creating city council standing committees.

And then to the point Councilor Marth raised earlier, we've updated our local rules relatively recently for the governing body and the council standing committees. We have not updated the city committee rules. Those are pretty old, other than a couple updates we made in a separate resolution recently. But the city committee rules were last updated in 2009. There was a minor tweak that we did a couple years ago to allow them to meet 100% virtually if they're not subject to the Open Meetings Act. So, that was a tweak we made to the local rules for city committees.

When do Robert's Rules apply for the city? Basically, only when there's not an existing local law or rule on the topic. So, the number of rules required for calling the question, we go to Robert's Rules. We could locally govern that if we wanted to. We've chosen to defer to Robert's Rules.

Customs: A custom is a way of proceeding that's not included in any formal rule, but it turns to, it ends up feeling like a rule sometimes, and it can even be contrary to a local rule. But it would only change if someone calls a point of order, basically, and then once a point of order is called, then you have to follow the local rule. So, some examples previously with the governing body, this hasn't happened for a number of years, are friendly amendments. But in historic minutes of the governing body, there were friendly amendments made without a rule providing for them, and they are precluded by the Robert's Rules.

One that we're currently doing still that seems to be working is that we withdraw motions and seconds to motions without taking a vote. Robert's Rules actually says you should take a vote. You can't withdraw a motion and second to motion. But if it's working for the governing body, that's fine. It's faster. It's often very efficient. There's often a consensus. There's often a general sense of, "Wait, we did, we want a different motion. We shouldn't have to take a vote." So, and that's fine. But that's just a good example of a custom that has been adopted. It's been efficient, it's working. You could adopt it in rule if you'd like to. You don't have to, but if it becomes a problem, then you might want to.

So, I don't know if I'm going to go much into detail of the overview of the procedure rules because I think the issues that I want to highlight are mostly ideas for changing them if you'd like to, and/or I've also just noted some things where there's some inconsistencies or terminology problems that we probably want to fix. Oh, I'll just go to that. So, we'll talk through these. I'm going to start in the legislative process section. So, for those of you who might have your rules with you, it starts on page five. These are also posted online. I mean, the presentation is posted online for the public, but also all of these procedural rules are on the city's website. If you just search for "governing body procedural rules," you will find them.

I wanted to just highlight that our legislative process currently starts with introduction. We don't have any procedural rules about drafting, prioritization of drafting, method for requesting drafting, perhaps not drafting but submitting completely drafted bills. All of that is currently ungoverned, but it is something that if the governing body wished to have some sort of strategy around that, you could. Right now, it's all custom, 100% custom, without any rules. So, that could lend some help, I think, to staff. And it's, I think, a topic that's come up in a few venues over the last couple years. Prioritization of legislation, time spent on legislation before perhaps the governing body weighs in and says, "Yes, this is something we want staff to work on." None of that has direction currently, but it is the type of thing that you might want to consider as a body either in your procedural rules or through some other mechanism, but it could go into your legislative process. How do you decide the top 10 priorities for the year? We don't know right now. Currently, we have to juggle through things that are legally required, things that are priority for city policy, things that perhaps are avoiding a disaster, and then followed by that, priorities in order of the councilor's request, that kind of thing. So, but we don't have that guidance currently, and the city hasn't come up with a strategy on its own yet, but that's something that could be considered as part of the legislative process.

So, we start with introduction. I'm going to take a drink of water. And currently, I often get the question from staff if they are going to speak when an introduction occurs. Our procedure doesn't contemplate that. Currently, it's just the sponsors. So, that's something you might want to consider. Sometimes staff know more about legislation. Sometimes councilors know more about legislation. And that's a little bit of a theme. I think we were maybe overly prescriptive about when staff speaks versus when councilors speak in the rules. You might just want to make it more flexible. Like, make it, if the councilor wants staff to speak, great. If the councilor wants to speak, great. Or if the governing body member wants to speak, but right now we specify councilor first and staff second in various places of the rules. But I'm not sure that that's the type of thing you want to be as rigid around. Let's see. So, I think adding staff as an option for introduction and speaking to introduce is something that you might want to consider.

The next thing is that we have under introduction, at the time of the introduction, sponsors, and sponsors work with legislative staff to determine the schedule for legislation, and then at the time of introduction, that can be challenged. We don't provide for what happens if a piece of legislation is introduced in committee there, which does now and then happen. It's not very frequent. It does happen sometimes, but our current rules say that a challenge is subject to a vote by the entire governing body at the time of introduction. So, obviously, we can't have that type of a vote if something's introduced at committee. So, you might want more flexibility there to allow the committee where the introduction occurs to make that vote. Right now, it doesn't appear that they would be able to under the current rules, and that has come up.

Then moving on to first comment on bills, which is on page six of the governing body's procedural rules. There is a requirement there that for bills, which are the only type of legislation that has first public comment, on first public comment period, that the bill, that the legislation cannot go to a city council committee or advisory committee before first public comment. I recommend that we switch it so that only, that if that limitation continues to exist, you might want to think about it just being city council committees. That is because the advisory committees often only meet once a month, and that requirement really does cause a timeline issue. It really slows down the process. In addition, I think going to advisory committees could be helpful. Those advisory committees might come for first public comment, or people that heard about the bill because it went to advisory committees might hear about the bill more before it goes to first public comment. And I believe that the main intent there was that so the body would hear from the public before you started to amend, and that had been an issue is that we didn't have public comment until the end of the process under the prior version of the rules, and this first public comment was to really allow the governing body to hear from the public early in the process about what amendments you might want to make to the legislation and what should frame the discussion once you start to discuss in the city council committee. So, really, it seems like the important feature there is to not go to council committees until after first public comment, rather than to advisory committees. So, something to consider.

Again, this is prescriptive in terms of who provides a presentation. Staff shall provide a presentation not to exceed five minutes. I don't, by custom, we have not always done that. We sometimes do that. You may want to make that more flexible to be clear that it's an option or that perhaps the councilor might want to speak about their legislation before the public comment. So, that's a place where we're pretty specific where you might not want to be.

Moving on to city council standing committee review, one on the same page, page six. Currently, we require that legislation be considered by at least a city council standing committee prior to public hearing. We actually mean final passage because resolutions don't go to public hearing. So, that's just a technical, a technical fix that would be a good change.

Just a couple comments on amendments, which in the procedural rules start on page seven and go to page eight. Something that might be nice to clarify there is that amendments are essentially motions, but they're very, they are very varied motions, which is the reason for the written proposal. They're not a standard motion. They're a very specific motion. So, they're not legislation that stands on its own. They always relate to something that's already been introduced. And so, because of that, they're not introduced, they're not sponsored, but they are proposed as a motion. So, you might want to think about terminology that makes that more clear and seems to be a common, a common misnomer in terms of it being introduced and being sponsored. Another thing you might want to consider is requesting or suggesting that pages and line numbers appear in the written amendments.

That's been a challenge lately. Sometimes, if we get something written, it's not clear which page or line number something is being proposed, particularly when it's one of these last-minute amendments during governing body.

The next section I want to just briefly touch on is on page nine under "Meeting Types." We have a section under "Regular Meetings" that says that agenda items not considered prior to 11:30 shall be postponed to a subsequent meeting, provided the time, date, and place of such meeting is specified, but that a majority of the whole may choose to suspend the rule pursuant to Section 7. The problem there is that Section 7 calls for a two-thirds majority. So, either we have a special type of waiver and we're just cross-referencing waiver of the rules, and one requires a majority of the whole, which would be my current interpretation of that, or maybe we just made a mistake and they both should be two-thirds. Not clear. So, I don't know, but just to highlight that one is a majority of the whole, the other is a two-thirds majority. You also might want to consider whether or not you should have debate or amendments to those motions. I know that we've had a 15-minute debate before about whether to suspend that rule, and we've run into the time limit. So, right now, we don't specify whether there can be debate or amendments to that motion. Something to consider.

I'm going to skip forward to the consent agenda, which is on page 11 of the rules. Under the same section D, "Consent Agenda," there's a section that says that certain items are not appropriate for the consent agenda. The last one listed there is "items that have not received committee approval by one or more City Council standing committees." A custom that we have also established is to include items that would have been referred to an additional committee, but there was no time for them to go there. So, that's just something staff has been doing because we think it complies with the spirit of the rules. It did not pass the committee that would have otherwise gone to; it has gone to one, typically it's Finance since that's last now. But it may have missed Public Works, and maybe it's a Public Works contract. That's why you see those on discussion typically, because it didn't get the vote from Public Works, but it also just didn't go to Public Works at all. That's been a custom staff has imposed on ourselves. It's not in the rules currently, and so I've clarified that with staff because it feels like a rule because it's something we've been doing, but it's not absolutely required. It does seem to comply with the spirit of the rules, but the rule is silent on that issue. So, it probably could go on consent.

I'm going to skip forward to page 14, which is actually under the same, well, it's under the "Order of Business," which is part F of that same section. This is where we actually have a conflict under 17, "Public Comment on Bills." That's the first public comment on bills that we already talked about where the staff would give a presentation. This section says the main sponsor of the bill provides a one-minute overview. That's a conflict. So, we might want to change that to make it consistent. There's also a limitation there that says there's no debate, discussion, or action taken by the governing body. It came up at least once, and I had a note about this: What about additional referrals? Additional committee? So, you hear public comment, you realize suddenly this is going to impact another group of people you didn't realize before. You want to make a referral. So, you might want to make the limitation to be about the merits of the bill such that procedural motions would be allowed and clearly allowed, or make that clear. So, there is that conflict about who gets to speak that definitely should be dealt with.

Skipping forward to page 16 under "Public Hearings." Something we do as a custom in public hearings is allow the sponsors of bills and legislation, or it would be bills in a public hearing context, to make statements about the item that's not currently specifically provided for in the rules. Seems like a good idea to add and make it "and/or appropriate staff member." Currently, it talks about an appropriate staff member. Sometimes you might want it to be the councilor. Sometimes you might want to make it a staff member.

I think the final one really is that "Suspension Amendment of the Rules," which is at the end of the rules, page 21, part seven. It does call for a two-thirds majority. You might want to make that similar to "calling the question." Perhaps it shouldn't be amendable or debatable, or maybe you just want to limit it for certain types of suspension of the rules, like the 11:30 one, since you're likely already strapped for time at that point of the night. So, those are the recommendations that we've come across we think would be potentially places to consider streamlining, removing conflict, or clarifying.

The council committee procedural rules are also posted online. One thing I did want to just highlight is that there are only six, I believe it's six, yeah, six types of votes that can be taken at the committee level, and I think that led to some confusion recently. If you want to change that, obviously also fine. It just currently says "one of the following motions," and it's either "amend," "approve," "approve with amendments," "postpone," etc. So, I think we had done two of those motions previously or recently, and so that's why there was some confusion about what had happened at the committee when both motions were made.

From Robert's Rules, some of the motions we use quite frequently are "move to adopt," "move to amend," "point of order," which is what you would do if something is happening that doesn't follow the rules. "Lay on the table" we use to set aside something that we're going to pick up later at the same meeting. "Calling the previous question" is something I think we've used quite frequently lately. That one requires a two-thirds majority, non-debatable, non-amendable. "Move to reconsider." That one's one of the more unusual ones because someone who is in the majority has to make the motion on the prior motion. "Limiting or extending limits on debate." That's not something that has been done formally very often with the governing body, but we've done it informally by custom using the 10-minute rule without actually doing a motion. So, that would be another example of a custom. We do "commit and refer" all the time to different committees. "Postponing to a date certain," also very common. "Postpone indefinitely," not used very commonly, but essentially stops consideration of a matter forever. And that one at committee level would have to be a 5-0 vote under your current rules.

Those of you who use the Robert's Rules book, some of the main distinctions between types of motion categories are "main motion" versus "subsidiary." Subsidiaries have to happen after a main motion and relate to the main motion. Some are subject to debate, some are not. Some require a majority or a supermajority. Some require just a simple majority. Some require a majority of the whole. In this case, that would be five for this body. Some motions are in order only at certain times, and others are in order at any time. I find that these charts at the end of the Robert's Rules books are some of the most helpful. This first one categorizes the motions in order of precedence, so the top being the highest precedence in the order of whether they're debatable and undebatable and which one is subsidiary to others. So, that's a good table to reference. Another one is the "Table of Rules Relating to Motion." This is also at the end of Robert's Rules, and it talks about what type of motion it is, whether it's in order, whether it must be seconded, whether it's debatable, whether it's amendable. And so, that's a really quick, a really helpful quick reference. And then it also cross-references the chapters that relate to that motion. So, if you're looking for a quick reference to figure something out, this is very helpful and is at the back of all the Robert's Rules editions.

Just a quick reminder on voting, and this is where I just wanted to tie it back to our new prior amendment. I've highlighted that particular provision on voting. Some motions require a supermajority or a specific number of votes. So, those are the types of votes where the Mayor might be voting where it's not a tie. So, if there was a "calling the question" and there were just below what we needed for two-thirds, the Mayor could make that, make that vote. And ordinances, a majority of the whole is needed. So, even if only five people are present, which is a quorum, allows the governing body to take action, all five would have to vote for an ordinance in under that circumstance. If there were six, still at least five would need to vote in that circumstance. So, if there were four votes to one, the Mayor could be the fifth vote and adopt an ordinance. So, and that probably is more likely to come up if there's like three to four votes or something like that when one or two people are gone and the Mayor would need to vote in order to get to five, should the Mayor wish to do so. So, it could even come up tonight. There's an ordinance on the agenda.

So, I think that concludes my presentation. If anyone has any questions or comments, hopefully this was, this made this presentation useful. For my last procedures, I'm going to send out my actual annotations as well in the PDF version. I'm going to add a little bit to the version I sent to Councilor Meworth and Councilor Cassidy earlier to see if they made sense to them. So, I'm going to add what I got with Marcy and some clarifications that I thought of since then. So, does anyone have any questions or discussion?

Mayor: Thank you very much. Are there questions about the presentation? I think it's going to be incredibly useful going forward and also to have the chance to review it in document form so you individuals can annotate it, and someone on the dais will have the opportunity to be the next in line to take this up. So, thank you for the thorough briefing. Any questions, comments? Thank you, Madam City Attorney. Madam Clerk, I think that completes the presentations for tonight and takes us to the first item that was taken off of consent.

Clerk: That item is item 9H. It's a request for approval of a budget amendment resolution to allocate $3,70,59 from prior year FY2025 general fund balances to establish budget authority for transfers to the affordable housing trust fund discussed in prior year's budget narrative. And here to present is Finance Director Emily Oster.

Mayor: Can we request the 10-minute rule?

Clerk: Sure. I think this, we will, we have two people who asked this taken off of consent, and we'll go to them after a brief overview from Director Oster and then ask both Councilor Marworth and Councilor Michael Garcia, who took it off of consent, to have their opportunity to raise questions or make comments before everybody on the governing body has a chance to weigh in. We will go with the provision of going around as often as frequently as necessary to get the issues illuminated at 10 minutes per person. Go ahead, Director Oster, you have the floor. Thank you for being here.

Director Oster: Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body. I'm glad to be here this evening. We have had some good discussion recently about this proposed budget adjustment, including in Finance Committee on Monday night, and I'm delighted to be with you this evening to continue that conversation.

As you may have read in the BAR memo, the staff of the Finance Department and the Affordable Housing Trust, the Affordable Housing Department, have been working together on a reconciliation of Affordable Housing Trust Fund activity. That came out of requests to provide a balance for the fund, and that project has been ongoing for about a year at this point. It has taken a lot of folks a lot of hours, and I really want to commend that good work to go through all of the details and make sure that we arrive at the right answer.

Staff of Finance and Affordable Housing have been diligently working together for about the last year to reconcile and separate out the Affordable Housing Trust Fund activity from a larger fund that's referred to as the Community Development Fund. In the financial statements that we're working on wrapping up right now for the year ended June 30th, 2025, we will be presenting the Affordable Housing Trust Fund as a separate fund for the first time since at least the inception of Munis. In FY26, the current fiscal year, the process is underway to establish a separate fund in Munis that will be only the Affordable Housing Trust Fund activity.

In the process of reconciling the Affordable Housing Trust Fund activity, we looked at the transfers into the fund, and we identified that there was a difference between some of the language that we talked about in the budget books and the actual transfers that went into the fund. So, we dived into that to make sure that we could understand why that difference existed. What came to light was that when the transfers were made at the end of each fiscal year, the amount that was actually transferred wasn't the full amount of the budget authority that was granted. It was the amount that was needed to cover the actual expenditures of the fund. I will say that that's normal. We don't always fully expend the full amount of budget authority that we have. We know we can't spend more than the total budget authority, but we do sometimes spend less. In this case, the actual transfers into the fund were enough to cover the expenditures of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, but not necessarily equal to the full $3 million that had been budgeted. That is detailed by fiscal year on the second page of the memo in Table 1.

You'll see that over the years, particularly FY22, FY23, and FY24, the amounts of the actual transfers were less than what was allocated or discussed in the budget book for those years. You'll also see that in FY25, the amount was higher. That was because some of the amount that was not spent in FY24 was carried forward into FY25. So, you can see the actual transfer in FY25 was $3.75 million.

As we were going through this analysis, which is included as Attachment B to the memo, we needed to identify if there were any unexpired contracts for prior year awards of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. We identified that there are three totaling about $1.3 million. So, those are obligations of the fund. They're valid contracts that are still in effect through June 30th of 2026 that have not been paid out by the city yet.

I'm going to go to Attachment B and just talk through that a little bit. You'll see that Attachment B goes back to FY21, and it tracks the beginning balance, revenues in, expenses out, and the ending balance each year for the activity of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which up until the current fiscal year was part of the Community Development Fund. So, you'll see that each year's ending balance becomes the next year's beginning balance, and it kind of rolls forward that way. In FY26, you'll see under the line that says "unaudited balance as of November 12th, 2025," you'll see that we have some additional items. Those amounts under the line are things that haven't happened yet, but things that we project or anticipate are going to happen in the remainder of FY26.

There is some uncertainty associated with any projection, and when we do budgeting, that's something that we face all the time. Budgeting is an estimate. It's based on our expectations and based on the information that we have. We use prior year actuals as part of the basis for our budgeting when we can, when that information is available. We use things like current economic forecasting. Dr. Riley White works with us to help us develop revenue estimates when we're building the budget. So, I will say that it's normal to use estimates in the budgeting process. That's how our budget is built. So, these amounts on the lower part of the page of Attachment B for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund analysis are our estimates of what activity we think may occur in the remainder of the current fiscal year.

Another thing that I want to really emphasize and make clear is that even though the actual transfers into the fund for FY22, FY23, and FY24 are less than $3 million, there was budget authority during the fiscal year of $3 million. The grants that were made from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund by the Community Development Fund, I'm sorry, recommended by the Community Development Fund Commission and approved by the governing body, those grants, they were fully funded. Those grants are operated on a reimbursement basis. So, if we provide a grantee $1 million of grant funds, we don't just give them a check for a million dollars when we award them the grant. We give them an award letter. They have to spend the money, and then they submit documentation to us showing that they've spent the money in accordance with the terms of the award, and we reimburse them for those expenditures. So, the full amount per year, the full $3 million amount per year, was granted out by the Community Development Commission, but the grantees didn't always expend the full amount of their award in the particular fiscal year. Again, I would say that's very normal.

Just to put it in the context of other types of grant awards, the legislature makes capital outlay appropriations to entities all over the state every year. Very often, those grants are not fully expended within the term, and sometimes they need to be reauthorized, sometimes they're reappropriated for different projects. The nature of these reimbursement-based grants is that oftentimes there are additional time needed, or sometimes the funds don't get spent for the original purpose, and they get reallocated to something else. So, the point that I really wanted to make, though, was that there was budget available for $3 million a year of investment in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and the Community Development Commission made grants in the amount of $3 million a year. But the grantees, when they actually submitted their reimbursements in each year, those reimbursements didn't always equal exactly $3 million a year.

One other point that I'd like to make here, back on Attachment B, regarding the projected activity for the remainder of the fiscal year, the first three items are unexpired contracts that have amounts remaining that can be spent on them. So, those are things where we have a contract in place. The entity already received an award, and they're in the process of doing the project. They haven't spent all the money yet. They haven't requested reimbursement, but they are entitled to it. If they request that reimbursement before their grant expires, we'll pay them for that.

The next item that's projected is this BAR. If this BAR were not approved, we would remove that from the projection. The item after that relates to the external grants line up above, higher up on the page. That is a grant that was passed through to us from the State of New Mexico, which we then passed on to the Civic Housing Authority. So, that situation is that we have paid the Civic Housing Authority $2 million, and we are awaiting reimbursement from DFA for that. So, that's kind of a wash.

The next item is the $3,675,000 of new grants for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Those are the new round of awards. Then the items below that are projected revenues. The first three for fee-in-lieu, infrastructure loan payments, and land sales are budgeted. Those are included in our operating budget. The last one for the excise tax is not yet budgeted. That's just an estimate. Of course, we don't know if those revenues will come in at exactly those amounts. But those top three were budgeted based on things like prior year activity and conversations with folks in the Affordable Housing Trust, excuse me, the Affordable Housing Department, about what they expect to occur during FY26. With that, Mayor, I'll stand for questions. I know I spoke for a long time.

Mayor: That was a good overview. Let me entertain a motion before we go to discussion here.

Councilor: Motion to approve.

Mayor: We have a motion to approve and a second. That at least gets the matter on the table. Councilor Michael Garcia, do you want to take the floor, sir?

Councilor Garcia: I'll pass, and I'll go after Councilor Romero.

Mayor: Councilor Romero Worth, you have the floor.

Councilor Romero Worth: Okay, thank you. You're clocking me. All right, awesome. Director Oster, I want to thank you for a very thorough presentation tonight. I think you keep getting better at this. You were great at Finance Monday night, and I think you've hit all the high points. In fact, I'm not sure I have much to add because I think you did make all the points. But I do really want to emphasize perhaps a few things that you did talk about. If you could just briefly, it's sort of a teachable moment. The role of BARs, Budget Adjustment Requests, basically provide authority to spend. Correct? Remember, I only have 10 minutes, so I'm going to dock through this as fast as possible.

Director Oster: Yes, Madam Chair. A BAR is a change to the original budget that was approved. So, when we bring forward a BAR for consideration at Governing Body, we're requesting to make a change to the approved budget. In this case, we're requesting to have authority to transfer $3,70,59 from the General Fund fund balance to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund balance. That amount represents the amount that was unspent in FY23, 20, no, FY24, 23, and 22. Correct? Mr. Mayor and members of the Governing Body, that amount is on page two of the memo. It represents the difference between what was allocated in the budget and the actual transfers.

Councilor Romero Worth: Right, right. That budget authority, as you said in your presentation, the budget authority was there in each of those fiscal years, but at the end of the fiscal year, it stopped. Because we work on a reimbursement system, we need to, if we want to continue to have that money available to spend, we need to give new authority for that amount.

Director Oster: Madam Chair, that is correct. Our budget operates on an annual basis. So, that budget authority, for example, from FY22, is no longer available. We're coming to you this evening to request budget authority in FY26 to make that transfer.

Councilor Romero Worth: Right. I guess I want to emphasize as well that this took all summer. I mean, I think during the budget process last year is perhaps when this understanding that there wasn't a separate fund became most acute, but it has taken all summer to pull the Affordable Housing Trust Fund out of the Community Development Fund and make it be able to see this chart that you've provided us as Attachment B, an unaudited accounting of all the different factors in this fund.

Mayor and members of the governing body, Councilor Romero, yes, that is correct. It has been a lengthy process to identify and pull out all of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund activity from the Community Development Fund. It's been really most of calendar year 2025 that staff has been working on this diligently, trying to make sure that we get it right. And we've just recently arrived at a place where we were all in agreement and we feel comfortable with the numbers.

Right. Right. And so I think this coming forward now is warranted because of the importance of this fund and the interest in this fund. You knew you were going to be asked a lot of questions, and we've already spent a lot of time on this, just the Finance Committee, and we're going to spend more time tonight. But you would not have been able to provide all the information you are providing this week without the work that has taken the better part of the year to come to.

Mr. Mayor and Councilor Marworth, that is correct. We just recently came to a place where we felt comfortable with these numbers, just in the last couple of weeks. And I think the other thing I want to emphasize is that no money was spent that there wasn't budget authority for, and that would have actually been a problem.

Mr. Mayor, members of the governing body, that's correct. Over-expending the budget would have been a problem. We did not exceed the amount that was budgeted. We actually spent less than what was budgeted, and that's normal. In this case, I think there was a disconnect between what people understood to be happening and what actually happened. And that's why I'm bringing this forward for your consideration this evening, to make you aware of this difference and to propose this additional bar and transfer as a way to resolve that difference. And so, to be clear, the CDC each year has been making $3 million in recommendations. The governing body approved $3 million in contracts to carry out the recommendations of the CDC and to actually issue these awards to the nonprofits.

Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body, yes, that is my understanding that each year the CDC made recommendations totaling the full amount of the budget authority. Contracts were prepared, they were brought forward to the governing body, approved, and they were in place for those awards. And I guess to me, the real story here is because we work on a reimbursement system, and the intent of the governing body was to spend $3 million, and in fact, $3 million was recommended, was approved in contracts, was issued to nonprofits. The real story here is that those awards were not fully spent, and that has taken time to figure out which awards hadn't been spent, which awards still were under contract authority to have the ability to spend their money, which awards might need to have their contract authority extended, and what available money there actually is that never got spent, doesn't have any contract authority, and therefore we could issue an RFP and get that money out to new awardees.

Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body, Councilor Marworth, that sounds correct to me.

Okay. And I just want, I chair the Community Development Commission. We've had some preliminary conversations about this, and I can tell you that the commissioners are very interested in knowing the details. And in fact, I just approved an agenda today for our meeting next week where we will be going over this in fine detail to look at what awards weren't fully spent and why. And I think that going forward, it will be something that the commissioners will want to have better real-time information. And so we'll be, now that we have this separate fund and this separate accounting, we can look at this every single year and make sure that when the commissioners are very interested in when they make awards, that they are making them appropriate for the capacity of a particular nonprofit. If, for instance, we gave them more money than they could actually get out, then maybe we should have been using that money in a different place. And if there were particular issues with how we awarded the money, that we'll have a better sense of that, and we can factor that into the awards that are made going forward. And I can tell you the commission is very interested in this, and I think this work that has taken the better part of the year to come to is well-timed as we move into, you know, potentially a future where we have more money in this fund if the excise tax, I know there are issues, there's a new lawsuit, but let me, let's talk about that really quickly. We didn't, we haven't budgeted the money that we think we're getting from the excise tax. We haven't spent that money, and given the fact that we are facing litigation again, I think we would just hold, right? We wouldn't do anything with that money while we wait to see what happens so that we aren't, you know, issuing grants and then having to claw back money that we aren't entitled to if the lawsuit doesn't go our way. And I don't know, that may be more for you than you can handle and may need the City Attorney.

Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body, I have 40 seconds. The thing that I can tell you for sure is that none of the projected revenue from the excise tax has been budgeted or appropriated to be spent for any purpose.

Okay, I'll wait for another turn, and thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilor. Back to you, Michael Garcia.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Director Oster, thank you for spending some time with me and the City Manager to go through this spreadsheet on the accounting that you and your team worked on over the past year. I truly appreciate it, just because as they say, the devil's in the details, and especially in a process like this where we need to ensure that every single penny is accounted for. Given that we allocate this money out in grants, it's imperative that we ensure that we have the money to cover the money that's going out the door. And so with that being said, it's my job and my priority, not only as a councilor, but the incoming Mayor, to ensure that we have the money. And so I brought to your attention yesterday some discrepancy regarding the fee-in-lieu payment that was provided to me by staff, former Director Ladd, versus information you have on your spreadsheet. And so for example, in the information provided to me by Director Ladd, in calendar year 2021, we received at least $73,000 in fee payment. 2022, at least $188,000 in fee payment. On your chart here, there's nothing. Were we able to determine why there was this discrepancy between what staff accounting was providing me and what's accounted for on your chart?

Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body, Mayor-Elect Garcia, so I did research that discrepancy after we met yesterday evening, and I reached out to some of the staff that have been in the Affordable Housing Group for a while. They provided me with a spreadsheet that they've been using to track fee-in-lieu, and I need to do an exercise with them to reconcile the numbers on their spreadsheet to what we have in the Munis accounting system. The numbers in Attachment B are based on our Munis accounting system. It's possible that those amounts that you referenced were accounted for in a different org object back in those years, FY21 or 22. I haven't been able to determine that with certainty yet, but I am making progress working with the team in Affordable Housing to answer that question.

Okay. Thank you, Director Oster. So, there's still work that needs to be done on that front. Now, with a program such as this, I mean, significant is an understatement in the sense of the investment that we've been making and the commitment we've been making to this fund. It's imperative that we get it correct. And so I think the frustrating thing for me is this is an issue that I have to say I had a gut assumption for, and this is why I was asking for information on this particular fund for years. And so what's even more frustrating is to hear and learn that staff knew about this, or at least I think it was said that folks have been working on this for the last year, yet the governing body was not made aware of this. So, let me ask this question, Director Oster. When you or your team was aware of this issue, who did you alert? Did you alert the City Manager?

Mr. Mayor and Councilor, Mayor-Elect Garcia, which issue? The fact that there was not a separate fund?

The fact that there was not a separate Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and we had to begin the process to figure out these funds. So, when your staff began to work on this matter, was the City Manager alerted to this?

Mr. Mayor and Mayor-Elect Garcia, I think the public was well aware that we were struggling with...

Please answer my question. Was the City Manager aware of this?

I'm going to jump in because...

Okay. So, but I don't know if you're on board because can I get clarification? Because you said over the last year, was it over the last year, 2025, or was it prior to City Manager coming on board, City Manager Scott?

Mr. Mayor and Councilors, Mayor-Elect Garcia, so your question is when did I become aware that there was...

Let's start off when you became aware. Let's start to frame out when this issue was brought to your attention and you directed staff to begin to work on this particular matter.

Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body, I became aware of this when we began being asked to provide a balance for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and we couldn't do it. However, I will note that in the city's publicly issued financial statements, going back to FY20, there is no discreetly presented Affordable Housing Trust Fund. That's public information. Those reports were available to everyone. I should have asked the question earlier, and I'm taking ownership of that. As Finance Director, I should have realized that there should have been a separate fund in the financial statements much earlier than I did. And I take responsibility for that, and that information was available to everyone, to the public.

Let me get that the second. Go ahead.

Yes, go ahead. And I'm going to object a little bit because I think the line of questioning here is suggesting a failure, maybe even intentionally, to not advise the City Council of something that a governing body should be aware of. And that's ridiculous. That's not at all true. It never has been true. It's not uncommon that you have funds that have different revenue sources and different expenses. This city, since 2007, I heard yesterday in the meeting with you, we started having funds received for this purpose that have been intermixed with this Community Development Fund for a long time. So, it's not like we didn't have a fund where this money was going. We always did. And the governing body received audits year after year after year that didn't have a separate freestanding Affordable Housing Fund. Now, do I think that you should have had that? Yeah, I do. And I became aware of this somewhere in the last year that we needed to have this because I couldn't, I sat through the budget reviews, and whenever it was, and people couldn't identify the total exactly. So, we've been working on it since then. No secret that we've been working on it since then. It was discussed during the budget meetings ad nauseam. Go back and listen to them.

The discussion came up over and over, but nobody had actually identified that the solution to that was creating an affordable housing trust fund. I think many people thought we had one because the narrative referred to it. So, we've solved that problem. We've taken the time. We've taken the effort to put it together. But the implication that anybody had chosen not to inform the governing body is frankly just offensive. And you need to quit doing that to people. You're going to be our leader. We need to trust the person who's coming into that leadership role to be fair. And Mr. Garcia, you're not fair. You're often not fair. I've completely had it, and I'm sorry, but I'm not sitting through another one of these interrogations, gotcha moments, when you're saying things that just aren't true and you're casting aspersions on perfectly good people who don't deserve to have those things thrown at them. And so I'm sorry, and you and I obviously are done. And I'm sorry, at the end of the year, I do wish you all the success in the world, and I hope this for this city, that you figure out how to be the leader that I hope you will be.

Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Scott. And it's my responsibility to understand when information is known that it's shared with the appropriate leaders of the governing body. As I mentioned, what is extremely frustrating is that it was known by staff that I was asking for this information. And to your point, Mr. Scott, when the information was known, it could have been even a courtesy email to say, "Hey, look, we're investigating this. This has come to our attention," instead of that radio silence. And the point I'm trying to make is that it's obvious then I'm trying to figure out who knew what when, because I did not know anything until last week when I was told that there was not an affordable housing trust fund. There are certain requirements by law, especially when we take on funding outside of the city, when we're looking at grants, whether they be state or federal, that there be separation of funds. And when we as the governing body are given the information, whether it's through budget or anything else, for us to move forward with the intention that there is a separate fund, it's imperative that it be brought to our attention when there wasn't a fund. Now, I'm not trying to call into fact right now that there wasn't the fund and we're not trying to remedy the situation.

The challenge here is that this was a known issue, and this known issue was not brought to the attention of the leaders of the body of the government to ensure that we are taking the appropriate action to move forward appropriately. That's my concern here.

Councilor: No, I think we did.

Councilor: I think we did. And I think you need to go back and listen to the...

Councilor: Nobody ever once, and please point to me in documentation where it was stated to the governing body that there was not a separate standalone affordable housing trust fund.

Councilor: Where is it in the... Where did you ever find that in the audits you reviewed year after year while you were a member of this governing body?

Councilor: That's not part of the audits because it wasn't audited. Yeah, exactly. And on the point of audit...

Councilor: In the community development...

Councilor: On the point of audits, is this likely to be an audit finding?

Councilor: Mr. Mayor, members of the governing body, I can't speak for CRI on what...

Councilor: Has this been disclosed to CRI?

Councilor: Yes.

Councilor: Okay, good. I'm glad to. So, it sounds like my 10 minutes are up. I do have much more questions, and the reason I have much more questions is because an item like this should have gone to the Quality of Life Committee. And instead of going to the proper process of going through the Quality of Life Committee, I'm having to now spend 20 minutes answering questions that could have been asked at the committee level. So with that, I'll yield the floor.

Mayor: Thank you, Counselor. I think, Counselor, you've put your hand up to speak next.

Councilor: Thank you, Mayor. So, this is an example of, I wish we were spending time on addressing how to move forward instead of what people did wrong in the past, because it doesn't fix anything. So, there are clearly things that need to be addressed moving forward, and I wish that we would spend time on that. I think that the work that you did is what brought those things to light, and that should be highlighted. Your staff didn't spend the year trying to sort this out and come to a place where we could be provided a balance to the trust fund and get specific answers answered, because that's been the problem, right? Historically, we've brought questions forward. We couldn't get an exact answer. Often in conversations, I've had conversations, it felt like estimates we were given, and it was very clear it was because they didn't have any solid things in front of them. And so we're at a place now where that's resolved. So now we should be discussing as a governing body, because we should be working to make things better moving forward. So what do we do next?

So my big concerns in looking this is just what Councilor Romero Worth kind of looked at or mentioned was, I've been on both sides of grants. So, I've been an issuer, and I've been one that's had to meet requirements. And there are supposed to be ongoing conversations that happen with those individuals when they're awarded funds, like what requirements are you meeting? You're not spending within a certain deadline. Should we be moving those accounts? So, that's something obviously we're going to have to address. I'm sure we have a plan. I would love to get some insight on how we would address that, because that's a bigger problem for me. When I see that we're spending way below what was granted, I'm like, how many other projects could have been funded that year, and we're talking about being in a housing crisis and unable to house our community members? To me, that's a bigger issue that should be discussed. I would love to hear some insight that Babiola you have in that, if you don't mind, if you're... [laughter] because I think these are the conversations we should be having. We've had staff that did great work over the last year, resolving a very evident issue. So now let's talk to staff about how we're going to move forward in fixing this, because those are the things I'd like to hear about tonight. So I give you the floor if you don't mind expanding on your thoughts in some of those issues. Absolutely.

Councilor: Can you get the mic really close to your mouth? Thank you.

Councilor: Councilor Chavez, Mr. Mayor, I want to just tell you that this has been very frustrating for everyone. One of our discussions today with Councilor Romero Worth, we talked about potentially doing a financial analysis of our applicants to ensure that they have a gap and to ensure that their projects are shovel-ready when they come to us. That's part of the issue that a lot of this funding that didn't get utilized when it was appropriated was these projects were not shovel-ready. That means they did not have their permits in place. They didn't have all of the requirements from the planning department. And so we need to do a better fiduciary responsibility and really look at these applicants from a financial model to ensure the gap truly does exist, and then also to ensure that they are in fact shovel-ready projects. Another thing that comes to mind is, were we awarding some of these organizations or some of these applicants the next year or the next year when we already knew they weren't spending their funds? And I don't expect you to answer that now, but that would be information I'd want to know. Because that's another hiccup, right? We need to be able to track those individuals and make sure that we're not giving funds to individuals that have shown evidence that they can't spend those effectively with a successful project and a promise that they've made to the city to receive those funds in the first place.

Councilor: Councilor Travis, you're precise on that. We need to have regular meetings with our recipients to ensure that they are spending down the funds as allocated in their contract, and also that they are deploying the funds as they should. So, and that has not been done. There has been a vacancy in this department for over a year and a half. So, unfortunately, that was not done. But we have done meetings with the current recipients in 2022 awards in 2024 that did not spend down their funding. We have had communication with them.

Councilor: Mayor, governing body, if I may add, the three outstanding obligated grants, those expire in June of 2026. And also as we look at the recent recommendations for affordable housing trust fund awards, in addition to working with and contacting the organizations and negotiating these contracts for award, we also prioritized reaching out to every single applicant who did not receive an award to identify whether or not they have an emergency acute need that they may have been expecting to receive, because we did change our approach this year in prioritizing development over services. So we're following up on that part as well.

Councilor: Great. I think what would be helpful, so this was kind of the first step in the solution. So, Director, thank you and your team for getting us to this place. I think the next portion would be receiving a presentation of that. So what's the breakdown? Where do we move from there? Because we need to know how to move forward. We could be caught in the past forever. That's not doing us or the community any good. And just because I have the floor, I'm going to say I specialize in restorative practices for education. So in my second job, my whole message is about restorative practices and how ineffective punitive and exclusionary practices and discipline impact human beings, especially our youth. I will say there is being transparent and there's being transparent in a way that still allows our team members to be successful. And being transparent in a punitive way does not allow our team members to build better with us or alongside us. And it's not my opinion, it's literal research. That is why as a state of New Mexico, we are going that way for all of the youth we serve in the education system. So with that being what we're doing for the youth that look up to us, I would hope that we would practice that way as leaders. It is amazing for us to come and be very transparent in these issues we've come across, and now these are the solutions. And it be about progress and us giving room for our team members to tell us how we're going to make it better. And you all have the capability of doing that. We saw it just now. And I think that's how we as a city government grow better. And I just had to mention that because none of you can change the past. Many of this was done prior to any of you held position here. So I don't know how you can speak for it in all honesty. I feel like it's just causing chaos amongst our community and a roar that can't be answered and one that's quite irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that we have individuals on our staff and on our team right now that's saying, "Hey, this is where we're at. This is what happened, and this is what we're willing to do to make it better." That's who I want to work with, and those are the discussions I want to have. So, I want to thank you for that.

Mayor: Thank you, Counselor. We have two hands up, three hands up. Counselor Faulkner, you were next in line, and then I'll come down to you, Counselor Caster.

Councilor: I just, I look at the situation from two places. One as someone who does organizational development, which I harp on all the time, there was a huge gap in communication throughout some long process that happened through several administrations. It appears that's of concern to me. And then it makes me wonder, are there other gaps that we don't know about, and do we need to look for those gaps? But I do, that being said, and I don't want to diminish that with what I'm about to say.

That being said, I do think that it takes a lot of courage that if you find a problem this big, you come forward and you tell the governing body about the problem because there's going to be a blame game that's going to happen, and some of it maybe is warranted, some maybe not. I agree with Councilor Chavez. I think we need to look more at solutions. I do think it's important to know how we got here and to analyze that and to ask questions about that because however we got here, it's a great possibility that there are other places in the organization where this is occurring because if this happened, it's likely it's happening in other spaces. And I don't think it's one administration over another. I think it's a lineage of administrations that weren't tracking things like this. We're an organization that evolves over four to eight-year spans in time. And there's not a lot of communication from one leadership group to another. And that's what makes governance dangerous at the city level, at the state level, and the federal level, is we think in four to eight-year spans of time. We don't think as leaders in 100-year spans or in 1,000-year spans like honestly China and the Middle East think in longer spans. And so this is the concern for me as a leader at the city right now, if there's this big of a gap in communication between one leadership role to another or between one administrative leader to another, there's likely other spaces where this is happening. And I don't know how we blame anyone for this because it happened over multiple administrations. And so all I want to focus on now is let's identify those gaps, let's get them solved, and let's keep moving to make the city work better for the people of Santa Fe.

Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Castro, you had your hand up next, and then I'll come down to you. Councilor Cass.

Councilor Cass: Yes, thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Director Oster. Thank you to everyone who has given their opinion and presentation today. There are a few questions that I have. I don't want to belabor this. I think we've all stated that it is really important, the work that you've done. We've come a long way. Some of the first presentations that I got was to the updating of our systems and in particular our technology. And so I'm hoping that this is a reflection of the new capabilities that we are going to have in the upcoming fiscal years with being able to really use those technologies to the best of our ability. That being said, I heard if organizations truly have a gap. And the reason that is a little triggering to me is, are we funding organizations that are already fully funded or have projects that are fully funded?

Councilor Castro: Mr. Mayor, it's plausible we haven't been doing a financial analysis, an underwriting of the projects. So we also have not been receiving commitment letters, which we should be doing in our packets to ensure that these projects are truly needable projects. So we have a fiduciary responsibility. We have to ensure that that does happen.

Mayor: Thank you. No, and very important. I think we all understand how important making sure we're crossing our T's and dotting our I's are, especially when it comes to fiduciary responsibilities. And to Councilor Falner's point, it does sort of raise some red flags that this could be happening in other places. I know we've had some private discussions about projects that we thought were really great and amazing, but potentially weren't what we thought they were. So I won't take up any more time, but I do want to put up the red flag that thank you for that. We need to really be much more diligent with this work.

Mayor: Thank you, Councilor, and Councilor Cassen.

Councilor Cassen: Thank you, Mayor. I again really just want to thank Director Oster and your team. As Councilor Falner reiterated, as I said at finance, it really does take a lot of—I actually, like my podcast, I was listening to a really interesting one about why you don't see innovation in government, and it's because of the fear of criticism that if you do something wrong, the criticism is not just from within the organization, it's a very public space. Unfortunately, we have seen that occur very often in these chambers. And I agree with Councilor Chavez, a lot of times it is this, like, "Okay, great, thank you for finding a problem, now what do we do?" So I really, really do appreciate that work. I think Councilor Castro also hit a note with our systems have shifted. I mean, there's been a lot of changes in our systems. Munis, the Munis upgrade, then wasn't upgraded enough that then we had to re-upgrade. And to this point, I think that we should be prepared for the idea that this will continue to develop. This will continue to change. The projects that we decide are the most important to fund will continue to change. So, Fabella, this may be a question for you, but I would hazard a guess that some of these funds that were not fully expended potentially were some of the funds that we were giving to things like down payment assistance and rental assistance. And one of the challenges there wasn't that these projects weren't shovel-ready. It's that there was nowhere that people could actually afford a house even with down payment assistance. There weren't places that people could rent even with rental assistance. So some of this has to do with our pipeline. Am I understanding that correctly? With the housing market in general?

Fabella: Mr. Mayor, Councilor Casset, you're correct.

Councilor Cassen: Wonderful. Thank you. And Councilor Marworth, I believe that the CDC has shifted their focus this year under your leadership to really recognizing this was part of the problem to how do we actually get more houses built, affordable units built. Am I understanding that correctly that that has changed?

Councilor Marworth: Yes, Councilor. And in fact, on the consent agenda that we approved, we approved a little over $3 million, $3.7 million in grants, and it's all to build housing.

Councilor Cassen: Yeah, thank you. And this may shift. We may get to a place where, hey, we're doing a really good job. We have a great stock. And at this point, we are going to need to put more dollars towards these payment assistance programs because there are places for people to put that money. So, I think that we should be very, we should always be flexible in terms of these programs that we know are going to last for a while. We know that when the affordable housing trust fund as a concept was first developed, we were not on Munis. I know that there was a lot of, I'm pretty sure there were still Excel spreadsheets that were running a lot of our city finances. There have been numerous changes. And yeah, there are other places that this is a problem. We've had this conversation with capital projects. This has been a huge conversation around how do we decide where our dollars need to go for infrastructure? How much money do we have? What are the list of projects? What are they all going to cost? And we've had these conversations almost ad nauseam. I know in finance, I know in budget hearings. And there we've been looking for solutions for how do we get there? I think this is also a place that our current city management team with City Manager Scott and Deputy City Manager Phillips and Mr. Schoold have been really identifying these areas of things that we do that we've always done this way that don't make sense. And I've been really appreciative of these conversations because to Councilor Travis's point, it's not about blame. It really is about, okay, this isn't working the way we've been doing it. Maybe it worked once upon a time, doesn't work anymore, or there's experience in understanding where this is done better. And really supporting that it's going to take some time and it's going to take some challenges. And even with this fund separating it out as a fund, we may find that there are things here that are not working. So, Director Oster, a couple things about what is going to be the primary difference in how this fund operates now that it is teased out as its own separate fund. And I think that we should also clarify a couple words here. The affordable housing trust fund in our brains has always been dollars that the city is putting towards affordable housing. The word fund actually has a more technical meaning, and we actually have a lot of things that are, there's a how we would think of a fund of like, oh, there's the Ice Arena fund, but that is part of the Chavis Center budget. So, can you talk a little bit both about that relationship and then also what does it really mean in terms of how this fund is going to operate moving forward now that we have pulled it out?

Director Oster: Mr. Mayor and Councilors, Councilor Casset, thank you very much for that question. I think that's really important. Fund is a term of art in accounting that refers to a specific, what we look at as an opinion unit in the audit world. We have major funds and we have non-major funds that are reported in the financial statements. So I would say the main difference that you're going to see right away in FY25 is that the affordable housing trust fund will have its own column in the financial statements that shows revenues, expenses, fund balance, assets, liabilities. It'll have a statement of revenues and expenditures. It'll have a balance sheet. It'll be on its own. It was in the financial statements in the past, but it was part of the community development fund. So, you couldn't open the report and say, "Okay, where's the affordable housing trust fund?" The activity was there, but it was in the column that said community development. Going forward, starting with this year, FY25, it'll be in a column titled affordable housing trust fund.

Councilor Cassen: Wonderful. And then in terms of understanding the fund balance and carryover, we do not do multi-year budgeting in this city. So if we have dollars left over in our now officially teased out affordable housing trust fund, it does not necessarily roll over to the next year unless we as a governing body allocate those dollars to roll over and then add more if we so choose. Am I understanding that process correctly as well?

Director Oster: Mr. Mayor and Councilors, Councilor Casset, yes. So the example that I would use is the budget for personnel. We establish a budget for personnel, and that's the maximum that we can spend. But we can spend less, and sometimes we do, if we have vacancies or for other reasons, we might not spend all of our expenditure budget on things like personnel contracts, other uses. It's very common for us to not spend the exact amount of our budget because, like we were talking about earlier, the budget is an estimate that we create before the fiscal year even starts.

Councilor Cassen: That's that whole vacancy savings that we often talk about, and that's that one-time funding because it's one-time funding that we thought would be reoccurring, didn't utilize it, and that's why we have it as a one-time for the next year. Correct?

Director Oster: Mr. Mayor and Councilors, Councilor Casset, yeah, there are many reasons that we might end up with a difference between actual revenues and actual expenditures. When we're creating the budget, we're using estimates. We're saying, "Okay, this is what we think we're going to receive in revenues, and this is what we think we're going to spend." One of the things that I can virtually guarantee you about any budget is that the actuals will not be exactly what was budgeted.

It's very, very rare for the actuals to come in exactly what was budgeted. So, it's important to remember that the budget is an estimate. It's a plan for the year, and the actual results are very often different. Now, when we're looking at the actuals in relation to the budget, if we go over budget, that's a problem because that means we spent money that we didn't have the authority to spend. But if we're under budget, it might be a problem because we may not have accomplished policy initiatives that you all funded and that you wanted to see accomplished, but we didn't spend more money than we were allowed to spend. We spent less. What happened here with the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and again, I take ownership of this. Part of what I really wanted to convey tonight is that I feel that I should have caught this issue earlier and

Mayor: We're dealing with some audit issues. Give yourself a little bit of grace. You did four audits in 18 months or something like that.

Councilor: You had your hands full.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Councilor Cassid. I think that's a fair point. This is a very large and complex organization, and I couldn't personally look at every single transaction. And to be totally honest, my focus was elsewhere. I was focused on completing audits and not looking at how we were executing transfers.

I'm just, oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. How was that? I was your finance director, and I understood that the intent of the governing body was that $3 million a year was going to be put into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, not just available to be spent, but actually put into the fund. I understood that. I did not ensure that everyone involved in that process had that same understanding, and that's my responsibility. So, I have no issue being held accountable for that. I own that. And all I can say is I'm sorry. I am sorry, and I'm bringing it to light tonight.

Well, and I appreciate that, and thank you. I think that that really speaks a lot to your character, because you're also, we know you're leaving. You could have just left this and walked out. One quick thing, and then I'll be done because I'm out of time. I remember when I came in, we had something like over 600 or 700 funds, and it was very unruly, and we were working on consolidating funds, and this was a challenge. I know Deputy City Manager Phillips, we had just, I mean, it was impossible. This was part of our issue. We have consolidated funds because it does streamline some of our accounting processes. This is helpful for our audits. This is part of a lot of the work that we have done. And then just a quick yes or no question: Were we ever doing anything that was out of compliance with state law because of how our Affordable Housing Trust Fund was set up?

Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body, no, not that I'm aware of. I would defer to the city attorney on legal questions, but I am not aware of any non-compliance with state law.

Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor: Councilor Lee Garcia, your hand is up next.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And Emily, I will have to say that I do appreciate the work that you've done, and I do appreciate that this is coming forward. It has to be corrected, and having the wherewithal to bring it forward, especially in a contentious meeting or is challenging, I think that's part that could be part of the whole issue overall in our organization from the city, from the top all the way down to the bottom, that you need to work as a team. Ultimately, the city manager and the mayor are fully responsible for this. And yet, I still say that it is our right as a councilor, as a governing body, to ask for these informations. And to Councilor Michael Garcia's point, these questions have been brought up in the past for the last couple of years. I brought them up before, trying to understand how this all works, and I know it's an accounting. It just shows that we have work to do. When we identified the fact that we needed to reconcile our cash balances every month, we weren't doing that for years. Why were we not doing these things? It's been brought to our attention. We've implemented, and again, kudos to you and your team, because it is challenging to make these changes. We've got to make these changes. We've got to be better in the future. At the end of the day, I think what happens is that our public sees we have disorganization in our organization, and it creates distrust with them to us, their elected officials. And that's the challenge too for people who are here as administrators, as directors, as city managers. It's a challenge. It's a challenge. We get beat up in the eye of public observation, whether it's the papers or just talk on the streets. Why did this happen? Well, the details are there. And this is the challenge. My hope for the future is that we do identify these things and bring them forth in full transparency. So, and yet you're the professionals. I we have to have that respect and that that you're doing your job to the best and to the fullest of your ability. So I do appreciate you saying it's it was your full responsibility, but you have a couple of bosses too that are above you. And so with that being said, I do appreciate. I do have one question in regards to the fund though, because we say we're going to put $3 million as a city into this fund, but that money is coming from different sources, whether it be grant money, whether it be money that the state has appropriated to us, whether it be at one time it was one-time funding. That money is one-time funding. Well, where did that money come from? But then we could say, well, we got a $3 million grant. We're going to use that. And so this is, I think, the areas where us, especially as your elected officials of the city, have to understand these intricacies. Not necessarily know all the details, but where is that money coming from? And then how are we spending it? Going out to rolling it out to pay somebody and their project's not ready. And then we appear as the governing body don't really know that, and we approve it, and then it's your responsibility or manage it. So that that's the challenge, mostly comments. Maybe you could answer the question in regards to when we get the money, whether it's grant funding, state money, federal money, how do we how do we identify what is going into that trust fund?

Mr. Mayor and Councilor Lee Garcia, this BAR that's before you for consideration this evening would be funded from the fund balance of the general fund. In the Attachment B, an example of a grant coming into this fund is shown in the FY26 column. The city received a grant through the state's CASA Connections program, which was passed through to the Housing Authority for the purpose of increasing supply of affordable housing in the city. So, as of the snapshot as of November 12th, we had paid the Housing Authority their $2 million, and we were awaiting reimbursement from the state for the amount that we had paid. These are reimbursement-based grants. So the way that it works is that the Housing Authority has to provide documentation to us showing that they've met their obligations under the grant. In this case, acquiring a building that they were converting to affordable housing. They have to show that they've done that. And then at that point, we can pay them. And then we use the documentation they give us plus our proof of payment to them, and that's what we submit to the state to request our reimbursement. So, we have to spend the money first for grants a lot of the time, and then we get paid. It works the same way for our grantees who are receiving grants from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. We give them an award, say of a million dollars, and we have a contract with them that says they have maybe 12 months for this example to spend that money. And there are certain things that they are eligible to be reimbursed for that they can spend it on. And over that time period while the contract's in effect, they spend the money, and then they submit requests to us to be reimbursed for those expenditures. But the part about it with these grants that I think Director Chavez was getting to is the organization, whether it's the city or one of our grantees, has to be able to afford to incur the expenditures and then wait for reimbursement because we don't pay them before they spend the money. They have to spend the money first and then be reimbursed.

Thank you, Director. And I guess just in that line of questioning, it's kind of like, who understands that? That's it's complicated. It's very complicated. And so that's why I think that in in, as a professional, you all understand that we'll continue to work on it. You're not going to be here. But my hope is that in the future, whoever takes on this role is that we we continue to work on on being that transparent about how this is working because the general public really wants to trust in us, and I think that's what's most important.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Lindell, do you, I was going to make some remarks. You want to make some remarks first? Thank you. I'm sorry that as has been noted earlier, this is our last meeting of the year and our last meeting as a group. And I had high hopes that we would have a substantive and informative conversation not only about this issue, but about all the things on the agenda tonight. And I'm disappointed. And I hope we can regain the balance we started with this evening with the invocation that we were offered about how we work collaboratively to get problems solved because at the end of the day, we're that is what we're asked to do, solve problems. So, I want to make a couple comments about the problem we're solving tonight because it keeps moving. The problem as I understand it, Director Roster, is two or three-fold. One problem we're trying to solve is that we all believe there was a discrete fund called the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Turns out that wasn't the case. There was a name, but there wasn't an accounting provision for that to take place. Has that been remedied or is that in the process of being remedied now?

Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body, it's in the process of being remedied. In the FY25 financial statements that are being audited right now, there is a discreetly presented Affordable Housing Trust Fund. In Munis, the accounting team, the finance team is working on creating that fund so that in FY26 that fund will exist in Munis as well.

Thank you. And to be clear in terms of what we're not solving for, because it's always useful to thin some of the underbrush, there's no even allegation or inference that money was somehow misplaced, lost, inappropriately spent. There is nothing in what we're trying to solve for tonight that involves financial issues that would require some kind of rectification of behavior that was either illegal or unlawful or purely inappropriate.

Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body, that is correct. The money that was not transferred to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund in the prior years was just it remained in the general fund. It stayed in the general fund balance.

So we're not talking about misallocation or mishandling of funds. We're simply saying problem number one. We thought there was a fund, all of us. We called we used that terminology.

We were using it more in terms of the legal rather than the accounting term. That's being remedied. Secondly, as members of the governing body, we all believe that we were transferring $3 million a year into that fund. As it turned out, through the processes we have for using the dollars in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, $3 million was allocated to grantees. Not all of that money was spent. And so what was transferred to cover the invoices, if you will, was the amount that was spent rather than the full $3 million.

Mayor: Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body, that's correct. The amount that was transferred was what the fund needed to cover the expenses for each year. And the BAR that you have brought before us and that we're considering, that's actually what's in front of us, will make the Affordable Housing Trust Fund whole.

Mayor: Mr. Mayor and councilors, that is correct. The proposed BAR will resolve the difference between the amount that was allocated in the budgets and the amount that was actually transferred. So, in the spirit of being problem solvers, as Councilor Lee Garcia mentioned, that problem will also be solved if we approve that BAR.

Mayor: Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body, that's correct. If you approve this BAR this evening, the amount that was allocated in the budget books, which was $16.5 million between FY22 and FY26, will equal the amount that was actually transferred into the fund during that time period. And if I understand correctly the comments that Councilor Mara Worth was making and the conversation between the two of you, the next step, and that was also brought up by Councilor Chavez and Councilor Castro, we need to take the next step, which is to say, as we allocate money to grantees, how prepared are they to spend it? And are we exercising appropriate oversight, much as what we're hearing from the state legislature and the governor about capital allocations that haven't been spent? They are looking to see that that money is used because that's why they put it out to jurisdictions. So the next step to check a box of problem solving, if that's the business we're in, we're in the business of solving problems on behalf of the people of Santa Fe. This new next step will be oversight, and I gather that it's even beginning in the next meeting of the CDC as an item that's on that agenda. Have I got that correct?

Mayor: Mr. Mayor, members of the committee, that is correct. We are looking at other means of vetting our projects. So we're making changes.

Mayor: So there will be, as we are seeing at the state level, more interaction, more oversight, more ongoing efforts to make sure that money that is allocated can actually be effectively spent and as quickly as possible.

Mayor: Mr. Mayor, members of the committee, that is absolutely correct. So that would be another problem-solving step. Another issue that has come up is whether or not this has implications for our audit. If I understand correctly, Director Roster, the auditors obviously didn't pick this up in the past because, as the city manager mentioned, there wasn't a discrete item in our audits in the past, but not mentioned by the auditors that that was a problem. Now you have called this to the auditor's attention so that they can know that we are self-reporting and taking the corrective measures before the audit is even completed. Is that also correct?

Mayor: Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body, that's correct. We started this conversation with CRI at the beginning of the audit process for this year as the reconciliation was underway, that we would be presenting the Affordable Housing Trust Fund as a separate fund. We referred them to the ordinance that created the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and I explained my position that I thought it should have been reported as a separate fund in the financial statements in prior years and that we would be doing that.

Mayor: Even were there to be a finding, there's already corrective action that would be recorded.

Mayor: Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body, that is correct. And I will say that in my experience, auditors view issues that are self-reported by management in a different light than things that are discovered by the auditors during the audit. Not that they aren't significant, but the fact that management identified the issue and self-reported it is important for auditors.

Mayor: And to go back to an earlier point, it's not that we overspent the budget amount. In fact, we are, if anything, not getting every dollar spent that we would like to see spent. And therefore, if there is a finding, it's not of overspending, it's of not having the correct budgeting or fiscal reporting category within which to put the dollars.

Mayor: Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body, that is correct. I don't believe there's a budgetary compliance issue here because the actual expenditures were less than what was budgeted. It has to do with the issue.

Mayor: Nine minutes, Mayor.

Mayor: I know. The issue has to do with the fund structure. Thank you. But let me, I appreciate that. I just wanted to get to the point about what is the problem we're solving and how we're doing it. Before my time runs out, I confess I was thinking about this last night, and it was running around in my head as a concern because I know that it is an issue, but I'm also trying to get at what the nature of the issue is and what the best way to solve the problem is. And I was taken back to my time at the Harvard Business School where I worked for quite a while, and one of the lessons I learned there had to do with the work of a gentleman named W. Edwards Deming, who was a quality control expert who actually taught the Japanese after World War II how to build quality cars. And he published a 14-point plan on how to make sure that organizations practice constantly improving quality. Number eight in his list of 14 is drive fear out of the organization for a very simple reason. A fearful organization is not one that identifies problems and brings them to the public light. A fearful organization is the kind of place that hides problems, hopes nobody finds it, attempts to deny responsibility or take any accountability for what is a problem. I think what we're seeing tonight is a courageous leader in our finance director, somebody who does the exact opposite in her team of instilling fear and punishment and playing the blame game. Nothing gets better from a blame game. Things get better when fear is dismissed from an organization and people are encouraged to tell the truth, to bring problems forward, to address them candidly, and to take measures to solve problems rather than assess blame. And so I would join in the chorus of people, Director Oster, who would salute you not just for tonight, but for your entire tenure as our finance director, in acknowledging problems honestly, frankly, candidly, and being the person who assembled an outstanding team of individuals, not just within finance, but across departments, as we're seeing here tonight, to be in the business of solving problems, not assessing blame or taking on a gotcha mindset. That will never make this operation work any better. It will not encourage people to be brave, and it will not bring problems to the light of day as we're doing tonight. It seems to me that you've checked the boxes. I'm done. It seems to me you've checked the boxes of the defined problem. Now we have to implement those solutions and then continue to drive them forward in not only this case but any other cases. The example you're setting is exemplary. Thank you for timing me.

Councilor Lindell: Thank you, Mayor. You don't need to time me. I'm not going to take long. I never do. Well, I think we've chewed on this about as long as we need to. It's 7:20. We've got a massive, massive agenda tonight. Thank you, Director Auster. Seems like we had a problem and seems like we got it solved. So, it seems just about that simple to me. So, I'm going to call for the question.

Mayor: I object. I still have.

Councilor: Non-debatable motion. Non-debatable. Inexcusable for you to skip over a council committee and then you hold me to 10 minutes.

Mayor: Councilor, it's a motion. It's not a done deal, and you have to try to respect the process. We have a motion. I did not hear a second. We have a motion and we have a second to call the question. This is non-debatable, and therefore I will simply ask the city clerk to call the roll.

City Clerk: Councilor Chavez?

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

City Clerk: Councilor Faulkner?

Councilor Faulkner: Yes.

City Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia?

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

City Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia?

Councilor Michael Garcia: No.

City Clerk: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Maroworth?

Councilor Maroworth: Yes.

City Clerk: Councilor Cassid?

Councilor Cassid: Yes.

City Clerk: Councilor Castro?

Councilor Castro: No.

City Clerk: Motion is approved.

Mayor: We have a motion in front of us to approve this BAR. And I ask you to call the roll.

City Clerk: Councilor Castro?

Councilor Castro: Yes.

City Clerk: Councilor Chavez?

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

City Clerk: Councilor Faulkner?

Councilor Faulkner: Yes.

City Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia?

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

City Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia?

Councilor Michael Garcia: No. And I'd like to explain my vote.

City Clerk: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Maroworth?

Councilor Maroworth: Yes.

City Clerk: Councilor Casset?

Councilor Casset: Yes.

City Clerk: Motion is approved.

Mayor: Councilor Garcia, you got the opportunity to explain your vote.

Councilor Garcia: Thank you. It's irresponsible of us to move forward with the BAR of this measure given that there were significant questions still to be had, especially from myself, who was given minimal opportunity. So, this is a perfect example of another failure of the Alan Weber administration. And I am so thankful that this administration is coming to a close because this is an administration that does not listen to.

Mayor: Point of order. Point of order. I believe our rules don't allow for this kind of behavior.

Councilor: Oh, let me pull that up.

Mayor: I yield the floor. Refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges, accusations of verbal attacks upon the character, motives, ethics, or morals of the members of the governing body, staff, or public, or other personal comments. I'm afraid you violated the rules.

Councilor: Just yielded the floor.

Mayor: That completes this item. I believe it's 7:20. I would entertain a motion to go to petitions from the floor before we resume our regular order. Would anybody like to?

Councilor: So moved. Second.

Mayor: There's a motion to change our agenda so we go to petitions from the floor at this time. If someone is either, well, we'll start with people in the room. If there's somebody in the room who wants to speak to an item that is not a public hearing, unrelated to a public hearing, now would be the time to come forward and make a two-minute presentation to the governing body. Remember, there will be hearings later in the agenda where you will have a chance to testify. So, if it's about something for which there is a public hearing, wait for that hearing. If it's not related to a public hearing, please do step forward now to speak to whatever you'd like to address.

City Clerk: Mayor, may I call the roll on the motion?

Mayor: I'm sorry, we didn't do that. I apologize. What did we vote? You just took a vote on.

City Clerk: Motion to go to petitions to the petition.

Mayor: Oh, I'm sorry. To change the agenda. We have not voted to change the agenda. Apologies. Please do call the roll.

City Clerk: Councilor Faulkner?

Councilor Faulkner: Yes.

City Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia?

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

City Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia?

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

City Clerk: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Maroworth?

Councilor Maroworth: Yes.

City Clerk: Councilor Cassett?

Councilor Cassett: Yes.

City Clerk: Councilor Castro?

Councilor Castro: Yes.

City Clerk: Councilor Chavez?

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

City Clerk: Motion is approved.

Mayor: Very good. So, we will, that little preamble I gave was premature, but now we're at the point where if you have something you want to speak to that's not a public hearing later in the agenda, please do come forward and the city clerk will keep a clock running for two minutes on any subject that you'd like to speak to.

Now's the time. Up at that podium right over there where the microphone is so we can hear you. First of all, I want to thank Mayor Weber for allowing me some time to meet with him face to face and discuss the issue of homeless self-help. It's a practical, affordable, and humane way of addressing homelessness. We can do everything we need.

>> Yeah. Lift the mic up. We really want to hear you.

My name is Daryl Blair, and I've sent out an email. I hoped I'm not good with tech, but I sent out an email and I hope that you guys did get it because it itemizes a lot of things. Homeless self-help seems to me to be a practical, affordable, and humane way of addressing homelessness. We involve ourselves in our own salvation. There's a multi-billion dollar a year industry built around our suffering, and it relies upon us for other people's incomes. We can do better ourselves, and the model is replicable nationwide. We can fund our own selves through for-profit, nonprofit means. We have a talent pool that can be cultivated. We don't just start, open the doors, everybody barges in, falls in. There are those who are ready, those who are not yet ready, and those who are intermediate can go either way. So, we provide enticements and opportunities to participate. It's not only about economic development, it's also about personal development to kind of filter out who's going to be a part of this organization. You come in, we're going to involve ourselves in meditation, discussion, some exercise. This is kind of disciplining ourselves and also reorienting ourselves what we do with our time. We'll have discussions about where we're going to go with this. It goes all the way up to building eco-villages on burned out forest land and turning that into agricultural activities. We can feed New Mexicans and don't have to depend on Argentina and other places.

There's a lot I guess I could say. I'm kind of stumbling at this point. There are youth who are in danger. One of the things, if we were to build these eco-villages out there, we could actually, I think, clean up Albuquerque's drug and crime problem by getting people 25 miles away from the drug scene. After about three years, those distribution networks would dissipate, I think. So, I would really like to continue the discussion with any of you. I know that you're one of the members and the other two, I don't know who you are, on this homeless committee. But I think somebody has my phone number now. Martinez, he may have that, and I have some [laughter] I'm not good with technology.

>> No, you're good.

Okay. And I thank you for your time.

>> Thank you for speaking tonight.

Thank you. I really appreciate when we have this organization. I'd like to have a mentor.

>> Thank you, sir. Thank you for being here. Is there anyone else who'd like to come forward on a subject? Please do step up. Remember, we have public hearings later, but if it's unrelated to that, please take the floor.

>> Good evening, Mayor Weber and members of the governing body. I am Dr. Gino Odin. A year ago, December 10th, 2024, I stood before you and asked you to table your decision before you went into executive session to vote for the Aspect Village of Studio Village at the minimum appraisal of $5 million and requiring 19 affordable housing units. I represented Mr. James Dugan. I provided the proof of funds to Daniel Hernandez, who has resigned. Since then, I became a candidate for mayor as to what had actually transpired. Mr. Dugan has been investigating what's transpired with the Aspect Village Studio because it's no longer a studio. It's become a high-tech place. There's now an art house, a luxury art house being built instead of minimal housing. We have been investigating this throughout the year. I just want to inform the governing body that Mr. Dugan has retained a team of lawyers, and we are going to proceed with litigation against the city. I do recommend to refer to Ty Bixby's opinion article in Sunday, saying that the city should not be in commercial development. Mr. Dugan, he's from Flagstaff. He's an international infrastructure and development developing countries. He had engineers and architects developing and funded Dubai. I've been to the Midtown Redevelopment Agencies. It's very disconcerting that it has become another bureaucratic because they are looking at being a Midtown Redevelopment Authority. So, you're just layering bureaucracy. It's going to be a patchwork of different things. It's going to be delaying the process. Thank you.

>> Thank you for coming down tonight. Anyone else in the room who wants to come forward on a non-public hearing item, please step up.

>> My name is Dear Drockett. Thank you, Mayor and members. This might be on the program later that I have to leave for personal responsibilities. I am sure that the movement to have animals on medians with homeless people is not meant to be punitive. However, I cannot see a way that it gets delivered that it isn't punitive.

>> I'm sorry, this is on an item later. Did you say you have to leave?

>> Yes, I do. And I'm done. That's all, that's really all I wanted to say.

If you want to write something down and present it for the record to the clerk, we'd be happy to have it as part of the record, too.

>> Thank you very much. Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Anyone else in the room who has a non-public hearing matter that you'd like to bring forward now? Anyone on the Zoom room? Madam Clerk,

>> We do have one person in the Zoom room. Stephanie Benonato, you are allowed to speak. And if we can restart the timer.

>> Thank you. Stephanie Benato.

>> Wait one second while we change the clock. Miss Benonado, we're still counting down from the previous speaker.

>> Okay. Now you have the floor.

>> All right. So, I felt that your discussion about the budget was inappropriate to cut off Councilor Garcia. It was clear that he had more questions since he was told he was going to have that time, and he was denied that opportunity. Although maybe his tone was a little combative, I think the information that he sought was totally appropriate. Additionally, I have made a public records request for information on a city employee and their training. It would have taken five minutes to go to their file and look it up. I've been waiting now over six months to get that in a public records request. The other thing I wanted to bring to your attention is that in your approval of the code that was only supposed to be a cleanup, the 601-page code, I don't know if you were really connecting the dots, but we don't feel sorry for developers. Developers have a lot of capital, and if they don't have the money to have parking onsite, then why should we burden, especially the downtown, with street parking? I also don't think you connected that you just approved encouraging more outdoor dining, which takes up more street parking and therefore less parking for everybody who now doesn't have to provide onsite parking. This is our parking is already a complete mess, and it's going to be even worse, and all the neighborhoods in the surrounding area will be burdened by people coming in. You'll have to get tow trucks because there's a lot of streets that permit only. The state capital megalith structure is going through. There's going to be 531 employees in that building with 546 parking spaces. That is insufficient for the number of people who will go to that building to conduct business. So that's another burden on the parking in the downtown. I really think that you should have limited it to what it was supposed to be, which was a cleanup and a reorganization. And I hope next time that you really, really pay a lot more attention to what you are approving. And I find it also the whole discussion tonight about this constitution due process. There are at least three things, two things in your appeal ordinance that do not meet due process. Excuse me. I'd just like to finish. There's one more sentence. And the historic board has been repeatedly advised to do illegal votes by having a 2-1 vote when there's a four-person quorum. And it clearly says a majority of the members present must vote for and or against a project. So, I'm bringing this to your attention. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Miss Benonato. Thank you very much. Anyone else in the Zoom room, Madam Clerk?

>> Anyone who's in the Zoom room, please raise your hand if you'd like to speak.

But not if they're waiting for a hearing that's up later. I don't see anyone else with their hand raised.

>> Okay. Thank you. In that case, why don't we resume regular order? Madame clerk, could you read the next item on the agenda?

>> 9. I request for approval of a general services contract with WEX Bank DBA Right Express in the total amount of $9,600,000, excluding NMGRT for WEX fuel card. And here to speak is Procurement Manager Raymond Scott Gunter. And this was pulled by Councilor Michael Garcia.

>> Thank you. We'll get an overview, and then we'll entertain a motion. Then Councilor Garcia, I'll come over to you.

>> Good evening, Mr. Mayor, governing body. How are you doing? I stand for questions.

Well, what we'd like you to do is to give us a brief because there are a lot of people who are watching or listening who are unfamiliar with this, and the questions wouldn't mean very much to them. So, if you could just do a high-level explanation of what's in front of us, then we'll go into the questions that Councilor Garcia leads with having pulled this item.

>> Very good. The WEX program has been in operation, which is a WEX fueling card program, which basically has a credit card. Each vehicle that the city has set, and the staff will use that card to fill up their vehicles when they run out of gas. So, and then we have tracking that's associated with that as well. We're able to see the usage of the vehicles and how much gas says per gallon fuel is and that type of thing. And we're also able to determine, we're also able to determine if there's any invalid dens, which stands for driver identification number, that are being used to potentially prevent fraud within the city. So, with that being said, the Santa Fe Police Department first had WEX as their mechanism of fueling their police vehicles. Then there was an issue with the fuel tank out at the Siler location. It was then decided that we wanted to go ahead and move forward with a contract with WEX throughout the entire city. So, every single vehicle, like I said before, will have a WEX card that we're able to track. We then get a WEX bill at the end of the month that is processed and paid, and we're able to get, like I said, usage and some very valuable reports such as what we're spending gas on and, you know, so it's an overall reaching program. It's one of the pillars of our fleet management that we're initiating, and that in a nutshell is the WEX program there.

>> Thank you. Is there a motion on this item?

>> Second.

>> There's a motion and there's a second. Councilor Garcia, you pulled it off of consent. So, you have the floor to open questions.

>> We're still doing the 10-minute rule.

>> Yep.

>> Thank you, Mr. Thank you for the overview. In regards to the $9.6 million figure, how confident are we that that's sufficient given their current economy and the cost of gas?

>> Mr. Mayor, governing body, Council Garcia. As we all know, gas prices have been in flux for a number of years.

And I believe that based on from January 1 of 2025 to current date, let me just, I have it in my notes, we've spent approximately 1.6 million, 1.7 million. So I think the 2.6 million is an over, it's, I don't believe we're going to make that amount. But as world and economic shifts and changes and a whole bunch of other macroeconomic changes happen within the world, who knows? But I believe right now we are sufficient to be handling that for the next four years.

Okay. And then in the instance that we hit that 2.6 million, we're only charged for use what we use.

Yes.

Okay. And then as you mentioned, vast usage is from our police department. Is that correct?

Mr. Mayor, governing body, Councilor Garcia, yes. I mean, the Santa Fe Police Department is the largest or very close to the largest user of the fleet cars. Now, Santa Fe Police Department was the first one to actually move forward with the WEX program. It worked well for them. The WEX program as part of the cooperative agreement with Sourcewell, and that's through the state. So that contract has been vetted in more ways than one with the state. So we're essentially utilizing that agreement underneath the terms that were contracted with or the terms that were negotiated with for the City of Santa Fe, which is very similar to what the State of New Mexico is using as well.

Gotcha. And did I hear you correctly? You've been working on this program for quite some time. And the, and where I'm going with this is I'm trying to really get a gauge on the impact of trying to modernize our fleet to electric vehicles and does that potentially lower this cost over time?

Mr. Mayor, governing body, Councilor Garcia, I guess this will lead into another discussion that as I mentioned before, WEX and fuel is just one component of the smoke that we're talking about. I'll point out to my colleague David Otto, who's the section fleet manager, and we are, we've been over the last several years kind of Batman and Robin. Sometimes I'm Batman, he's Robin, and vice versa. But we have been, but we have been peeling an onion is what we've been doing with the, with the fuel. We got the fuel under control and then that evolved into questions about why were we having so many vehicles that haven't been fueled up in 90 plus days? Why aren't these vehicles being used? So with that being said, we have taken the initiative of actually doing an analysis of fleet and I have some additional, I didn't know what was going to be asked this evening, but I did prepare a snapshot of what we are planning, what the overall fleet grade is of the city and we have devised a transition document, which is approximately 73 pages, 73 pages, and I've gotten a little snapshot of what that entails. This is going to be a long journey for us to be able to rightsize our fleet and make good judgments. If a vehicle could be repurposed, let's do that within the city. So we've got a, we've got a scope and a plan that I believe is beneficial to everybody involved. I'll give you an example. We've done some analysis and based on the current fleet size that we have now, we are way, we are spending an additional $2,000 to $3,000 a day in our current fleet. And that has a whole bunch to do with the size of the fleet, what we're using them for, how old vehicles are. Just because a vehicle has 50,000 miles and it's a 2010 doesn't mean that it's environmentally sound or green and we're costing, it's costing us more to do that. And then there's auction revenue and other things that are coming up with that. So it's a big, big onion and we're just, we're getting to the point where we're ready to present with the transition team plan that I believe is sustainable not only for this administration, but for administrations to come. And we're talking 10, 20, 25 years into the future. So that's the viewpoint that I believe we need to take with this plan. We're going to have bumps in the road, but we are committed to seeing this through.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for beginning to unpeel the onion. And you know, the more we can get away from these high costs of fuel and moving more towards electric, I would highly encourage that.

Mr. Mayor, governing body, Councilor Garcia, with respect to that statement, I completely agree with what you're saying. I would also stress that there are, there's data and analytics. It's just like when the Oakland A's finally got the down analytics data. We want to take a data driven approach on this thing, not based on the Dodge, Chevy, Ford debate. We want to rightsize our fleet and make it efficient. And regardless of what drives the vehicle, whether or not it be gas, electric, or some sort of hybrid, we need to make the best decisions for the city regarding that. So, you know, there's not, the infrastructure is just one part of it because right now, quite frankly, I don't know if the infrastructure is strong enough to support a completely electrified fleet within Santa Fe. The numbers, what we're seeing just don't make sense. So there's this gradual process that we need to undertake in order to achieve that goal of being more electric, being more green.

Okay. Well, thank you and thank you for looking towards the future.

No other questions, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Councilor. Other questions on this? Councilor Casset.

Yeah, thank you so much. Real quick, because I've seen two pieces. I know we have this, I've heard of the fleet modernization process and I think that's what we're being referred to too and that does tie in directly to WEX. Can you give me just a little bit more information because I know that WEX is a, it's, it is this contract is a key piece of this. It's not just data, but if I'm understanding things correctly.

Yes. Mr. Mayor, governing body. Yes, the WEX contract is a key part of that. But I will also stress that that's just one spoke in this wheel. We're undertaking in what a software system that we're currently configuring, which is a fleet management information system, which will give you more information than you could ever want in terms of what vehicles are doing, whether or not a vehicle breaks hard, whether or not it corners too hard, whether or not it gives us information on if unfortunately somebody gets into an accident, it will give us some impact information regarding that and where the accident happens. It's going to be able to track where these vehicles are and be able to give us a snapshot inventory hopefully when it's fully configured of where all of our vehicles are located at. And so that is just one, WEX is just a tiny, tiny part, but there are other things that we are doing in terms of implementing this RTA system. So then there's other things that we're doing as well. So we're very excited. We're thinking we can make a huge impact on the operation.

Well, wonderful. And I look forward to getting a larger presentation on this at sometime. It sounds like you guys are doing a really wonderful job looking at how you can be as efficient as possible with our resources as well as, I mean, sounds like this will be key for safety for city staff who are using city vehicles as well. There's a whole bunch of, sorry, there's a whole bunch of stuff that is going to be benefiting of that and that is one aspect of what we are planning to do. We want to make cities be efficient and it's going to take years to do that, but we are starting that process. We are asking questions.

Wonderful. Thank you so much for that work.

Thank you.

Other questions? Any other questions at this time?

Thank you, sir. We have a motion and a second and we've had questions. Madam Clerk, do you want to call the roll?

Councilor Lee Garcia.

Yes.

Councilor Michael Garcia.

Yes.

Councilor Lindell.

Councilor Marworth.

Yes.

Councilor Casset.

Yes.

Councilor Castro.

Yes.

Councilor Chavez.

Yes.

Councilor Fulner, motion is approved.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for the very good report on all the additional work that's going into the whole larger question of fleet and mobility and efficiency and energy. Much appreciated.

Governing body, Mr. Mayor, we look forward to presenting that large document to you at some point.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, could you take us to the next item that was taken off of the consent agenda, please? Item 9M, consideration of resolution number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Mayor Alan Weber, Councilor Signey Lindell, and Councilor Al-Macastro. A resolution authorizing donating properties identified as 1522 and 1650 West Alama Street to a developer certified as a qualified grantee under the New Mexico Affordable Housing Act to develop low-price dwelling units pursuant to the City of Santa Fe's Affordable Housing Ordinance. And I see Terry Lease, asset development manager here to speak.

Let's entertain a motion and then Mr. Lease will go to you and then.

Motion to approve.

Second.

We have a motion and we have a second. I think for people who are not familiar with this item, it would be helpful if you would give us an overview as to what the report is on this particular agenda item and then we'll go to Councilor Garcia.

Thank you, Mayor Weber. Councilors. So the resolution, let me give you just a 60-second background behind affordable housing development separating the two city properties that is the subject of this resolution. And late last year, we were approached by Homewise to purchase the smaller property and donate the larger property. Took this through an executive session and then subsequently city legal made the determination that we can't simply donate the land to a qualified entity affordable housing. Instead, we, in order to be compliant with the New Mexico Constitution, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act and the city's affordable trust fund ordinance, a property has to be made a part of the affordable trust fund and then go through a competitive process to identify a qualified grantee. And this approve, this resolution if approved does just that. It will, you know, like I say, make these two properties a part of the affordable housing trust fund and go, lays out the process for a competitive process to donate these. Thank you. Councilor Garcia, you pulled the item so you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Hey, Terry. How's it going?

Sure, sir.

Quick question. And in the resolution in exhibit A, it has a map of both properties and on the larger property it's identified as 1650 West Alama Cityland Escadero Park. Is the city giving away a park or putting a park into the affordable housing trust fund?

So, Mayor Weber, Councilor Garcia, to answer that question, first of all, 1650 property came to the city with three separate deeds. Two of the deeds are, one of the deeds does have a reversionary clause. If the city does not use it for a park that it is to be, it would be revert to the grantor. And so to answer your question directly, yes and no, I guess, but to again the background, so when this was, when these two properties were being discussed for a possible donation to the, no, to, oh, no, my, not Homewise, oh my gosh, I just said Habitat for Humanity. I'm so sorry. So we, we always do an initial review of a deed. We saw the deed restriction. We let Habitat know that there was a deed restriction. There were conversations with the grantor between Habitat and the grantor. I wasn't part of those conversations. But Habitat indicated that they have a resolution to release that reversionary clause. I, I believe I also had a conversation, this part of the property came to the city in 1999.

I believe Edward Archuleta. Last year, I did have a conversation also with Mr. Archuleta about this. So, in this case, there's a willingness of the Archuleta, the grantor or the grantor's heirs, to release this reversionary clause. So that's why this was brought forward as it is here.

Mayor: Okay. Do we know when that clause will be enacted upon? Because I'd hate for us to get so far down the road where family members now agree to remove that clause, but then family members might have a difference of opinion in 10 years, five years. I mean, wouldn't it be prudent of us to get that clause in place before we approve this proposal in front of us? Or, I mean, at minimum, because in essence, there are steps still that need to be taken, right? That we put this affordable fund competitive process, then there's another resolution brought forward for the actual land donation. So, I guess my recommendation is that before this is brought forward for that potential final recommendation, that that clause be removed because I don't want to muddy the water too much. I know there's time to get that done, but how can we ensure that we remember that there's this clause in place? Because I look at it from the standpoint of how do future governing bodies ensure that this clause has been acted upon should a resolution be proposed to actually donate the land? Because this is just to put it in the trust fund. Then the next step is to actually donate it. So, how would we go about creating those kinds of guardrails?

Mayor Weber, Councilor Garcia, what comes first? I think to try to negotiate something with the grantor. Now, I don't really have the authority. There's nothing in place that would really give us, I think, a foundation or reason to negotiate something like this. This resolution, if approved, then gives us that foundation. Then would be the time to go to this prior to issuing an RFP. That would be the time to go to this grantor and to work out whatever conditions need to be met to release this reversionary clause. And at that point, once we determine what it takes to release the reversionary clause, then it could be included into the RFP, would be made a condition in a donation agreement, etc. For example, if the condition was a one-time payment of X dollars to release the clause, which is highly likely, then it would be disclosed in the RFP. It would be put in the donation agreement that the successful proposer would have to deposit X dollars to satisfy the reversionary clause. I could also see some instrument that we would obtain from the grantor or the grantor's beneficiaries that would be made a part of the agreement that would assure the release if the condition is met. So, this has been thought through.

Mayor: Okay, great. Well, no other questions. Thank you, Mr. Lee. Yield the floor. Thank you.

Councilor Castro: Thank you so much. And given the opportunity, I just want to ask, as Councilor Garcia mentioned, this is not yet a donation to any other entity. Is there anything that prohibits us from developing this land ourselves as the city or as housing authority once it's donated? Sorry, I didn't. So, even though we are going to be donating this land to sort of a quasi-governmental entity, we still retain the ability as the city without the RFP to develop this land ourselves if we would like, or is this necessarily going to, because of the way the resolution is written, require us to put this out to RFP?

Well, certainly, I'm sorry, Mayor Weber, Councilor Castro. Certainly, the city has the right to develop any property they want. If it's, you know, prior to having a transfer of the property via a deed, we could certainly do that. I don't know that we're equipped to develop properties, though, quite frankly. So, in the past, historically, the Office of Affordable Housing has always looked for partnerships with these.

Councilor Castro: Understood. Thank you so much. No further questions.

Mayor: Thank you. Other questions? We have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, could you call the roll?

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia.

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Marworth.

Councilor Marworth: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Casset.

Councilor Casset: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Castro.

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Chavez.

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Fulner.

Councilor Fulner: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia.

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lee. Appreciate you being here tonight. Could we go to the next item, Madam Clerk?

Clerk: Action items. 10A, request for approval of Amendment Number Four to Memorandum of Understanding Item Number 18-1309 with Insight Public Sector to increase the compensation by $4,90,461.67 for a new total amount of $8,18,466.37 and to extend the termination date to November 26, 2028, for city Microsoft 365 products and services. And I believe IT Director Eric Kundelatti is here to speak.

Councilor: Move to approve.

Councilor: Second.

Mayor: Have a motion and a second. Thank you for being here, Director Kundeler. If you could give us an overview of this item for folks who are unfamiliar with it and are eager to learn what we will potentially be voting on.

Director Kundeler: Mr. Premier, members of the governing body, this amendment is actually to extend our current Microsoft licensing agreement. This will enable us to have better products as far as cybersecurity, Microsoft Teams phone capabilities, more end-user endpoint management characteristics as well. The reason why we're up here is because of the length of time that it took for us to get our contract through Microsoft. Our end actually worked out pretty well. It was just waiting for them to get it to us, and so that's why we're here today.

Mayor: Thank you. Questions on this item? No hands. Madam Clerk, there's a motion and a second. Would you please call the roll?

Clerk: Councilor Lindell. Councilor Marworth. Yes. Vacate the building for, or the room for the month. She stepped out for one minute. Councilor Casset.

Councilor Casset: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Castro.

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Chavez.

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Falner.

Councilor Falner: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia.

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia.

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you. Thanks for being here. Appreciate it. Next item, Madam Clerk.

Clerk: 10B, request for approval of a Memorandum of Agreement, MOA, with the New Mexico Department of Transportation, NMDOT, for public transportation service funding in the amount of $87,315.10, accompanied by a request for approval of a budget amendment resolution, BAR, in the total amount of $1,9,146 to budget proceeds from the MOA with NMDOT in the amount of $800,315 with local match of $200,120,830 from transit fund balance, accompanied by a request authorization of the Chief Procurement Officer to issue a purchase order to purchase six paratransit e-transit buses for an amount of $400,287. And here to speak is Transit Director of Administration Gabrielle Chavez.

Councilor: Move to approve.

Councilor: Second.

Mayor: There's a motion and a second. Thank you for going over this with us before we consider the motion. I'm sure you have some good news to report about what these dollars will turn into.

Director Chavez: Mayor Weber and members of the governing body, thank you for having us here. This MOA represents the FTA award that we received for FY26 for the Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities funding from the New Mexico Department of Transportation. We were awarded $87,315.10 in federal award, which requires a local match, which is the $21,830 from transit fund balance. This funding was applied for earlier this year for the FY26 award period, and we requested six vehicles to replace our paratransit fleet. This will also fund a construction for EV charging stations at our transit facility.

Mayor: Terrific. Thank you. Are there questions about this item? Councilor Lee Garcia, you are our transit guy.

Councilor Lee Garcia: I just want to thank Director Chavez and Buck for their work. And before you were in your position, none of this was happening. And so, I think it's a really big asset that you have your eyes and ears on all of this stuff and bringing in this money to our well-needed transit. Thank you.

Director Chavez: Thank you.

Mayor: Yeah, I completely agree, Councilor. This is a measure of the extraordinary work these individuals have brought to their jobs, and not only in this instance, but with a redesign of the transit system, new opportunities to provide much more mobility for the people in our community, tying transit more closely to development. This is the second good news we've had tonight about how we're looking at our fleet and mobility issues going forward with some very talented people in significant roles. So, thank you for your hard work.

Director Chavez: Thank you. We appreciate that.

Mayor: Any other questions, comments? We have a motion. I assume the motion covers all of the above in terms of what's on the agenda with one fell swoop. Please call the roll.

Clerk: Councilor Marworth.

Councilor Marworth: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Casset.

Councilor Casset: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Castro.

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Chavez.

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Fulner.

Councilor Fulner: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia.

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia.

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lindell. Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you. Could you take us to the next item?

Clerk: 10C. Request for inclusive negotiation to negotiate the sale town tract H1A Integral Design and Development LLC for development as a mixed-use development with a deposit of $10,000. And here to speak is Asset Development Manager Carly Vendetti.

Councilor: Move to approve.

Councilor: Second.

Mayor: There's a motion to approve this item. And if you could please give us the benefit of an overview, and then we will go to questions. Yes. Who wants to take credit for the motion? And it was a close call for, you were very close. Go ahead. It was, we don't want to distract you from the presentation.

Carly Vendetti: Thank you. Please give us the top line on this. Yeah, of course. Mayor Weber, counselors, I do have a brief presentation with the top line explaining an exclusive negotiation agreement, a brief bit of background, and then a high overview of each of the proposals. These development proposals are in front of us today for an exclusive negotiation agreement. I apologize that I'm speaking in pluralities. I have both this one for H1A this evening, as well as J1A and J1B, which is 10D. If I may, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to plug in my laptop, please. Excellent. Once I get that large screen, I will begin my presentation. Will I get that large screen this evening, or will I just get these smaller screens?

Mayor: At the moment, I think you're limited.

Carly Vendetti: And that is okay. All right. So, this evening, I'm here before you to discuss the exclusive negotiation agreements, of which the MRA is seeking approval. Prior to an overview of these agreements, I'm just setting the stage really quickly. We have both the Community Development Plan and the Master Plan, both of which create the redevelopment plans. They are aligned on four principles in this case: environment, equity, economy, and culture. We do believe as the agency that these two proposals we've received also align with these four principles. So, an exclusive negotiation agreement for those of you in the room who are unfamiliar, in this case, are the preliminary terms and conditions for a mixed-use development on the Midtown site. Components include a timeline, refundable deposit, preliminary development points, and insurance requirements. In this case, we've set the timeline for 18 months. This can be, of course, completed sooner in the way of a DDA, or could be extended if necessary. So, the two ENAs before you today are for the proposed sale of these tracts.

Just to make that clear. Moving along, this governing body approved the direct disposition of property on this Midtown site as of March. We began the disposition in April until June 20th of 2025. The dark gray parcels here represent those up for direct disposition. Moving along, we did get six different development proposals, five of which met the criteria outlined in the call for proposals. The two that we are bringing forward this evening not only meet the criteria outlined in the master plan and community development plan, but align with the timeline of development. By this, I mean that the projects have few impediments to connect to utilities and require little demolition work.

Quick overhead here. When I speak to mandatory criteria from the master plan, I'm referring to residential development, compliance with the green building code, lead credits, inclusionary housing, complying with anti-discrimination laws, and job creation, as well as job access and a commitment to communication with the Santa Fe community. Then our priority evaluation criteria is from the community development plan. In this case, these are preferred but not required. These prioritize metrics like long-term affordability, supporting local businesses, job creation, job training, community programs, and a commitment to public arts.

Jumping to item 2025-3909 for Blue Mesa Center for the Arts. This development proposal is proposed on Tract H1A, about 1.55 acres adjacent to the St. Michael's entrance and future Arroyo Park. For those of you who need additional context, it's next to the Cattery.

Give you a very high-level overview of the Blue Mesa Center for the Arts development proposal. Dr. Glenn Erickson, the proposed developer and architect, is in the room with us this evening. He is proposing 43 live-work artist units in addition to 27 work-only studios, in addition to 5,000 square feet of workshops and print shop commercial gallery space with deep tenant involvement in a coffee house. I want to add a quick disclaimer that this level of detail is relatively uncommon for this part of the process. Being this far in an exclusive negotiation agreement is a benefit to us because Dr. Glenn Erickson is very excited about this proposal and his work. Keeping that in mind, these renderings are still dynamic and subject to both the approval of this ENA, the approval of a later DDA, and then after that, this plan would have to be approved administratively by Land Use. Due to its size, it would go into an early neighborhood notification meeting. So, there's plenty of bites at the apple left. I don't want you to think that we're approving this exact design this evening. These are just very early renderings.

Blue Mesa Center for the Arts complies with the mandatory master plan criteria, including green building code, housing affordability standards, job creation, and access. In addition, Dr. Glenn Erickson presented at last month's Metropolitan Redevelopment Commission to our excited commissioners and excited members of the public. As for community development plan criteria, these will be further stipulated and documented in the DDA process if this ENA is approved this evening. At this time, the proposal complies with all community development plan requirements. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Councilors.

Mayor: Thank you for that overview. Questions of Harley at this time. Go ahead, Councilor Garcia.

Councilor Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Harley, you mentioned that this still has to go through a couple of approvals, but what I didn't hear is approval of the MRC. The reason I say the MRC is they've brought forward concerns regarding what's being proposed, and we've established the MRC as the subject matter experts as we're moving forward with the development of this property. So, in my humble opinion, I would want to seek the blessing of the MRC as we move forward. So, is that built into this process?

Harley: Yes. So, Mayor Pro Tem, Councilor Garcia, if I may call on our city attorney for some assistance if I misspeak at all. The Metropolitan Redevelopment Commission must be granted their powers through the MRA plan. At this point, we have not adopted the MRA plan. So, they cannot make an official recommendation pertaining to this development. In the future, as we plan to adopt the MRA plan and grant their powers, they can make a recommendation to approve or deny. They are also going to be well involved in the deliberation of the architectural standards and components of this agreement. So, they will be part of the negotiation process, and they will have that bite of the apple. I did not include them in my narrative as of right now because of the MRA plan stipulation.

Councilor Garcia: Gotcha. And so that was going to be the next question because we haven't established a plan, right? This doesn't mean that the plan would not apply to this particular ENA, or can you tell me, does it apply, does it not apply to the ENA, the standards in that plan that would be approved?

Harley: Mayor Pro Tem, Councilor Garcia, the standards that would be applied from the MRA plan would include recommendations, including tax increment financing, that would be applied to this project. But as we look at the designation of an MRA district and then the plan therefore, we're looking to meet the criteria of the state statute, and in some cases, although this language is older from 1978, avoid any blight or slum conditions. I know this doesn't exactly answer your question, but yes.

Councilor Garcia: Okay. And so to put it in simplistic terms, once we get that plan approved, that would then give the MRC the authority to then have a say-so on not only this but any ENA moving forward?

Harley: Mayor Pro Tem, Councilor Garcia, that is correct.

Councilor Garcia: Right. Just wanted to reaffirm that for our MRC members because there was some concern that they weren't going to have any say-so, and they started to put their hands up in the air and say, "Well, what are we doing here if we can't, we have no authority?" But the authority's coming, so to speak.

Harley: Yes, Mayor Pro Tem, Councilor Garcia, governing body. Yes, that is coming. I also want to point out that concerns raised in the MRC meeting will be addressed once the ENA is approved. Once we begin negotiating, that's when those topics would come to light.

Councilor Garcia: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. No other questions, Mayor, Madam Mayor, Madam Pro Tem.

Mayor: Anybody else? Any other questions or comments? It's okay that you stepped out. All right. I don't vote any. If there are, we have a motion and we have a second, and we have no further questions. Madam Clerk, if you would call the roll.

Clerk: Councilor Cassutt.

Councilor Cassutt: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Castro.

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Chavez.

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Faulkner.

Councilor Faulkner: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia.

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia.

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lindell.

Councilor Lindell: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Romero-Wirth. Yes. Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you. But wait, there's more. Could you read us the next item on the agenda, please?

Clerk: Item 10D, request for approval of an exclusive negotiation agreement to negotiate the sale of Midtown Tracts J1A and J1B to Santa Fe Innovation Hub LLC for development as a mixed-use development with a deposit of $18,125. Asset Development Manager Carly Vendetti is still here to speak. Move to approve.

Mayor: Thank you. Is there a... Okay, we have a motion and a second. I think you, I'm going to guess you have yet another slide presentation to give us the overview of this proposal.

Harley: Thank you, Mayor Weber. Thank you, Councilors. Without the preamble, this time we'll go directly into item 2025-3911. And if it in the back could help me get the screen back. Thank you so much. So, moving along, this New Mexico Innovation Hub development proposal is for parcels J1A and J1B. Cumulatively, they are 5.67 acres. These parcels currently have existing structures on them, including Alumni Hall and Alexis Hall.

Giving you a brief overview of the New Mexico Innovation Hub. The New Mexico Innovation Hub hopes to expand their current presence on the Midtown site, currently within the Aspect Media Village, by providing a space for light industrial and collaborative advancement in entrepreneurship through the New Mexico Innovation Hub. David Perez, who's with us this evening, aims to capitalize on Santa Fe's proximity to Los Alamos Labs and retain our local talent and young people. This development process proposes 186,750 square feet of commercial development and 228,300 square feet of residential development. This residential development would be rental, meaning the 15% inclusionary housing requirement in a townhouse style.

So, as I said in our previous item, it's still very early to review site plans and renderings, but I have included some of the early renderings for this project here, as it was with H1A, that development proposal. This would be destined for an early neighborhood notification meeting as well to welcome dialogue and input from the community. And of course, that is after the ENA is potentially approved, as well as a negotiation period followed by a DDA, which would, as previously mentioned, involve the MRC authority.

Moving forward, the New Mexico Innovation Hub complies with the criteria set out in the master plan, including the Santa Fe Green Building Code and LEED requirements. Inclusionary housing will comply with requirements and prohibit short-term rentals. Job creation and access are central components of this proposal. As a reminder, these details, including community benefits, will be further hammered out during the negotiation period.

Moving on to community development plan criteria. The New Mexico Innovation Hub complies with these criteria with many interested tenants and partnerships, including a potential partnership with Santa Fe Community College for job training and community programs. Staff recommends approval, and we request approval of the governing body this evening for the sale of J1A and J1B, that being through the exclusive negotiation agreement. Thank you.

Mayor: Very good. Questions on this item. But we have a motion and a second. Just have yet to have any questions if there are any. Seeing no hands, Madam Clerk, could you call the roll?

Clerk: Councilor Castro.

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Chavez.

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Faulkner.

Councilor Faulkner: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia.

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia.

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lindell.

Councilor Lindell: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Romero-Wirth. Yes. Councilor Cassutt. Yes. Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you. Thank you very much for the clarity and the details of your work and for your presentation tonight. Next item on the agenda, Madam Clerk.

Clerk: 10E requests for approval of a professional services contract with TWWG Development LLC to support the construction of 106 affordable housing units of the NWEVA Neweva Aekia 4% Santa Fe County LLC in the total amount of $935,000 for a one-year term. And here to speak is Director of Office of Affordable Housing Fabola Chavez. Move to approve. Second.

Mayor: There's a motion and there is a second. Thank you for, well, thank you for being here. You look suspiciously like Director Montoya, but...

Fabola Chavez: Mayor, governing body, I am so sorry. I need a moment to pull up my notes here.

Mayor: Take your time.

Fabola Chavez: I did not realize this was going to be on the agenda. If I may ask, can we move on to another item? And let me just pull up the data.

Mayor: Yeah, the, yes, of course. There's a motion to table this. There's a number of these coming rapidly behind this one.

Fabola Chavez: Yes, there are four.

Mayor: So you need, do you need all of these four to be tabled for so you can get your notes up?

Fabola Chavez: Can we just move to another part of the agenda? Yeah, I think if we entertained a motion to rather than tabling this to skip to item H and proceed from there.

Move to item H. Second.

Okay, there's a motion to amend our agenda to go to item H next, and there's a motion to second. Is there any discussion? Please call the roll on that.

Councilor Faulkner. Yes.

Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes.

Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes.

Councilor Lindell. Councilor Marworth. Yes.

Councilor Cassett. Yes.

Councilor Castro. Councilor Chavez. Yes.

Okay. Item 10H. Request for approval of capital outlay grant agreement with the New Mexico Department of Transportation for project C5253296 Rafina Lopez Lane intersection improvements in the total amount of $400,000 with the reversion date of June 30th, 2029. Here to speak should be Complete Streets Capital Projects Manager Romela Glorioso Moss. Move to approve.

I don't see anyone from Public Works in the audience. Is there anybody on the Zoom call who's from Public Works?

No, I'm seeing no one.

Okay. Well, let me first open the floor for questions on this item. Are there people who have issues with this that would like questions answered? If there were some.

We have a motion. We have a second. Madam Clerk, do you want to call the roll on item H, please?

Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes.

Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes.

Councilor Lindell. Councilor, yes.

Councilor Cassett. Yes.

Councilor Castro. Yes.

Councilor Chavez. Yes.

Councilor Faulkner. Yes.

Motion is approved.

All right. So that completes item H. Assume. Should we go to somewhere else?

We don't have a city manager at the moment. Matters from the city attorney. Should we hang on? We still have 10I.

Are we ready to take up?

Yeah, but I is in the same group.

Are we ready to go forward with the?

Very good. Thank you. So, Madam Clerk, if we go back to where we were previously with the first of the items that have to do with our affordable housing units. I believe Director has her notes up, and I appreciate you taking the time to find them and step up to the podium. So this is item, let's reiterate where we are, Madam Clerk, so nobody gets lost at home. Item 10E, requests for approval of professional services contract with TWWG Development LLC to support the construction of 106 affordable housing units of the Nuevo NWEA Ascia 4% Santa Fe County LLC in the total amount of $935,000 for a one-year term.

Move to take it off the table. Second.

Wait, we never voted on that.

I thought we did. Now we move to another part of the agenda.

You changed.

Oh, okay. Oh, well, we never withdrew those motions, right?

That's true.

We skipped over them.

Okay, never mind.

All right, so what we have in front of us right now is the first of the many items involving affordable housing. Did we, Madam Clerk, did we get a motion and a second on this item? Yes, we did.

Yes.

Right. So, I think the next step is just let's take this in an orderly fashion. If you could give us the best of your ability an overview about what this item is and then roll any questions.

Absolutely. So this first recommended award is for the amount of $935,000, and it is to TWWG, a development construction company in partnership with Santa Fe County. What's really interesting about this is the purpose is to support the construction of 106 affordable units at AIA 4% for income-qualified families. These units will remain affordable until 2072. 25% of the units will be set aside for households with children, and 33 units will be set aside for disabled and/or victims of domestic violence. The remainder of the units are for general income-qualified tenants. In partnership with the county, services will be provided by the Community Housing Trust, the New Mexico Department of Health, Youth Works, and the Boys and Girls Club on site. These services will include and are not limited to financial and credit counseling, limited health screening, health and nutrition education, career services, and youth programming. This is a great example of public-private partnership, and we encourage you to support this.

Thank you for that overview. Are there questions on this item?

Madam Clerk, could you call the roll?

Councilor Chavez. Yes.

Councilor Faulkner. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes.

Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes.

Councilor Lindell. Yes.

Councilor Marworth. Yes.

Councilor Cassett. Yes.

Councilor Castro. Yes.

Motion is approved.

Thank you. You could next item, which also relates to affordable housing units. Item 10F, requests for approval of a professional services contract with TWWG Development LLC to support the construction of 53 affordable housing units of the NEWEA, also known as 9% Santa Fe County LLC, in the total amount of $565,000 for a one-year term.

Second. Move to approve.

There is a motion and there is a second. Please, you were so good last time. Let's go over this one as well.

Mayor, Governing Body. So, this award would total, recommended award would total $565,000 again to DWG for another project in partnership with Santa Fe County. The purpose is to support the construction of 53 affordable housing units at Nova Akia 9% for income-qualified seniors. These units will remain affordable until 2072. The county will coordinate services for residents, which includes and is not limited to delivered meal service, fitness classes, health screening services, technology training, community engagement events, estate planning, and financial literacy. This again is another great example of public-private partnership, and I urge you to support it.

Thank you. Questions on this project?

Would you call the roll, Madam Clerk?

Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes.

Councilor Lindell. Yes.

Councilor Marworth. Yes.

Councilor Cassid. Yes.

Councilor Castro. Yes.

Councilor Chavez. Yes.

Councilor Faulkner. Yes.

Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes.

Motion is approved.

Thank you. Item.

Yes, ma'am. Sir, go to the next item, please.

Item 10G, request for approval of a professional services contract with the Santa Fe Community Housing Trust for the construction of eight permanently affordable homes at Arroyo Oeste for income-qualified families in the total amount of $675,000 for a one-year term. Move to approve. Second.

There's a motion and there's a second, I think. Please give us the overview again. That's very helpful.

Yeah. Mayor, Governing Body, this is a real interesting project. $675,000 to the Community Housing Trust. This is in support of construction of eight permanently affordable homes at Arroyo Oeste Phase 2 for income-qualified families. This money will be used to construct the entire homes. So $675,000 for the construction of eight homes is really good. I encourage you to support passing this recommendation.

Is there discussion on this item? Questions?

Madam Clerk, we're ready for a roll call vote.

Councilor Lindell. Councilor Marworth. Yes.

Councilor Cassett. Yes.

Councilor Castro. Yes.

Councilor Chavez. Councilor Faulkner. Yes.

Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes.

Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes.

Motion is approved.

Thank you. And that, I believe we've already taken H up, so we can now go to item I. Item 10I, request for approval of a professional services agreement with Homewise for the construction of spine infrastructure for 1,500 owner-occupied home ownership units in Phase 3A of Tierra Contenta in total amount of $1,500,000 for a one-year term.

Move to approve. Second.

There's a motion and there's a second. Please walk us through this as well. Mayor, Governing Body. As you know, this total recommended award is $1.5 million for Homewise. And the purpose is to support the production of spine infrastructure for Phase 3A of Tierra Contenta, which is a development project designed to add 1,500 owner-occupied units to Santa Fe's housing supply. All units will be sold below medium price, and 40% will be deemed affordable for income-qualified families. The spine infrastructure includes the construction of a main thoroughfare, two community loop roads, water, sewer, and storm water infrastructure, electric and dry utilities, and street lighting. Questions.

Madam Clerk, I'm sorry. Are you ready to call the roll? I don't think we have any questions.

Yes.

Councilor Marworth. Yes.

Councilor Cassett. Yes.

Councilor Castro. Yes.

Councilor Chavez. Yes.

Councilor Faulkner. Yes.

Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes.

Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes.

Councilor Lindell. Motion is approved.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. We now go to the next item. I think we'll go from 11 to 12.

Item 12, matters from the city attorney.

Yep. Madam City Attorney.

Mayor, Councilors, I have some comments and I have a recommendation for executive session. Should I recommend executive session first? Comments. Comments and then we'll go to the executive session and then we'll be able to do it all at the same time.

Okay. This is my last council meeting with you all. I do have a few appreciations to express and a couple reflections. I think I've been to about 170 council meetings, which means that Councilor Lindell has been to like 220-some. She has a specific number. 232 council meetings. So nowhere near that number, but 170 feels like a lot. [laughter] And I do want to express my great appreciation, Mayor, for giving me this opportunity to serve my community. I have really valued it. It's been an amazing opportunity to learn so much, work with an amazing team both in my office and across the city and external to the city. So many circles of amazing humans that I've gotten the opportunity to work with. Thank you very much. And thank you to the councilors who've supported me in the work. I think only two councilors were here when I got appointed. And so I've also gotten to work with a lot of councilors. And I've learned a lot from all of you as well. And from the legal community, I've gotten to work with a lot of new lawyers and a lot across the nation, honestly. And now, I'm moving on to internationally, which I'll get to in a second. But now I've met a lot of lawyers in other countries as well. But across the nation, we've collaborated quite a bit on some of this federal litigation and the fellowship that I did early on, the public rights project. But we talk to attorneys across the nation on a daily basis now from my office, and I'm not sure if that was the case before I got there. I'm not, we weren't part of the International Municipal Lawyers Association. We weren't participating in these cross-disciplinary municipal organizations that now quite a few of us are active with. So that's been an amazing growth for all of us. This is a job where I've been laughing every single day and only crying a couple days. So I think that's wonderful, and everyone in the office is the most engaged. Not everyone is the most engaged, but this is the most engaged team that I've ever worked with. Everyone is extremely dedicated to their cause. They believe in it. They believe in their community. They have strong ties here, and that's why they work here. It's been really cool to both work with my current team, but also to get the chance to work with people I worked with previously in all three branches of the government now. So, Andrea obviously was with our team, Chad Chinnam was with our team, Pat Fagali was with our team. We got all three branches now.

So that's been awesome to watch and see people grow. So I'm excited to see what happens with folks from the team in the future as well. The mention of innovation earlier really hit home with me, and I wrote that down and I added it to my list because working for the City of Santa Fe, particularly as a lawyer, really gives you an amazing opportunity. We're the first city that had rank choice voting in the state. We're the first city that did independent redistricting. We try new things. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. We're the first city to do an excise tax, period, of any kind.

At Leadership New Mexico, there was an auditor giving the state presentation on state taxes. He didn't even know that there was a statute about that because no other city had even tried. This was our third try and it passed. But no other city had even had a ballot question on an excise tax of any kind other than Santa Fe. So Santa Fe innovates, and our government innovates, and it's been extremely rewarding to be part of a team that innovates like Santa Fe does.

That brings me to some of the things that I'm really proud of that the team did while we were here. We had, I believe, six different Court of Appeals wins, five or six depending on how you count. We're back there again on one of them we already won, and that's the Cat Neck Tower case, which is why telecom regulations are so important, and it's so important to work on that part of our Chapter 14 code because it was entirely out of date. So we were not following it. We were only following the federal regulations because we didn't have any up-to-date regulations at the city. But we have won that case once. It's going back to the Court of Appeals too. We anticipate we're going to win it again.

Early on, we won a case against the Santa Fe Reporter for IRA interpretation. That issue is at the New Mexico Supreme Court in a different case now. But we were one of the earliest cases that had that issue decided at the Court of Appeals. We've won two published land use cases. There hadn't been a published land use case for over a decade from the Court of Appeals, and we've had two in the last five or six years. And that was Zia Station and Old Pojoaque Trail. And we've had the excise tax standing, which has already been cited in other cases in New Mexico, both in federal and state courts, to help other folks on the issue of standing. So, City of Albuquerque told me recently they used it in the federal court on an election issue they had, and they found it to be very helpful.

Some amazing historic matters we've gotten to work on from the City Attorney's Office. Andrea worked on the Santa Fe Estates termination agreement. That agreement was from 1930. And we have now moved that forward, almost a 100-year-old agreement that we ended, and now we are donating land for affordable housing in that area. That's the Las Estrellas property. And then we worked on ending an agreement to give free water, effluent water, which has become extremely valuable to the Country Club. And now we're in agreement with that. That agreement was from 1964. So almost 60 years of a water agreement that no longer made sense. It made sense at one point in time, but in our modern situation with effluent being a very valuable resource and golf being more available to the population, it no longer made sense. But we were able to come to a reconciled agreement, and we are now in a new agreement moving forward.

We've had cases against the federal government, we've had cases against the state, we've had cases against the county, and we've won at all three levels. So that's all been extremely amazing opportunity for folks to work on my team, but also for me to work on with them. There's just a huge variety of things that every day we get to work on that are a pleasure, and I've talked about some of them before, but just with a lot of legislation has been huge.

Then organizational improvements. We went from having one records custodian to having five. We went from doing everything on paper to doing everything online before COVID even started. Legislation was the first thing having electronic signatures in the city, and that had started before COVID. I pulled some agendas off the bulletin board in my office this afternoon that I've had up since COVID. But this is the agenda from the week before COVID, March 11th. And then I have the emergency meeting of the governing body from March 16th, where we were holding up microphones to telephones, and we were spread out around the room. Some people were on the telephone, and then the next week, basically, well, nine days later, we had directions for folks to attend virtually on YouTube. And we were passing emergency ordinances to change the way we did emergency proclamations that they could last longer than seven days. And then we issued about 30 emergency proclamations during that time. And we went from telephones and microphones to regularly using hybrid access. And everyone in the city went home very quickly, and it was amazing that we all were working together so well and were able to support the city through all of that. So it's been an amazing pleasure. Thank you very, very much for the opportunity, and there's an agenda somewhere I can make a recommendation. Thank you.

So, I also would like to recommend that we go into executive session in accordance with the Open Meetings Act, Section 10-15-1, attorney-client privilege discussion of threatened litigation, subpart H7. And in particular, we're going to discuss the state of Grayson and Damian v. Hill versus City of Santa Fe and New Mexico Environment Department Water Protection Division versus City of Santa Fe.

Mayor: Council, Mayor Worth, do we have a motion?

Councilor: I move that we enter into executive session pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Section 10-15-1H, subpart 6 for discussion, no, strike that. I move we go into executive session pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Section 10-15-1H, subpart 7 for discussion of threatened or pending litigation in which the governing body is or may become a participant.

Councilor: Second.

Mayor: There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Could you call the roll on the executive session motion?

Clerk: Councilor Cassett?

Councilor Cassett: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Castro?

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Chavez?

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Faulkner? Councilor Lee Garcia?

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia?

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Mayor Worth?

Councilor Mayor Worth: Yes.

Clerk: Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you. For everyone who's here for the items that are yet to be taken up, I appreciate your patience. We've got to take up a matter that is a legal discussion. I hope we can do it efficiently and quickly and resume our regular order when we get back. But thank you for your patience. We'll be back as soon as we can. So stay with us. We are streaming.

Mayor: We're back in session. Thank you. Councilor Romeworth, did you have a potential motion to bring us back into session?

Councilor Romeworth: Let's see. Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Section 10-15-1J, I move that the governing body reconvene in open session and state for the record that the matters discussed in the closed session were limited to those specified in the motion for closure.

Councilor: Second.

Mayor: There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, we need you to call the roll, please.

Clerk: Castro?

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Chavez?

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Faulkner?

Councilor Faulkner: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia?

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia?

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lindell?

Councilor Lindell: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Worth?

Councilor Worth: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Cassett?

Councilor Cassett: Yes.

Clerk: Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you. That would then take us, Madam Clerk, to some of the action items coming out of the executive session. If you'd like to start with the first of those, please.

Clerk: 13A, approval of a settlement agreement and release in the amount of $300,000 resolving Damian v. Hill, the City of Santa Fe at all D101 CV 20223-0000106.

Councilor: Move to approve.

Councilor: Second.

Mayor: There's a motion and there is a second. Any discussion? Please call the roll, Madam Clerk.

Clerk: Councilor Chavez?

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Faulkner?

Councilor Faulkner: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia?

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia?

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Worth?

Councilor Worth: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Cassett?

Councilor Cassett: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Castro?

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you. And then there is a second item coming out.

Councilor: Mayor Weber, can I recuse myself from the scope?

Mayor: Yes. Apologize. I should have acknowledged that sooner. Yes. Please step out. Note that Councilor Chavez is absent herself. She recuses herself from this item. Item 13B, approval of attorney-client privilege next steps in Estate of Grace at all, the City of Santa Fe D101 CV 2024-02345.

Councilor: I move to approve.

Councilor: Second.

Mayor: Motion and there is a second. Any discussion? Please call the roll, Madam Clerk.

Clerk: Councilor Faulkner?

Councilor Faulkner: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia?

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia?

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Mayor Worth?

Councilor Mayor Worth: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Cassett?

Councilor Cassett: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Castro?

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you. Would you take us to the next item, which I believe involves you directly?

Clerk: Yes. Matters from the City Clerk. So this is my last governing body meeting. So I wanted to do a little wrap-up. First off, thank you to the Mayor for giving me this opportunity as the City Clerk and Director of Community Engagement. It has been a really amazing experience because it mixes, whoops, it's blending my legal career and my prior photography career. Excuse me. I used to work with PR teams, marketing, graphic designers, and photographers, and it was really fun to get a chance to do that again. I also want to thank the City Council for your patience with my learning curve. And a huge, huge thank you to the staff of the City Clerk Community Engagement Team. Sorry, I have a little writing, so I'm going to be going through some stuff. For meeting the challenge of my vision for the office. They truly took the ball and ran with it. And I wanted to give you some highlights.

So I started November 9th with 13 employees and now have a complete team of 21. I started my first month with a number of vacancies and also the death of a beloved team member. Within six months, facilities helped me remodel the City Clerk space into a professional office with a desk and a window in anticipation for the election and next tranche of liquor licensing. I don't know, I'm getting breathy. We reclassified seven positions and added two new positions. We did a lot of transformation in accessibility. We hosted bilingual rank choice voting seminars for candidates, the public staff. We made sure all of our flyers were in Spanish and English. We extended interpreter and translation contracts to ensure all departments and meetings seeking these services had access to them. We placed the accessibility tool Recite Me on the website, which can translate and read in 250 languages. We revised online forms to be more accessible. Created a job for an in-house translator, sorry, in-house interpreter, and hired Spanish speakers both in constituent services and the Public Defender's Office. We created a lot of in-house templates and processes for agendas, captions, branding, events, event budget comparisons. In particular, the entire rank choice voting information suite was created by our team. Since now we own all the imagery, the city can use it. Continuing forward, election updates. We placed nominating petitions with QR codes online. We hosted training for staff, candidates, and community members on how to rank choice vote and how to talk about it.

We added informational sheets to utility bills and the Senior Scene and worked on memorializing what worked and didn't during this election cycle by making a drafting document and a copy of the election code. Marcos Martinez and I have been working on this to revise it. We enhanced events with age-appropriate and learning-focused giveaways at the egg hunt and Movies in the Park. We obtained sponsors to expand the free fun at these events, such as half-price food, free popcorn, cotton candy, and interactive activities hosted by other departments. We deployed marketing engagement to our issue-focused community engagement events, deploying meetings both in person and via Zoom, surveys, and follow-up reports for these types of meetings, and memorialized what didn't work and what worked.

I think the biggest thing for the team was the team building. We did scavenger hunts together, lunches, activities to get to know each other and build trust. It has been a real pleasure to have done so much in one year. I'm about 13 months in. I am grateful to all the departments and the division directors and co-sponsors who set up and facilitated all these activities. We couldn't be successful without them. And that's from the Convention Center, Transportation, I mean, you name it. Everyone came out and helped us. Libraries was a big one, too. I feel I'm leaving this great team to a new City Clerk and Director of Community Engagement in good shape, and I look forward to my next adventure, and I appreciate this past year. Happy holidays and a happy new year.

Mayor: Thank you, Madam Clerk, and I appreciate the description of some of the good work. I know you actually edited it way down for tonight, but thank you for your hard work and happy holidays to you. Next item on the agenda, Madam Clerk.

Clerk: Item 15, communications from the governing body.

Mayor: All right, Councilor Castro, kick it off.

Councilor Castro: I just wanted to thank everyone. So many of us aren't going to be in the same room after today. It has been an amazing two years. Thank you all for the hard work and the dedication. We've done some really great things. We've had some really exciting moments, and I'm excited for more.

Mayor: Thank you, Councilor.

Councilor: Thank you, Mayor. I want to say thank you to the staff that will be leaving us and for your guidance and work. I know you have been very helpful to me as a councilor in coming into this role. So, I appreciate that. Thank you.

I also, I got to honor Councilor Romero Worth. I wish I could honor everyone else at Public Works and Utilities. But I do appreciate the kindness and the support. I had the privilege of meeting Sig prior to taking on this role, and she was there to celebrate me in my work as a brand new principal and making my school a community school, and very motivating to me as a new leader and a leader kind of taking risks and being terrified. And I appreciate her guidance then. I appreciate her guidance here.

Mayor Weber, this is a big role to take on, and I appreciate your work and your efforts for our community, and I really look forward to working with our new governing body. I think that we have a great opportunity here, and I hope we do well with it. I hope we're an example of leadership. I hope we're an example of teamwork, and we do not mirror the terror that goes through our city and creates a lot of the conflicts that we face on a daily basis, but we are actually there to mend some of that as the leaders of the city. So I look forward and have hope that we can take on that role and really transform the way that we as a governing body operate, but how our city operates and views city government. So hopefully we can accomplish that. That's what I have a wish for coming into the new year. Thank you.

Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Garcia, sir.

Councilor Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council Lindell, Mayor Weber, Council Romero Worth, City Attorney McSherry, City Clerk Salazar. Thank you for your service to our city. I wish you all the best. I know you all got some great things lined up. So, be safe, have fun. Don't forget us here in Santa Fe. Come visit a governing body if you're up for it. My hope is we won't be going to the midnight hour in the future, but we'll have folks holding us accountable in the audience. Just to the public, everybody have a safe holiday season ahead and see you all soon.

Mayor: Thank you, sir. Councilor Lindell.

Councilor Lindell: Thank you, Mayor. Well, I guess we're done. [laughter] Better than being dead. So we've been through a lot together. The highs and lows of our lives. We've seen people on this council lose their parents. We've seen people on this council get married. We've seen people on this council have children, grandchildren. We've seen people on this council lose partners. We've seen divorces. You know what? We've been there for each other. It's astounding. You've all heard me say it's always about relationship, and this council's lived it out well.

You also have all heard me say there's two things people don't like: the way things are now and change. So, don't forget that. When the target's on your back, just remember that. And I've done my best to bring a little levity to things and try to be just aware of the importance of the relationships that we have with each other. And I'm deeply grateful for it. I'm grateful that I was given the opportunity to serve our city. I took an oath, and I did my very best to hold up that oath. Doesn't mean that at times I didn't have some hindsight and wonder, "Did we do the right thing?" But history will judge us on that. Always does. So past is the past. Have bright futures, and we continue to have each other, which is really, really important. So, thank each and every one of you. Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor: Thank you, Councilor Lindell. Councilor Faulkner.

Councilor Faulkner: I can say honestly, I wish you all the best of luck in your new endeavors and thank you for your service to the community. I guess I'll start with Carol, who I've known the longest. I met Carol at the legislature, and I can say that I've truly enjoyed working with you as a peer. Learned a lot. You have a great sense of humor. I'm not sure everybody gets that about you, but you are one funny lady. You really are. I've enjoyed sitting next to you, and you have taught me a lot about how to analyze policy, and we're going to miss your expertise, my council.

And I'll go to Sig. Sig and I have known each other for a long time. We've a lot of times don't agree. We've always managed to come back and be friends and talk through the issues. I learned a lot from you, Sig, as well. I'm going to miss you on the council. I think I've worked with you as a councilor, not me as a councilor, but you as a councilor for your entire term as councilor, your tenure. And so I just appreciate all of our robust conversations and the friendship we've developed as councilors.

And Ellen, I told you this earlier today. I've enjoyed all the arguments we've had, which we've had plenty, but it's always been a fun experience going back and forth with you and arguing with you, and you've helped me solve a couple of things I couldn't figure out, which I appreciate. I look forward to working with Mayor-Elect Garcia. I think we have, like Councilor Chavez said, I think we have an opportunity to do some great things, and I'm excited to work with you on that, and I'm excited to work with the other councilors.

And La Posada, a week from tomorrow, the 18th, at the Teen Center, we're going to be handing out a bunch of toys. We're estimating we're going to hit about 2,000 kids. The schools have been flooded with information. I'd like to thank the Fire Department for doing like a massive lift and helping us, and the Northern New Mexico Toy Drive. There's still time to buy toys. There's still time to donate money. To put it in perspective, Los Alamos National Laboratories usually gives around 4,000 toys or so, and they gave 1,500. And so the economy has hit the toy drive really, really hard. We've also taken on the foster care system from Albuquerque North. And so we're prioritizing foster kids. So I encourage everyone to please donate to the toy drive. At this point, we need money, not toys. And please everyone come to the Posada. It's going to be super fun, and it's a great opportunity on the Southside to celebrate the people of the Southside.

Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Mayor Worth.

Councilor Mayor Worth: Thank you, Mayor. This is my last meeting. Wow, it's I can't believe how fast eight years has gone. Pretty extraordinary. I remember starting over there where you are, Councilor Castro, and slowly, as more new people came, you get to move inward. This is as close as I got to the inner side. [laughter] But I've learned a lot. Just an extraordinary amount. And I have met some of the most incredible people. I really, really just shout out to all the people who have worked for city government in the last eight years. It's been an extraordinary group. I think you all have been incredible stewards of the work of city government and of this community. And I just, you were just an incredible group, and I've had the honor to work with all of you, and that has been just an incredible experience for me.

And thank you, Councilor Lindell, for pointing out that life keeps on happening in these roles, good and bad. I lost my father right after I was elected, and you know, but then I, several years later, we had our first grandchild. So you know, life keeps on giving in different ways. So, I appreciate that kind of sober soberingness from you, and just it's been my pleasure to work with you. You've taught me just an incredible amount. I remember you were sort of my go-to. I had a list on my phone on the notes, questions to ask Sig. [clears throat] And I just kept a running tally. So, every time I saw her, I'd stop her in the corner. I'd be like in the hallway, and I'd be like, "Hey, wait. I got about four things I got to ask you how this works." So, thank you for being a great mentor and teacher.

Mayor Weber, it's been my pleasure. You are an extraordinary leader, and I'm sorry the community has been so hard on you, and I think it's been unfair, and your heart is as good as gold. You work tirelessly. I will never forget one of the first impressions I have of you. I went to a meeting in your office, and you had color highlighted a report that you had gotten, and I was like, "Oh my God, if that's the level we're supposed to be operating at, I don't know. I got to go buy some highlighters." So, anyway, thank you. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your stewardship of this community, and yeah, we're, I don't think any of us is going anywhere anytime soon. So, I look forward to continuing to interact with everyone and seeing everyone.

And to the rest of my colleagues, please carry on. You know, we've got new people coming in. I think they are excited. It's fresh air, shot in the arm, new leadership. You guys will be the stewards, and there's a lot of challenging things that this city has to deal with. So I wish you all the very best, and just extraordinarily grateful for this opportunity and just honored to have been able to sit here for the last eight years. Thank you.

Mayor: Thank you, everybody. Councilor Cassidy.

Councilor Cassidy: Thank you so much, Mayor. Most people know I've been crying since budget hearings. [laughter] I do, I really want to recognize all the staff that's leaving and how much I have learned from all of you, both City Attorney McSherry and City Clerk Salazar and Director Oster and Director

Mononttoya, and all of the individuals that are moving on to their next adventures, it has been such an incredible honor to work with you. I don't think people understand how incredibly hard it is to work in government, and especially local government. It is amazing how much the magnifying glass is on everything that we do, and it's amazing how many times you have to stay in City Hall until 1:00 a.m. [laughter and clears throat] It is a commitment. It is a commitment, and it really is a job of passion and of care. You don't do this work unless you care. Believe me, you're not getting paid as much as you could. You're working longer hours. You're getting criticized left and right. There is no way that people do this work unless it is something that they're truly passionate about. So, I want to thank you all for bringing that passion and serving our community with it.

Oh gosh, [laughter] I had a really wonderful opportunity to talk to both Sig and Carol at Finance, and how much their mentorship has meant. The last six years have been a roller coaster in my life. I really think coming into this work was an awakening for who I feel like I am and the things I want to do and what I'm really passionate about. And both of you were so incredibly key in helping steer that work and help me learn about how to be a policymaker and how to be a public servant, and how do you move through all the hard times? How do you keep laughing? I always say that if I have an idea, I'm going to go right to Carol and be like, "Poke holes in it. Please tell me what's wrong." Because I just have so appreciated everything that you both have given me as fellow counselors, and having other female mentors means a lot. Women aren't always nice to each other. We are very fortunate that we have such incredible women on this council who are so supportive of each other, but I've had a lot of older females that I worked under who did not provide that support. And I just love you both so much. I think the world of you, and I'm going to miss you terribly.

And Mayor Weber, I really want to thank you and recognize everything that you have given to this city. Again, I have had conversations that people think the Mayor of Santa Fe may be the hardest elected job in the state. [clears throat and laughter] And there's a lot of really big challenges there. And one thing that I have always appreciated is that you never stop giving your all, and you're always showing up, and you're always looking for more solutions, and you're always trying to keep moving even when things were really hard, even when the public was not welcoming. And that shows a lot of character. And so I really appreciate that, and I really want to thank you for all of the opportunities that I have had to learn from you. I wish you all the best, and I'm going to be calling you.

It's not like I'm going to miss you. I miss you up here. But I really, I just again, nobody does this job unless they really care about this work because it is not easy. And I am just so incredibly grateful that I had the opportunity to serve with you all. Thank you.

Mayor: Thank you, Counselor. Counselor Lee Garcia, sir, you have the floor.

Councilor Lee Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Best of wishes to everyone that's leaving. As my colleagues have stated, it's not always easy to be in the public eye, whether people disagree with you or disagree with you. And I think everyone up here is trying to do their best and trying to work together to get that stuff done. So, best of luck to each and every one of you who's leaving. I'll go ahead and plug Pil a little bit, my partner over there. And come out and support. I did want to give a shout out to my pops, Dad Boss, the OG. He's going to be 79 on Friday, so happy birthday to him. He was out there laying cement with my son this morning all day long. So, he's not stopping doing things. But, back again to the future. I do look forward to working with the new governing body, Mayor-Elect Garcia, and seeing how we continue to improve our community in the best way possible.

Mayor: Thank you, Counselor. All this stuff is hard, so let me defer for a minute and point out a couple things about Santa Fe coming up that are worth noting. We heard about some of the great stuff that'll happen on the south side. We do have an important Guadalupe Street Winter Walk coming up. I hope everybody participates. It's going to be a phenomenal celebration. And then to our employees, thanks for putting on the holiday party. The Chain Breakers are also having a celebration on Sunday. There's a menorah lighting coming up. This holiday season is a tremendous, tremendous time to be in Santa Fe. So much so that I point out that Condé Nast Traveler today published a list of cities that quote, "go all out for Christmas." Santa Fe is number one.

So this is a city that's a little bit of a pivot toward a few thoughts about Santa Fe and my time as mayor. This is not a good city. This is a great city. This is a world-class city. This is a city that is so extraordinary in so many ways that we can't find the superlatives to describe it. And that's not something that any of us created, but it's something that all of us are responsible for safekeeping, safeguarding, and making better. Local government is a team sport at every level, and I have had the great honor and privilege of working with some of the best, [snorts] most talented, most committed people at every level of city government that I've ever worked with. This includes people up here who were elected, people who used to be up here and are no longer with us on the dais, people who are coming. It includes the people who I had a chance to select to be part of my personal team. Outstanding individuals, highest ethical standards, highest professional standards. The City of Santa Fe can take pride in the people who work for it. And the people who are in all of our departments are extraordinary. They care deeply about this city. I think a very simple standard, if you all ever went camping, you got to leave the campsite better than you found it. And I think all of us have done that.

I think my colleagues who are stepping off governing body with me have an extraordinary record of service to Santa Fe. I think their level of expertise in specific areas, each of you is a subject matter expert. Each of you has given that specific knowledge in ways that I know I've depended on because you can't play every position on the field. You have to have other people who are part of the team. You all have just done extraordinary work. I think the other thing that we've witnessed in the last eight years is an expansion of imagining what city government can be about. City government can always and should always pay attention to the fundamentals and the basics, but we've gone so far beyond that sometimes because COVID required it, and we had no choice but to adapt in ways that were innovative and responsive with technology and human-to-human support so that people weren't evicted from their homes. We provided direct cash assistance. We also expanded the city's vision to think about responsibilities to the planet for sustainability and conservation and creating programs that put Santa Fe at the forefront of an existential crisis around the future of our planet. We worked hard on issues of social justice and implemented, I think for the first time, a comprehensive social policy for the City of Santa Fe, which is really what we ought to be about: making the lives of the people who live here fairer, more equitable, more just, with more opportunity. This is not something that I did. This is something that we all did. And I think it's a record that demonstrates that city government can make a real difference in people's lives in ways small and large. And I want to thank everybody for the opportunity to work with you. It's been a privilege and an honor. And I expect greatness from the next mayor and the next governing body. I expect that the City of Santa Fe will continue to be a beacon to not just New Mexico, but to our entire country about how to be a place where core values, shared commitment to each other, and leadership with the heart and the head distinguishes this city from any other place in the world. And go back to where I started. This is not just a good city. This is a great city, and having the chance to serve as mayor, it's a calling. It's not a job for all of us. It's a privilege of a lifetime. So, thank you everybody.

Mayor: I think we have some more work to do. Madam Clerk, what's the next item on the agenda?

City Clerk: Introduction of legislation 16A, consideration of Resolution Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Mayor Alan Weber and Councilor Jamie Casset. Resolution adopting annual Open Meetings Act notice standards for 2026.

Mayor: Councilor Casset, it is kind of self-explanatory.

Councilor Casset: It is quite self-explanatory. Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor: All right, Madame Clerk. The next item on the agenda.

City Clerk: 16B, consideration of Bill Number 2025-23, adoption of Ordinance Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Councilor Jamie Casset and Councilor Pilar Faulkner, a bill amending SFCC 1987 Section 2-4.2 to require city managers to be International City/County Management Association (ICMA) credentialed or credential eligible unless an appointment and consent of such candidate is not possible after five months, requiring candidates for deputy city manager to have the same qualifications pursuant to Section 2-4.6L, removing portions of Section 2-4.3 that conflict with city charter, and removing the prohibition for an acting city manager to employ and discharge personnel.

Mayor: Would one of you like to speak to this?

Councilor Casset: Yes, I think both of us would probably like to speak to this.

Mayor: Go right ahead.

Councilor Casset: Thank you. This ordinance really is a testament to the incredible work that we have seen from Mark Scott, Andrea Phillips, and Rod Gold. And we have had really wonderful, dedicated city managers in the past, and I have seen how important it is to have somebody who is a professional city manager. This is a career. This is not simply a job. And it bodes a great deal of responsibility. And so I think that the City of Santa Fe deserves to have somebody who is really incredibly qualified to lead this city. And so with this, we really want to make sure that in the future that our city managers have the knowledge, the experience, the education to continue to move the City of Santa Fe forward.

Mayor: Councilor, your co-sponsor.

Councilor Faulkner: Ditto.

Mayor: Very good. We have another item to introduce. Madam Clerk.

City Clerk: 16C, consideration of Bill Number 2025-26, adoption of Ordinance Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Mayor Alan Weber, Councilor Carol Romero-Wirth, and Councilor Jamie Casset. A bill approving a Community Energy Efficiency Development (CREED) Block Grant from the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department Energy Conservation and Management Division pursuant to the CREED Block Grant Act to authorize a, is it a SEED or a CREED, sorry, SEED?

Councilor Casset: SEED.

City Clerk: SEED program project and approve the terms and conditions of the grant agreement.

Mayor: I think it's self-explanatory, but dive in anybody.

Councilor Casset: Thank you. I think it's self-explanatory.

We've done petitions from the floor. Madame Clerk, I think we're ready to move on to 19 on the agenda. Final action on legislation public hearings. 19A consideration of Bill Number 2025-22, adoption of Ordinance Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Councilor Jamie Cassett, Councilor Signey Lindell, Councilor Alma Castro, and Councilor Par Fulner, amending SFCC1987 Section 5-2 to define abandonment and unattended animal, Section 5-5.4 to prohibit keeping an animal on a median, and Section 5-8.4 to specify that abandoning an animal will incur a fine, creating a new Section 5-8.14, 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 a first unattended animal offense and a $500 fine for subsequent offenses, and impose a $50 fine for keeping animals on medians.

Thank you for reading that. This is a public hearing. I thought it would be appropriate to ask one or more of the sponsors to potentially introduce it, but then we'll go to the public for comment and then go to a motion and see where we are. I'd like to defer to Councilor Lindell.

Councilor: Thank you, Councilor Cassett. Thank you, Mayor. I think that we have some amendments with this that'll be addressed. But I think in the overall, the motivation for this is, it's been, historically, I've done work on this council that has to do with animal welfare, and that's what this bill is to me. It's about animal welfare. I think that it's been misconstrued by many, which it's a little hard to have everyone think that they know your motivation more than what your real motivation is, and take that and run with it. It's not only incorrect, it's unfair. So I think that the question for me is, I don't think that a dog on a median is a proper place for a dog to be in the middle of traffic. Certainly, I know that I wouldn't consider allowing my dog to be in that environment or under those circumstances. Just unacceptable. And I think that it's harmful to animals. That's not what medians were instructed for. They have a purpose. It's not for, really, it's not for people or for animals to be on. That's not the purpose of a median. So that's the motivation of this, is animal welfare. And when other folks take it and subscribe other motivations to it, all I can say is that you're wrong. And I think that we've done a fair amount of work on this. I think it's been improved from the time that Councilor Cassett and I sat upstairs and ground this out for hours with legal. And that's what you do. You go upstairs to legal and you grind out the details to the best of your ability. And what you find is that as a council, other people have some ideas that can improve the work that you've done, and that's what we have here. So that's my introduction to this. I would thank legal for all the hours that they sat with us trying to figure out the right thing to do, how we do this properly, how we achieve what our real goal was. Marcy, thank you for all the time you spent with us. Councilor Cassett, thank you for all the time you spent just sitting up there trying to grind this out and figure out how we could get to where we wanted to go. And with the amendments that are here, I'm really happy with this, and I hope that we can get it moved forward and move on.

Thank you.

Councilor Faulkner: I would just offer that my motivation is that I do not believe any human or animal should be on the medians. It's very dangerous. I think that part of the community believes that the homeless population is the biggest population occupying the medians. But I've been working on the homeless issue for, I don't know, six, seven months, and done a lot of research. There's more happening on the medians that's bad for our community. There's human trafficking. There's substance abuse. There's trafficking of illicit substances. And I'm not saying that the homeless population is doing this. What I am saying is the medians are not a safe place for anyone, and certainly not anyone who's struggling with mental health issues or addiction issues. And so I will support any legislation that gets people and animals off the medians.

Councilor Cassett: Yeah. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Councilor Lindell, as well for spending all that time working on this with me. And thank you to the legal team. These things are not always easy to figure out, all the different definitions and the lines and the scenarios and how do you go from one place to another. But I echo Councilor Lindell and Councilor Faulkner's sentiments around, for me, this is always about animal welfare and safety, and whether or not this is a safe place. I would say that there's always other things. I say this all the time, there's never one piece of legislation that completely addresses an issue. And in terms of animals that are the companions of homeless individuals, we actually have been advocating a lot for resources for them too, and will continue to do so. As we have moved forward with Agape House, one of the important things was to make sure that this was going to be an animal-friendly place, and it is. They're creating a dog run, I believe. And they're going to be creating this. Yeah. And when I've, we've spoken with Director Hammond Paul about when Urban Alchemy puts up another Oasis, that we want to make sure that that one is animal-friendly. As we have supported different shelters, different community groups, making sure that they are animal-friendly as well is important. And so, what I would say is for other individuals that are concerned about the welfare of animals who are owned by homeless individuals, that looking for other options where they truly are safe, I'm all ears. I mean, and I, you know, we'd love to continue to work towards this as Councilor Faulkner has said, she's really been working on this issue, issues around homelessness. We've made sure with our pallet shelter or micro communities, they change names, again, that these are going to be animal-friendly communities. So, I am completely for looking for more solutions. We have already started that process. And so it is, it is both. It is creating safe spaces, but also saying where there isn't safety, that the city of Santa Fe is not going to be in agreement with that. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Councilor Castro: Yes. Briefly, I want to also talk a little bit about why I'm on this legislation, some of the amendments that I'm presenting. One thing we haven't talked a lot about is the need for cleaner, more precise legislation. And in creating definitions, we are being better legislators, and we are able to give better direction to our staff. That being said, one of my amendments actually strikes out some of that direction because there are things that I feel is not appropriate for us as legislators to be directing, but rather we do have experts like animal control and public safety aids that are dealing with these issues on a daily basis. And so there are some things that we will be discussing in terms of authority. But the reason that I am supporting part of this legislation is that definition of what abandonment is, and that isn't referencing housed or unhoused individuals. That is referencing how we as a city want to define the abandonment of animals. And the other piece that I have, you know, many of us have taken on roles on this day, and one of my interests has been code enforcement and how we are able to actually enforce the laws that we pass. We are not anywhere near being able to enforce everything that we are putting on the books. But as goals, I think we need to look again at how we criminalize folks, at the kinds of folks that we are putting in certain circumstances. And I want to call attention to the question that I asked from the judge today. Everyone who is able to pay will have a fee. Those who are able to demonstrate they cannot pay will have an alternative. And that is very, very important for any case in our municipal courts, that we do not want to be punitive to folks who do not have the ability to pay.

Thank you, Councilor. So with that introduction, I would, it is a public hearing. I would entertain anyone who'd like to testify on that matter to please come to the podium up here at the front. And we'll ask you to give us your name, and the city clerk will keep the clock. Please don't applaud, don't boo, just listen respectfully. Everybody has a point of view they want to bring across, and we want to give everybody the same opportunity to make their statement and be treated with respect. So please, as soon as we get the clock running, so we can, there it goes. You have the floor.

My name is Karen Kaine. I'm the executive director of Street Homeless Animal Project. I would like to make a few comments. Ms. Faulkner, you indicated you've been researching this for six or seven months. I've been doing this for 26 years out on the street as a mental health therapist, working with every entity in Santa Fe that works with our homeless families. And Sig, I beg to differ with you. You and I have had interaction over the years, and I really appreciate what you and I did together with the dogs in hot car campaign, but I will stand and stick by. This is a homeless issue, and I will stick by that. And you certainly are entitled to your opinion, and that is what our free country allows and allots. But this, this measure and what's going on here tonight, it is absolutely further choking the life out of and criminalizing our homeless brothers and sisters out there. I hope that y'all received the letters that we sent from Street Homeless, the Christian Science Monitor article, and the letter that we wrote. You guys are making decisions for people that you don't even know out there. We know our families. We know our folks. We know their companion animals, and we know that they belong together. So, shame on you, Sig, and shame on the rest of you for this measure that is going to create further chaos. Hatch and release animals at the pound, folks in jail. And you know what? Your $200, $500 fines. We have donors that are outraged about this, that are willing to do whatever is necessary to take care of our families. Their animals mean as much to them as they do to you most. And I say it every single day. The reality is that there are some housed folks who shouldn't have human or non-human animals. And there are some homeless folks who shouldn't have human or non-human animals. But we don't judge an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. And those animals, that is their family, that human and vice versa. This is just, you know, I, you mentioned Allan, pardon me, Mayor, that we have a great city. Well, to have a great city, we take care of all of our beings in this city. We've got further work to do.

Thank you. Thank you for coming down tonight. Let's give the clock a minute to reset, and as soon as it's ready, you have the floor. Go ahead, please.

My name is Daryl Blair. I live on the streets. I've been living on the streets about 40 years. I've been studying homeless 27. I probably take one of the more scholarly approaches to it that you would ever encounter. The approach I take is a comprehensive approach, includes economic development, spiritual development, emotional development, and problem-solving skills.

All this can be done, but we need an insulated environment in which to do this, where we can take control of our own lives and be done with this multi-billion dollar a year industry that needs us to suffer. They've had a half-century. I'm asking for support for us for one year with a facility and the bills, and let us—and there are other things I could request, like money for production and retail and education—but we are human beings, but we're treated like animals. That's not right. We need to cultivate the human potential in the homeless population. We are a talent force, a creative force, a muscular force. I've lived on the streets 40 years. I'm as cogent as you are. I've been through hell. I know what it's like to really, really suffer myself. I don't see a difference. There is no difference. Empathy, suffering is a great educator. It's hard to take, but it will teach you more about love and compassion. It's good in its own way. It's bad when you see another person.

When I talked about how these homeless people are going to get along, I concluded that kindness is the basis of love. So if we're doing our meditation practices perceptually about kindness, two ideas then, if you think about kindness, we speak about kindness and react with kindness. That's what I'm advocating as a lifestyle, different than this one. Even Supreme Court Justice Roberts said that you're punishing people for being poor. That's it. And we didn't cause it. It was Nixon's China policy. This is my conclusion. I grew up in the Russ.

**Speaker:** Yes, sir.

**Speaker:** Thank you, sir. Bless your hearts. I think you're—

**Speaker:** Thank you for coming down tonight, sir. Give it one sec. As soon as I see a clock. We have a clock and you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. My name is Judith Gabriel. I live in District 2 and I'm also a volunteer with the Street Homeless Animal Project. I loved hearing what you said about Santa Fe, Mr. Mayor, and I agree with Karen that we cannot call ourselves a great city when we don't have social justice for everyone and we are treating the homeless as if they are criminals. And I also don't really care about the motivation. What I care about is the consequences, which I think will be dire for the families on our streets. So really, I'm asking you all to reconsider this, do some more work to involve the homeless population in the problem-solving, and don't make it punitive from the get-go, but work on some social fixes that will help us because nobody wants animals and people to be on medians asking for money. They don't have a choice. So, I don't believe this is about animal welfare from my perspective. I think it's punitive. I think it criminalizes homelessness. It will break up families and it will cause a great deal of misery. And I'm asking you all to vote no on this, including the sponsors. I think this will be a stain on your legacy. Thank you.

**Speaker:** Thank you for coming down tonight. Give us one sec. And you have the floor. Go ahead.

**Speaker:** I'm Katherine Row, and I just wanted to share some experiences. The other night I saw someone I knew, but I didn't recognize him. He was against a wall on the concrete. It was outside a grocery store, and I went over, and he was perfectly sane and sober, and his dog was with him. He rescued a dog that had been abused, and she didn't trust everyone, but she spent the whole time licking his face. Of course, she had the blankets and the coat, and he was just a lovely gentleman. And I know men who had their knapsack full of dog food. They're thin, you know, thin old men, but healthy dogs. And I don't mind seeing people on the median. I don't mind their dog happily jumping up, and I don't mind scratches on my car. And I think it's a nice opportunity to help people. And people will give the soft comfort to the animal and not themselves. And these are deep commandments. You know, a girl who, like me, was orphaned before being an adult, but unlike me, she didn't have the money. She woke up being kicked in a park by a policeman. And it bothered me that she found them frightening. She was told she was cute. She was told by men, and she—men would say, "Oh, I know how you can make money." And she was assaulted by a bunch of men. She said she was screaming and screaming, and the police never came. I touched a woman the other day who could barely walk, and she was afraid of policemen, and that bothered me so much. I've had people standing on medians hand me back a $5 bill that I'm giving them, much less when you give someone a $20, they're like, "Are you sure you can't take this?" I mean, you're talking about good people. And it was so sad to me when this woman got a sleeping bag from a nice gentleman there who lives in his car and has for decades and passes out sleeping bags and things. And I asked her, "Do you—" I was going to say, "Do you need mace?" Because she said she met such sweethearts out there, as I have, but she's also met bad people. And she said, "Oh, but not afraid." That is such an outrageous company to ask someone who's already living through hard times.

**Speaker:** Thank you. You're good. Thank you. Appreciate it.

**Speaker:** Well, good evening. No, it's not good morning yet. This is really a toughy, and I know it probably has been for all of you. So I went to an exhibit of the unhoused. It's by the Vital Spaces program over there at El Museo. So I went over to see a friend of mine there because her partner had died, and I wanted to talk about that, and I got to see this really great show of black and white photography done by individuals who call themselves unhoused. And one person there who is in charge, who works with part of the Vital Spaces program, is named Karen Sequoia. I recommend you stopping by there if she's there. Please sit down and chat with her. She's gorgeous. She's fun. She's smart. She's compassionate. And it is very gratifying to hear somebody like that talking in defense of this somewhat alternative way of living. It would be alternative for me. I'm an outgoing person, but I wouldn't be able to do it. And so in my fantasy, I've sometimes thought, wouldn't it be great to—dang, that thing, that clock goes so fast—wouldn't it be great to have some median where there could be people asking for help for money in that style to which they're used that are wider? That seems odd, I know. But what I don't like is, although the amendments maybe are making an attempt, but it's too abrupt. It's too sharp a change, and maybe there should be an accommodation partway. Last thing I'll say is when I asked Karen, "So what should people do?" And she said Santa Fe needs to expand the support services before this goes in. She said she thinks in general, and I think we all agree, but it would be a place where money should be spent. I think if you feel half compassionate, just save the money, and I think it's great to say that the people who don't have money don't have to pay. Somebody else will pay. I know, I'm so sorry.

**Speaker:** Thank you.

**Speaker:** Case management. Thank you.

**Speaker:** Mental health, physical health, and I recommend the show there at El Museo.

**Speaker:** Thank you for—

**Speaker:** It really is wonderful.

**Speaker:** Thank you very much.

**Speaker:** One sec. And you have the floor. Go ahead.

**Speaker:** All right. You guys may or may not recognize me. I've been kind of on the streets for a while now. I'm a veteran. My name's Brandon Tablock. I'm actually a member of SHAP now. I'm a board member, but I spend a lot of time in the median, and a lot of time I don't get to take my—I have to take my dog with me wherever I go, you know. I don't really get noticed much on the corners, like by the soldier and things. So I stick in, but my dog, if I have to have her with me, she has to be with me. If she's across the street, she'll try to get to me. I don't want her across the street. If I'm away from her, she's going to try to be with me. And I know other people's dogs are like that, too, you know. And I just don't want them to cross the street and get hit by a car or something, you know what I mean? So I think that they should just stay with their people, you know, and I mean—

**Speaker:** Thank you very much. Thanks for coming down.

**Speaker:** How are you doing?

**Speaker:** I'm well.

**Speaker:** Give me one sec. Oh, you have the floor. Go ahead. ACLU already. Thank you. Anyone else here tonight who would like to speak on this subject? Now would be the time to come forward. Anyone who is in the Zoom room who would like to speak on this subject?

**Speaker:** We have two hands raised. Starting with Stephanie Benonato. You are allowed to speak. Thank you. I hope you can hear me because really I could only hear about half the speakers who spoke, including Councilor Lindell, who always seems to be too far from her microphone. I have very mixed feelings about this ordinance. I think partly it's lack of enforcement. You're not even enforcing the non-humans not being on medians. And now you want to pass this one about animals. I did almost—I did see an animal who would have leaped off the median, but its human had it on a very short leash and tied around a post, and so it could not go off, but a car would have hit it. At the same time, I used to employ somebody who was schizophrenic, and he had dogs, and he was in an accident and ran away, and the dogs were taken. And when we went down to the pound to get them, he was arrested. He was thrown on the floor and arrested, and it was really horrible for him. I don't—I don't think that dogs should be on medians, but I also don't think they should be taken away. I appreciate that there won't be a fine. There would be service if you don't have the money. And I don't think—I think abandonment is a lot more than just homeless people. I think there are people who leave their animals out in the yard for hours on end, barking, barking, never hearing them or never even being there. And to me, that is actually much worse than the person who doesn't have a place to put their dog, who keeps the dog with them and who does actually provide them comfort. So my big thing is really enforcement, and again, to enforce the one about humans not being on the median, and you probably could solve the dog problem as well. And I just want to wish those—the councilors and Mayor Weber—good, I was going to say good riddance, I didn't really mean that. I meant good luck, and I hope that you enjoy whatever it is that you do after this retirement from public service. Thank you.

**Speaker:** Thank you for commenting. We have another hand in the Zoom room.

**Speaker:** Michelle Williams, you are allowed to speak. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. My name is Michelle Williams. I am the executive director of Consuelo's Place, and I'm actually in support of this ordinance. I might be one of the few social services folks that actually is. Certainly the primary reason here, of course, is what many of you cited. I'm also personally an animal lover, and this is not a safe environment for animals to be in. They have a heightened sense of, you know, smell and smell or lungs, arthritic environment in most medians that they're going to be laying or sitting on for many hours at a time often. So I'm not going to advocate for that in terms of animal welfare. And obviously, on behalf of my professional role at Consuelo's Place Homeless Shelter, you know, there are many resources in Santa Fe. We can say that there are not enough shelter beds, there are not enough social services and enough social resources, but they are absolutely out there. And I know that the city has invested in many outreach programs and the Connect Network, and Judge Chidum talked about that earlier today and how many people can get deferred to resources.

in that manner. We certainly use the platform very extensively ourselves. I know Miss Kane is not in support of this, but she is also a resource for many of these individuals to be able to get the resources they need. So, being in the median physically is not the best way by which we can serve the homeless community. So, I also liken this a little bit to our speeding ordinances. We largely don't enforce that. It's designed to be an off-ramp to encourage people to comply. It's not about how many citations that we can possibly write for as many speeders as we possibly can come up with. Again, it's designed to deter people, and we want to deter people into the resources that are available. So, thank you for your proposal on this ordinance, and I do support it.

: Thank you. Anyone else with their hand up, Madame Clerk?

: I am not seeing anyone else in the Zoom room with their hand up. Okay, fair enough. Actually, no, it's not that kind of a proceeding. I appreciated your speaking, but we have a kind of a one-to-one customer opposition here. There are no further Zoom room people, and everyone who's in the room who has had a chance to speak has spoken. So, I think what I'd like to entertain is a motion, and then we can move through the amendments and further discussion among the members of the governing body about how they'd like to proceed. But a motion would get us started.

: I'll move to approve.

: We have a motion to approve as a general matter. That's the main motion. Do we have, do you want to start working our way through some amendments?

: Can I ask for just a question? So, I think some of these amendments, like Amendment A, which is mine, which lowers the fee, and I'm sorry, mine and Councilor Cassid's, was already adopted. It would be helpful to know which of these have been adopted already.

: So, the only one that we did not move in committee was B. There was some discussion which we will continue. A and C have both been adopted, is my understanding. Is that correct, City Attorney and City Clerk?

: Councilors, I would actually defer to Marcy on that.

: Marcy, do you have a track of the...

: I know Amendment A was passed, and that changed the caption and the fee, but I don't know after that. Mayor Weber, councilors, I'm going to double-check. Amendment A definitely was adopted at Quality of Life, I believe, and then I'm checking on Amendment C real quick.

: No worries. Our understanding was that it passed in Quality of Life this past week.

: We, yeah, we did adopt it about a week ago.

: That is correct.

: Exactly a week ago.

: So, that's correct. So, both Amendments A and C have been adopted. Amendment C was adopted at... So, okay. So, I would be moving only Amendment B at this time, and I would like to do a small explanation of what it does.

: I would like you to do a complete explanation of what it...

: Wonderful. So, if, for those of you who are following along on page 11, and this would be Section 5-8.4, we're starting at line five. There is some redundancy in the iterations of this bill. We had the opportunity to sort of look at the overall ordinance. Many times we're amending ordinances that already have language. So, this would actually take out a little bit of new language and a little bit of old language. And I'm just going to read out the strikeout.

: Let's do.

: Persons who are not acting on behalf of the city as an animal services officer may turn over any all animals which they that are to be abandoned may be turned over to animal services center and or the animal shelter for adoption. So, as we can tell, it's not super clear, and it is a little bit redundant now that we have a definition of abandonment. It gives us a slight definition of which that are to be abandoned, but now we have created an actual definition with this legislation of what abandonment is, and we don't need this necessarily. The other issue I have is persons who are not acting on behalf of the city. That's very broad, and I feel a little uncomfortable with allowing private residents to potentially take an animal that they are unaware of and not know the circumstances. I think we should leave that to our animal control experts, whom we are actively trying to support and give more resources to.

: Well, are you, you're moving this amendment, ma'am?

: I am moving this Amendment B.

: And is there a second?

: Okay.

: We have a, I'm sorry. Okay. So, we now have an amendment and a second. I'd entertain any discussion. Councilor Lindell, you want to start it off?

: Yeah. Councilor Castro, I'm still not clear on this amendment. Could you say a little bit more about it, please?

: Most definitely. So, this amendment does two things. It doesn't criminalize or disallow individuals from taking an animal to the shelter. We are basically being silent in this code about how to deal with that. And we are allowing for our communications, our animal control services, and our experts to communicate with the public what they should do if they find an animal who is in distress or abandonment. Instead of directing persons who are not acting on behalf of the city, we are allowing this code to be silent on that issue, and we are going to communicate with our constituents and our residents through animal services, which I've already had a conversation with Officer Lowry about how we can start doing that.

: Councilor, so if I find a, if I'm out for a walk wherever, and I find a loose dog, and I, does this amendment, I'm sorry, Stephanie. Does... Does this amendment allow me to take that dog to the shelter?

: It does. What this amendment does is it does, we as a governing body don't have an opinion on what you should do with that animal. Animal services, yes. We're not directing our residents to do anything in a particular way. We are leaving that to animal services to communicate to the public how they should deal with that animal, but it is not criminalizing you for taking an animal to the shelter. No.

: Okay. Thank you.

: Other questions at this. Yes. Councilor Cassid, we'll go to you next and then look for other hands.

: Yeah. Mayor, I was just actually hoping that I could have Marcy speak a little bit to this. This was a conversation that we had, but Marcy, if you could just speak to all of this.

: In general.

: That's a little...

: Thank you.

: Mayor Weber, Councilor Casset, let's see, all of it. I think there was a conversation about whether we should, let me see if I can remember what that email, like it was like, should we direct people that they should take the animals to the shelter if you're someone who's walking and finds a loose dog? And that would have been adding a requirement the way that we were thinking about it. So, we would have required people to take an animal to shelter, and then there was another suggestion to encourage it. But then the bill, the way it's drafted currently, utilizes the word "may," which means that if I'm a community member and I'm walking downtown and I find an animal that has apparently been abandoned, that I may or I may not take an animal to the shelter. And I think that that flexibility in the language is there in case of a situation like, oh, this animal doesn't look safe, so I should probably utilize animal services to take care of it because they're trained to do this stuff, or I have an animal, I got it in my car, I wish to take it to the shelter, and I can also do that. So, there's a "may" there for a reason. And I was saying "encourage" seemed like an attitude, a policy attitude or something along those lines, and wasn't much different than saying "may." So, we had gone through several permutations of this, and I think there was also a conversation about the intent here, and I think that we wanted to clarify that it was okay if people took animals to the shelter. So, I don't know. Those were a couple of the highlights of the conversations that I remember, and of course, correct me if I don't have those memories right.

: No, those, those sound right to me.

: And City Attorney McSherry, councilors, I was not part of those conversations, but just an angle I'd like to suggest that this could be looked at is we didn't have a definition for abandonment before this bill was proposed, but we had already made it unlawful to abandon animals in this section. So, all we had was it's unlawful to abandon an animal, and a sentence after that saying that persons acting on behalf of the city who turn over animals to the shelter are not abandoning. Well, now we know that's not abandoning because you've defined abandonment. So, I think this sentence was kind of, it became superfluous. So, now we know that if anyone drops off an animal at the animal shelter, it doesn't fall into the definition of abandonment as we have now defined it if you pass this bill.

: Thank you. That's, yeah, that was the other piece that we were looking for. So, there was a lot of conversation around both the, you know, what changes and what needs to be, and what really needs to be in the bill because of that, as well as this conversation around, you know, do we direct the public if they find, you know, and, and to be perfectly honest, if somebody finds an animal, I don't believe that they're going to pull up our ordinance to find out what to do. I'm pretty sure that they're just going to call animal control, because that is, you know, or take the animal to the shelter, or call their city council, because that has also happened before, I would say. So, that's all on this amendment. Mayor,

: Thank you. Did we have two hands that, Councilor, would you like to go first?

: I just wanted to summarize because I was the one that pushed back on this at Quality of Life. And I think I did because there were two concerns that came up, which was I do have an issue with an animal belonging to someone and then someone else claiming that animal, especially if it hasn't been microchipped. So, I was the one that had the idea of encouraged to call animal services. So, they're the ones that take responsibility, and that animal could potentially be easier to find. And then the conversation around safety came up, like with the discussion that occurred, how it could be understood in a way that they, like a community member, is responsible for dealing with an abandoned animal, and that could become a safety concern. So, that was kind of the conversation or the discussion that came up at Quality of Life. So, I just wanted to explain where the push came from. Thank you.

: Good, good context. Councilor Marworth, did you have your hand up?

: I just have a quick question for the City Attorney. I noticed you didn't sign this amendment. Is that...

: Councilors, I, I signed a version of this amendment, so it might just not be the one that's loaded, but I believe I did sign it.

: I'm just, my signature is also not on here. I think there's no signatures at the bottom. So, I just want to make sure we have the right one. Councilors, Mayor Weber, let me double-check. Interesting.

: Council, I, I think this looks like the version I remember signing that we might just...

: Remember signing.

: We might just not have loaded the final version, the signed, signed version. I'm getting confirmation that this is the version that the sponsor acknowledges.

: This is the version I intended. Yes, it, it strikes through that entire section. Okay.

: Happened to forward the, the signed version if that makes everyone comfortable.

: Well, it seems like we should probably have the signed version.

: Yeah. I'm thinking it's signed on Quality of Life agenda. I wonder if we uploaded it because we pulled it to have that discussion.

Point of order. Hang on one second. Councilor Garcia, you have a point of order.

If Councilor Castro is okay with the amendment, ultimately the amendment does not need the City Attorney's signature to be considered. So, we're just trying to confirm that it's the correct one.

I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't be considered. I'm just saying it'd be good to have the one that is signed just for my files, if that would be all right.

One moment. I think it's important to confirm it, and Councilor Castro said this is her final amendment as intended. So that's confirmation. You're going to be uploading the signed version, is that what I'm—

Mayor Weber, I just emailed a copy of the signed version to our City Clerk to forward on to you.

Okay. Thanks. Is there any more substantive questions about the amendment that we're discussing at this moment? Any further comments? We have a motion. We have a second. There's no further discussion. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll on the amendment as proposed?

Councilor Michael Garcia?

Yes.

Councilor Lindell?

Yes.

Councilor Maroworth?

Yes.

Councilor Cassett?

Yes.

Councilor Castro?

Yes.

Councilor Chavez?

Yes.

Councilor Falner?

Yes.

Councilor Lee Garcia?

Yes. Motion is approved.

Very good. So, we now have a main motion as amended. And we've had—I'm sorry, Councilor Merwith, you have a question.

Well, I just want to, I think, be clear for the public and also for the newspaper, that my amendment, Amendment A, co-sponsored with Councilor Cassid, does lower the fine. I don't think the public is aware that the fine, this amendment was adopted, and that the fine has been lowered to $50. And I'm looking for the—for medians. Yeah, not abandonment. So, where is this? Here it is. Restraint of an animal on any median, first and subsequent offense. And it's the same fine whether the animal is altered or unaltered. It's $50, taking it down from 200 to 50. And I just think it's important that people know that that's been adopted and part of this.

Thank you. Any other substantive comments before we proceed to a vote? Councilor Cassid.

Thank you, Mayor. I think one thing that I do want to—it's been kind of referred to, but this bill also does more than just talk about the medians. In fact, it talked about abandonment, and that was a big piece of this as well. I know that that has been the component that has gotten the attention, and I have even found myself referring it to, just in shorthand, the animals on medians bill, and then having to correct myself that there's more to it than that. And I think that that is really important. The other thing that I want to bring up as well is I think Councilor Castro, I really appreciate you asking Judge Chidum earlier today. And one thing that I think happens is because we're so familiar with our systems and with what occurs within our systems, that we take for granted the fact that maybe not everybody else knows that in a lot of scenarios, we are looking for alternative means of compliance when there is an issue. And last but not least, I think that there is always going to be work to be done in this area. I really appreciate Michelle Williams coming and speaking as somebody who is working and talking about a lot of the resources that are available. And I, as I've said before, hey, if there's a lot of donors who really want to assist with this, then let's have a conversation about where we might be able to set up some safe spaces for animals. I mean, I think that there are other solutions other than putting an animal in an unsafe position. And that's important. And how we continue to have those conversations. I know that I've had some of those in the past, which has led to some of the changes in how we have asked a lot of the shelters that we're funding to operate. But I do think that we continue to do this work. And fortunately, I will not have Councilor Lindell here with me to continue on this, but I know the other sponsors and other members of this council have expressed interest in continuing this work. And so that is the intent. I understand you've shaken your head at me. That's fine. I've seen worse, believe me. But that is, I don't say things just for fun. So, that's all. Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you. Any other comments about the main motion as amended? Madam Clerk, we have a main motion as amended. If you would call the roll, please.

Councilor Lee Garcia?

No. And I'd like to extend my vote.

Councilor Michael Garcia?

No. Councilor Lindell?

Councilor Romero Worth?

Yes.

Councilor Casset?

Yes.

Councilor Castro?

Yes.

Councilor Chavez?

Yes.

Councilor Faulner?

Yes. Motion is approved.

And I believe Councilor Lee Garcia, you'd asked the chance to explain your vote, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A while back, we passed an ordinance that prohibited individuals from standing on medians less than 36 inches. And to this day, we still see many of them on the same medians. While I do agree that it's not a place for an individual or even an animal to be on the median, I have a hard time with voting for something where I don't feel we're going to be able to enforce wholeheartedly and where it would potentially put a person at risk of losing their companion, which is difficult. And so I think that's the main reason why I voted no against this, and I wholeheartedly support animals and want the best for them. I don't believe that they should be on the medians, but I don't feel that this is something that I don't know how we're going to enforce it. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor. Madam Clerk, could you take us to the next item on the agenda, please? Item 20, public hearings. 20A, appeal number 2025-1127-APL of case number 2024-10494-HDRB, property owner FC3 LTD Co. Appeals the Historic District's Review Board July 22nd, 2025 decision denying the project applicant RKO Architect's request for an exception to remove and replace all windows and doors on a contributing building at 206 McKenzie Street in the downtown and East Side Historic District.

Very good. I just got a whisper from Councilor Castro, if you could send her a link. She's going to have to finish the evening from remote participation, but she will be able to zoom in if we give her a link. And it's 11:00. I would entertain a motion at this time. We are not going to get done by 11:30. We've got three land use cases in front of us. So, can I get a motion to suspend our deadline of 11:30, please? Motion to suspend.

Thank you. Is there a second? We're not going to get done by 11:30. I promise you.

We're not going to end now. We got three people waiting to be considered in some cases here that we advertised. I think we can buckle down and get them done, but we have to do it. Is there a second to the motion to suspend?

Second.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, I understand the resistance. I'd like it to be an earlier night, but we have these three pieces of work in front of us. Could you call the roll on the motion to suspend?

Lindell, we get to—we get to stay together longer.

Councilor Maroworth, yes.

Councilor Casset, yes. Councilor Castro, sorry. Is that Councilor Chavez? Councilor Faulner.

No.

Councilor Lee Garcia?

Yes.

Councilor Michael Garcia is not here.

No.

Need a majority of the whole on this one. Five votes. We only have four so far.

All right. Why don't we—well, we haven't got a decision, so—your pardon. We can hold in place, or I know, I know, and we can't really begin. I would just assume complete this work before we move into the case because I don't want to get to 11:29 and—

Mayor, you can vote because it's legally required to take action if you'd like.

I vote yes. Does that give us five?

Right. I think, you know, the good news is we get to spend more time together.

No, we're not going to do that. I, Frank, I apologize for interrupting you, but I just didn't want us to get a half an hour into this case and then discover that we have to have this vote. So, this is a public hearing, and the rules of public hearings apply, which means I need to make sure all of the members of the governing body can say they are not—they did not engage in ex parte communication or anything that would cause them to be anything less than fair and impartial. We'll start with staff report. The applicant can have an opportunity to speak. The public will be sworn in and comment, come back to the governing body to ask questions. Once we close the public hearing, it is closed and no further questions are appropriate. We'll entertain a motion and a second. We can discuss the motion, then have a vote.

Mayor, I think Frank does have a specific case procedure for you as well. I do. And I was wondering if I could ask my PowerPoint to video monitors. Would it be available?

Yeah. You also need to make sure you're speaking into the mic and that it's on because nobody just heard what you said.

It is on. Thank you.

All right. Good.

And if I may approach.

Yes, please. Thank you.

And I've tendered a copy to Mr. Referring as well as, and your honor, I should have included Councilor Castro.

Very good. Thank you very much for this. Appreciate it. Thank you. You get to be the delivery mechanism. Thank you. Okay. Let's begin with the staff report if we could do it and hold it to no more than 10 minutes.

Oh, thank you. Oh, there we go. There's mic.

And you got to get in front of the mic again.

Okay. Thank you.

But it's not picking up his voice. So, really loud.

I'll get really close here. Thank you, Mayor Weber and Councilors. We're here tonight to talk about a building that is probably familiar to all of you because it is situated just two blocks from the City Hall building at 206 McKenzie Street. It's in the downtown and East Side Historic District. And I'm going to zoom in there. It's at that Y intersection where Grant breaks off from Griffin Street and McKenzie proceeds to the west. And it is right there at that intersection of Griffin and McKenzie. Kind of an unusually configured lot that is trapezoidal in shape. And there it is, that pretty building you've probably walked by many times and marveled at the architectural distinctive architectural characteristics of it. And probably marveled at the fact that unlike many of the other buildings in the downtown and East Side Historic District, it's snow white, and it is historically that color because it reflects the religious beliefs of religious order that had sanctuary in that building for many years. The I Am or St. Germain religious order. It is now owned by FC3 Limited, who are the appellants in this case, and it's commonly referred to as the White Building. And in this case here, Falling Colors or FC3 Limited applied for renovations that were heard by the Historic District Review Board on June 24th and July 22nd this year. The first three of those renovations are things that the H Board hears pretty routinely: a rooftop, add rooftop solar panels, new pedestrian gate, replace exterior stucco. No exception or special criteria is needed for those so long as they meet the design standards of the respective historic district. But these last three required exceptions: building a steel carport in the courtyard parking lot, increasing the height of a parapet on the north, that's the McKenzie Street elevation, as well as replacing all the doors and windows.

exceptions or variations from the code are required for those three. And of those three, the H board approved, granted the exception for the steel carport and the height of the parapet. So those are not at issue tonight. But with respect to replacing all the doors and windows, the exception was denied. It was okay to replace some windows but not others. The principle behind that is that the ones that were permitted for replacement are not protected windows, and we'll talk about how those are protected under the code.

The Historic Districts Code, Section 14-5.2, Subsection D, which is a general design standard for all historic districts, and in those design standards, Subsection 1A prohibits the removal of historic materials from significant, contributing, or landmark structures, or the alteration of architectural features or spaces that embody the status of the specially protected building. The idea is that we can't have alterations that cause structures to lose their significant, contributing, or landmark status.

And then the other design standard that applied here was D5A under Section 14-5.2. You'll see I've highlighted certain language for facades of significant and landmark structures, and for the primary facades of contributing structures. Historic windows shall be repaired or restored wherever possible. And there are three terms there that are pivotal terms when determining whether the window must be restored or whether the window can be replaced in its entirety. The section protects three elements: historic windows, typically windows that are 50 years old or older. There's actually no definition of historic in the Historic Districts Code, surprisingly enough. The definition of historic structure is a structure that is 50 years old or older. So they've sort of classified that historic windows on primary facades and that are repairable or not deteriorated beyond repair. So the code protects historic windows on primary facades that are not deteriorated beyond repair. If a window is not historic, or it's not on a primary facade, or it is deteriorated beyond repair, replacement is frequently approved.

But a property owner can apply for exceptions to this rule, and that's what the applicants did in this case here. In this case, the applicants, in all cases where applicants apply for exception criteria, they have to meet three exception criteria: one, that that exception will not damage the character of the district; two, are required to prevent a hardship to the applicant or an injury to the public welfare; and strengthens the unique, heterogeneous character of the city by providing a full range of design options to ensure that residents continue to reside in the historic districts. There's a lot of debate about that third criteria, but I think the idea is that we want to make these houses livable so people don't end up just moving out of the historic districts because they can't live comfortably in their houses. The applicant has the burden of conclusively demonstrating all three of these criteria in this house here.

So we have to take a look at the primary facades of the structure because that is where the windows are protected. As you can see, this structure, it's a complicated structure. It's actually a conglomeration of different structures that were built at different times and in different eras. And sometimes they were united by roofs and by closing off outdoor areas. So that you're not confused, the areas that I've highlighted in green are the outdoor areas of this lot. As you can see, there's a parking lot on the westernmost part of the lot. There's a courtyard that's completely enclosed by courtyard walls and facades on the northeast corner, and then there's a large landscaped area on the southernmost part of the lot.

Now, I'm going to zoom in a little bit so you can get a little bit closer look at the primary facades. As you can see, the cluster of structures that has been added onto this residence, mixed-use commercial and residential structure on the southwest, are non-primary because that is a more recent addition. But as you can see, the entirety of the north and east facades are primary. The easternmost two-thirds of the southern elevation are primary, and perhaps the northernmost third of the west elevation is considered primary. As you look at the structure from the street and see some of the windows up on the second floor aren't visible. So instead of looking at the street, instead of looking at photos, we're going to look at the elevation drawings. And I believe Mr. Furry from RKO Architects drafted these up, and I'm highlighting in red here the various windows and doors that the H board said must be repaired and cannot be replaced, and that exceptions were not adequately documented in order to justify replacement of these.

As you can see, one of the things that sort of complicated the discussion at the H board was that there are windows inside the courtyard that aren't visible on the elevation drafts. Inside the courtyard, you see there's windows Z and BB, which I noted, we don't have elevation drawings for those. And there's a question as to whether or not those that are set back from Griffin Street with respect to this east elevation are even primary facades. I think there's a strong argument that those are not primary facades anyway. But when the staff formulates its recommendation to the H board, they take a look at a window assessment. In this case here, the window assessment was drafted by a gentleman named Mr. Patterson, Ray Patterson. Is Mr. Patterson here?

There he is. There's Ray Patterson. He frequently appears before the H board, and he does these very detailed window assessments that are very helpful. And I think there are only three persons in the city of Santa Fe that actually have the expertise to do these window assessments, but our staff can address these a little bit more. But they're very detailed, and I think this one was about 15 pages. So we're not going to see the entire thing. But with respect to these windows, Mr. Patterson found that windows on the east elevation KBB, QQQ, and RR are in fair condition, and we'll talk about what that designation means in a moment. Window Z was in unsatisfactory condition. Window Z was one of the ones inside the courtyard that you can't see on the elevation graph.

We're going to look at the south elevation. As you can see, there's a lot of windows here. It lets in a lot of light here. The H board said that all of these windows that are highlighted in red must be repaired or restored. They would not approve exceptions for replacement of those. I'm highlighting in orange the non-primary part of the south elevation. Those windows are not protected under the code. And with respect to all these windows here, Mr. Patterson concluded that all of them, L, N, O, P, P, Q, E, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, G, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H,

Please raise your right hand. State your name.
I, Braden Furry, residing at Don Gaspar Lane, solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury.

Thank you. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Mayor Weber and council members. I will try to be brief. We went to two historic board meetings to get the windows looked at. It got pushed to a second one because of the complexity of the building that you've just seen a little bit of. As part of that historic review process, we were required to hire a pre-approved expert to do an assessment on all the windows and doors, which we did, which was Mr. Patterson. He put together the report that you saw a little bit of and probably have in your packet, where he deemed all of the windows, historic and non-historic, and all of the doors, historic and non-historic, should be replaced due to their deterioration, due to damage caused by prior renovation and construction practices that were done on the building.

When we went to the second historic board meeting, where it was actually, we went through this in detail, one of the members on the spot basically came up with his own assessment after only visiting the building for about an hour. He did not touch a window. He didn't try to use a window. He didn't try to open it, see if anything was actually usable. He made comments that, you know, "I don't see any damage on the interior walls," because as part of a second tour of the building, we actually went through the interior of the building so we could see any damage on the interior. Well, when you're letting in moisture from rain or whatever, you need to have had it rain in the past, near past, and it had not. So, on the spot, during the historic board meeting, he came up with these four motions without any, he didn't do any kind of in-depth assessment of any of the doors and windows. Mr. Patterson was there for several days, several hours a day, doing his assessment, did thorough investigations of each of them, and came up with his report.

Furthermore, the motions at the historic board that night, for instance, one door and window that they want restored was not even there. It was gone from the building from prior construction purposes. One that was wanting it to be restored was deemed non-historic. So, and in the motions, there's seven groups of windows that account for over 20 windows that weren't even listed in his report. So, they don't even have a designation according to these findings. So, based on those, based on these motions that were done, in our opinion, on the spot, without any assessment that was in-depth or even did any cursory look at these items, show that these were not, that the findings should not be followed like they were motioned. That's all I have for right now.

Thank you. Are you also going to testify, or are you just, yes? You're going to have to get sworn in as well.

State your name. Raise your right hand. Sorry. State your name.
I'm Mindy Hale. Residing at Roas, solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury. Yes.

Thank you, Mayor, Council. I appreciate you guys having to step in on an H-board matter. I find it completely appropriate that we're in this position. We did everything that was asked of us. We went to the H-board. We hired the city-approved window assessor who came through the building and spent days and hours to come up with an assessment that gave us direction on how to continue our efforts to rehabilitate this building, which we are doing with the utmost care and are very excited to bring back into the lexicon of downtown Santa Fe.

Then we come to the historic board after working with the city staff, who had recommended that they approve the exceptions as brought forward, that a member of the board could come forward and say, "I disagree with my assessor, who happens to be a competitor of mine, and I'm going to come up with my own assessment on the fly during this meeting." And he spent three hours throwing out letters, throwing out numbers that the other board members didn't know what he was talking about. Another board member said, "No, I completely object to this. This is completely inappropriate. It has been standard practice of this board to approve what is being brought before us because that is what the assessor had brought." And they completely went against precedent. They completely went against their own standards. They have you in this position now, having to make a ruling on a building that you haven't had any time to spend with. I think it's shockingly unfair to you. It's shockingly unfair to us. It's put our project behind six months when it was a very simple procedural move because we followed all of the rules. We followed all of the requirements that have been put before us by the city. We want to do what's right with this building, and we ask for your help to basically take the assessment from our expert that we hired from your list and approve us to move forward with our project.

Thank you. We now have an opportunity for public sworn public comment. If there is anyone here who, or on Zoom, who would like to be sworn in to address the issues in front of us. If you're here in the room, please step forward. If you're not, Madame Clerk, if there's no one in the room, let's look on the Zoom and see if any hands are up.

We have one hand up. Stephanie Benonato, you're allowed to speak. Let me swear you in. Okay.

State your name.
I, Stephanie Benonato, residing on South Capital, solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury.

I do. First, I'd like to point out that one of the requirements is to make it easier for somebody to live there. There's no intention of anybody living there. It's going to be a commercial space. That was always the intention of the owners. A lot of the damage that has occurred to the windows that they talk about is damaged by a contractor they hired that was not well supervised, either their own building or construction manager themselves, or even the city inspectors were not paying attention.

The board normally, first of all, the list is just a list of not recommended, but here are people who do this work. I would think that Mr. Patterson, who's done this a lot, would have said, "This is beyond repair, this is repairable." I think the satisfactory condition or category is what the board looked at, which is it has to be more than 30% or 40% unrepairable to be considered non-repairable. In the report, the only ones that are non-repairable are that third category, unsatisfactory.

It is true the board spent a lot of time on this building. They have given many exceptions and have done things like allow a greenhouse that was questionable as to whether it was there or not. They've allowed a steel carport so they could have solar. There's going to be an 8-foot wall, a 10-foot wall, whatever it is, on the McKenzie Street side. They went through each window in painstaking detail. I was there. It was an excruciating meeting, actually, to be at, but they went through it because it was an important building, and they wanted to spend the time. I never heard Mr. Cherry say he was a competitor with Mr. Patterson. He is the builder on the board. You do not have a licensed architect on the board. So he was giving his expertise to the board. It is the board that you're supposed to be paying attention to. They are the ones that you've appointed. They are supposed to have certain expertise.

Again, I feel sorry that the owners weren't paying attention to their first contractor, but I don't think that's a reason not to require them to replace the windows that are repairable. There are many windows that they're going to be allowed to totally put in as new windows. Again, I think if you don't have the historic material there, you lose the authenticity of the building, and it begins to make it like Disneyland historic preservation as opposed to real preservation. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madame Clerk. Any other hands in the Zoom room?

No other hands.

Okay. And no one else in the audience is interested in testifying. I'm going to turn to, oh, I apologize. Someone else is interested in testifying. Thank you for raising your hand. We'll need to swear you in.

State your name.
I, Pamela Coer, residing at Pedro Rojas, solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under penalties of perjury.

Yes.

I wanted you guys to know how much we love this building and the care that we are taking with it, and really about the windows. Yes, we're following the assessment because there is damage to the building of water coming in. We are looking at this building and preserving it for the next 100 years as it has been. We have not changed the footprint. We have taken every care to restore it. We have brought people in from Santa Domingo to replace the adobes. We have just done, I invite you all to come and look at what we have done. We love this building. We are so disappointed at being in this position by having the windows compromised as they are. The walls get wet when it rains. As you know what happens to buildings when moisture comes in the walls? It's not going to stand for the next 100 years. It won't probably stand for the next 15, not all of the walls. If we don't take care of what needs to be taken care of, we are here to preserve and restore that building. That is our only intent. And I hope you take that into consideration.

Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to come on forward and be sworn in, please? Yes, madam.

I, Ray Patterson, residing at Digger Road, solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under penalties of perjury. I do.

Thank you. One second. Just give me a second to get the clock set. Okay, sir, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and council members. I've been doing these historic assessments for the city of Santa Fe and for the state for about 20 years. My job is to look at the windows and the doors and make an assessment of the condition, whether they're restorable, not restorable. One of the other things that I have in my background is I'm also a licensed contractor in the state. That was important for the city of Santa Fe because not only are we looking at the condition of the windows, we're also looking at the condition of the building, what's around the windows. My outlook on historic buildings is, do we save the windows and let the building fail, or are we looking at the integrity of the whole building? What can be done to preserve that building? The windows in this condition of this building do show water penetration around the windows. These windows of this era, the jambs, which are the frames that surround the windows, are also the framing for the openings. Which means if you're going to go in there and fix the leak problems, you're going to have to go in there and remove the windows. The process of removing those windows will end up destroying the jambs.

They are correct that the details on these windows, molding details, the wood trim details that are on the sashes, which are the part of the windows that slide up and down or out, have been damaged by a prior contractor. But that detail is now all gone. So it's kind of lost its historic look right there on the windows themselves. So that's the reason you see my recommendation of fair, but it doesn't take into consideration what's going on around the windows in the building.

Mayor: Thank you.

Speaker: Thank you, sir. Thanks for being here tonight. Anyone else who wishes to testify?

Mayor: I'm going to open up the floor for council questioning of staff, parties, witnesses, the general public. I think we need to keep to the 10-minute rule tonight because we're getting late, but I want to recognize anyone who has a question at this time and wants to ask it of one of the members of the staff or the appellant or member of the public. Council Lindell, you want to kick it off?

Council Lindell: I'll be happy to. So I guess Frank, Mr. Rubald, you should answer these questions. From what I read in the report, staff recommended and said that the appellant met all the exceptions.

Frank Rubald: Mayor Weber, council, that is correct.

Council Lindell: Thank you. And that...

Frank Rubald: Well, council, sorry, Mayor Weber and council, with respect to one of the project elements that's not an issue tonight, the staff said they did not meet the exceptions. The board allowed them to redraw the parapet.

Council Lindell: Right.

Frank Rubald: On the northern, northern...

Speaker: I don't think you're speaking into the microphone again.

Frank Rubald: Okay. The staff opined that the appellants, applicants, had not met the exception criteria for the parapet extension. They redrew the parapet extension and the H-board approved it. But that's not an issue.

Council Lindell: That's not what we're talking about.

Frank Rubald: With respect to the windows and doors, the staff, they had...

Council Lindell: That's all we're talking about tonight. So this is what I'm coming up with on this, that the owners were asked to have an assessment, a survey done of the doors and windows of this building. And they selected a contractor from a list that the city keeps of people that the city feels are qualified to do this work. So they went ahead and they did that. They did what was asked of them. And from that report, there's a lot in that report, but let me just say that from the report, it was recommended that the doors and the... I don't think this is for you now, Frank. I think that this is for Mr. Patterson. From your report, the summary was that the doors and windows should, for various reasons, should be replaced. Correct?

Mr. Patterson: Yes, ma'am.

Council Lindell: Okay. So, and part of the reason is that even though it may not be obvious in walking, taking a quick tour through the building, that this building is susceptible right now to water damage.

Mr. Patterson: Yes, ma'am.

Council Lindell: So we kind of have what looks like a forest through the trees situation here. Do we want to save the windows and the doors because they're historic and let the building fall down around them, or shall we? And as I understand it, if these windows are replaced, they have to be replaced in such a manner that they completely mimic the existing windows.

Mr. Patterson: Yes, ma'am. The term is in like kind. Like in kind.

Council Lindell: I like that term. So they would look exactly like the windows that are there now. Correct?

Mr. Patterson: That is my recommendation. Yes.

Council Lindell: So it just seems to me, and I'm going to editorialize just a little bit, that when things like this happen, that someone follows everything asked for, and they come up with a report that... How long were you there? How long were you in that building?

Mr. Patterson: Three to four days.

Council Lindell: Okay. So three or four days, and then the report is disagreed with or disparaged by someone on the board that's been in the building for one to two hours, it seems brutally unfair to me. And I think that when those kinds of things happen, when other people would look at a historic building that they may love, they may absolutely love it, but they go, "You know what? We can't take this on. We, it's way too much risk, and we do everything we're asked to do, and then it's still not okay." I think that we hurt our historic heritage that way. We hurt ourselves because buildings will sit and deteriorate because people don't want to go through this process. We've seen it, and we've heard loud complaints about it. So I'm concerned about the water damage in this building. I don't know if you can answer for the applicants, but how long has this restoration been going on?

Mayor: Could you come down and...

Applicant: Five years. Five years.

Council Lindell: Is that right?

Applicant: You have to step up to the mic, sir. Five years total. Two and a half years with the first go-around, and then this second one is now going on three years to four. So five plus years.

Council Lindell: Five plus years. That's a mammoth commitment to a building. I mean, I'm sure it's got blood, sweat, and tears and a lot of zeros and commas. So I'm going to support this appeal, and I think there's a lot in our report, and you know, I've, I printed it out. I marked up numerous places. I'm not going to go over every one of them because I think that this is water damage, and the way this whole process went is, it's clear enough to me what we need to do. So thank you, Mayor.

Mayor: Thank you, Counselor. Other questions from members of the... Yes. Counselor.

Councilor: Thank you, Mayor. I kind of want to piggyback off of what Counselor Lindell said. I think that I'm really concerned by a process where we have an expert bring information in front of a board that is supposed to serve our community and makes their own assessments during that process. When I see water damage clearly identified throughout the support or throughout the report, windows will not seal. Replacement is needed for that purpose. I don't know another workaround for the applicant other than replacing the windows. And so it's very clear, and I think it's like, it's hard for me to understand the argument. We have an applicant that's wanting to improve a historic building, bring life back into it, went through all the proper steps, but for some reason is still in this place. So, you know, I've communicated, I have concerns about this process. I think this is evidence as to why there are major concerns with this process. It's something that we have to look at, you know, bringing on the new council or the new governing body members, because I think we see this over and over again, and then what we have are just really frustrated applicants, and then we have people witnessing from outside seeing how impossible it is to kind of bring life to some of our historic structures, and that's not what we want. So I just want, I appreciated Counselor Lindell's comments. I know I've been asked before about my concerns with this process or why I have them. This is evident. This is why I have the concerns that I do. So I will be supporting this. Thank you.

Mayor: Thank you. Are there any... I appreciate the comments. I was going to hold that until after we had closed the public hearing. If there are specific questions, let's do that now, and then we'll, after all the questions have been asked, we'll close the public testimony part of the hearing and then go directly to a motion and discussion. I think Counselor Faulkner, did you have your hand up? No. Counselor Casset, you have your hand up.

Councilor Casset: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Patterson, because that was actually, that was what I needed to hear. But, Mr. Duran, as long as you are here, and I appreciate you being here, is there anything else from the staff perspective? Because you did recommend approval of this request. Is there anything else that you would add from the perspective of, you know, city planning staff?

Mr. Duran: Mr. Mayor, Counselor Casset, no, ma'am. We stand by our recommendation.

Councilor Casset: Great. Thank you. No further questions.

Mayor: Thank you. Counselor Lee Garcia, sir, you have your, you have the floor.

Councilor Lee Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Maybe Mr. Rubald, could you just give me a really quick summary of what were the main reasons why the H-board went for denial? What was the sticking point?

Mr. Rubald: Mayor Weber and Counselor Lee Garcia, there was a long discussion before member Cherry articulated his motions as to whether or not the assessment by Mr. Patterson actually supported the conclusion that the windows were deteriorated beyond repair. The member Benu, very well versed in the historic districts code, read the part of subsection D5A1 of 14-502, which read, "Historic windows shall be repaired or restored wherever possible. Historic windows that cannot be repaired or restored shall be duplicated in the style, size, and material of the original." And after looking at that language, they specifically looked at Mr. Patterson's assessment that the windows were either fair or unsatisfactory that were being debated, and that his fair assessment is not the equivalent of a statement or a conclusion that the window cannot be repaired or restored. His fair assessment simply read that exterior finishes have cracked and peeled, missing to bare surface, putty glazing cracking and missing, 30 to 40% of the sashes, all sashes, frames, and casings of some members, 30 to 40% completely deteriorated. So it was not his assessment or his opinion that the windows could not be repaired or restored. And that was the significant focus was the language as to whether or not the deterioration of these windows were beyond the protection of the code.

Councilor Lee Garcia: Thank you. That's, that's plenty. I think that when you read a directive by the code or whatever it might be, and you don't necessarily know based upon a professional contractor, it's really hard to make that assessment, and you're, and you're possibly making a decision based upon what it says and what reality is. And so it almost seems like reality is that if we don't approve this, that there will be a lot more damage to this building, which you see that with buildings, water damage is, is huge, and you know, not seeing the, the building, but just listening to the testimony, I, I, I'll support the, the appeal. Thank you.

Mayor: Counselor. Any other questions before I close the public hearing? Once I close it, we can reopen it, but it would take a motion to reopen. No further questions. In that case, at this time, I'll close the public hearing. Thank you all for your testimony. And I will entertain a motion.

Council Lindell: Thank you, Mayor. I move to grant the appeal on the grounds that the appellants have conclusively demonstrated the three exception criteria for replacement of historic windows on the primary facades of a contributing structure in a historic district.

Speaker: Second.

Mayor: There's a motion. There's a second. I'd entertain discussion or comment on it. Anyone have any final thoughts before we go to a vote? Madam Clerk, we have a, Madam Clerk, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk: Councilor Maroworth?

Councilor Maroworth: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Casset?

Councilor Casset: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Castro?

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Chavez?

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Fulner?

Councilor Fulner: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia?

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia?

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lindell?

Council Lindell: Yes.

Clerk: Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you. Thank everybody for sticking with us. It's late, I know, but I appreciate your patience and your willingness to, to hang in there with us. Madam Clerk, can you take us to the next item, please?

Clerk: Item 20B, consideration of Resolution Number 2025-TVD, a resolution amending the Midtown Master Plan governing the development of an area of approximately 64 acres located at 1600 St. Michael's Drive within the city of Santa Fe, modifying the development subzone, facade, and design standards in sections 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, and 5.8 respectively.

Case number 2025-10706. Here to speak is Senior Planner Cruz Harbor.

Mayor: Before you start, let me just reiterate what I said with the prior process. We'll start. If anyone on the governing body believes that due to prior communications they cannot be fair and impartial, now would be the time to make that statement and recuse yourself. Then we'll go to the staff report and take that up. If the applicant is present to speak and sworn public comment, questions from the governing body. At the end of the public participation, we'll close the public hearing and then go to motion, second, and discussion, and then a vote. So, that's the process we use. You get to kick us off. If you can try to get this done in the 10-minute time period, we would all be very grateful to you.

Cruz Harbor: Mayor, Council, I will do my absolute best. I just need to get the presentation shared. See if you can help me out with that.

Councilor: I think we are seeing you in this role for the first time.

Cruz Harbor: Yes, so this is my first time presenting in front of Council. Last time presenting in front of this group.

Councilor: First and last.

Cruz Harbor: First and last with you all. But I do...

Mayor: Well, welcome to the deep end of the pool.

Cruz Harbor: Yes, thank you. Very excited.

Councilor: Happens at Planning Commission too, so don't worry.

Cruz Harbor: There we go. Talk about team effort here at the city. Okay, my name is Howell Cruz Harbor. I am a Senior Planner with the Land Use Division. I am presenting case number 202510706, the Midtown Master Plan Amendment. The agent is Emily Reynolds of NV5 Incorporated. The applicant is the Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency. Midtown, if you don't know where it's at by now, gosh, it's generally at the intersection of Cerrillos and St. Michael's Drive. The master plan area is 64 acres. It is zoned C2 PUB with the Midtown Master Plan being the PUD. The overlay is the Midtown Link, and the future land use designation is Transitional Mixed Use.

Now to the meat and potatoes. Why are these amendments needed? As the stewards of the Midtown Master Plan, the MRA is tasked with implementation of the master plan. Therefore, the MRA staff must respond to conditions and evolving post-COVID market demands to achieve these desired outcomes of the master plan. As implementation has begun on site, refinements to certain elements have been identified to achieve this vision. The master plan will continue to be a community-generated document with overwhelming community and governing body support.

Let's get right into this. The proposed amendments to the master plan are development standards regulations sections 5.4, subzone standards section 5.5, the SAD zone standards sections 5.6, and design standards general to all section 5.8. [clears throat] The first proposal to section 5.4 is to remove facade zone standards, Main Street office standards at the mixed-use facade northern facade zone. I know that is tricky. The next slide will clearly illustrate. Next is to insert a footnote stating the northern facade zone of the mixed-use film will be pursuant to the Midtown Overlay Zoning District requirements for qualifying projects. Lastly, is the change of Tract O, which does include the Benildus building, from, or yeah, to Mixed Use Center. This is the slide where I kind of visually illustrate those changes.

Councilor: Oh gosh.

Cruz Harbor: So, to the left, you'll see the clouds to the southern portion of the Midtown. That is the northern facade zone, mixed-use film being removed there. On the right, you see it's gone. North of that, there's Tract O, which is in that red cloud bubble in yellow. On the right, you see it's changed to an orange. So that's a little example of how that will look.

Next are the amendments to section 5.5. So with this, it will replace the existing permitted use table in the master plan with that carries over the list of prohibited uses and conditional uses while referring to C2 permitted uses in Chapter 14. Next, it'll add the following language: "Subzones are recommended and preferred use for all parcels." This is an example of the existing permitted use table that will go away and carry the prohibitive and conditional uses. Staff, when we review projects here, will just look at Chapter 14. And then here are a list of prohibited uses that have been carried over. Some of them: drive-thrus, mobile home parks. And then these are the list of conditional uses that have carried over. Again, these are in your staff report.

The original, sorry, the original proposal requested a removal of setback requirements for all buildings at facade zone. However, in response to public comment at the July 17th, 2025 Public Planning Commission, the Commission requested that building facade language be changed to allow for architectural flexibility for building facades along streetscapes. In this slide, you do see the highlighted of that language. The facade articulation requirement that the Plan Commission reads as follows: "Building facades exceeding three stories and facing public streets shall incorporate articulation at regular intervals of the building facade to enhance the pedestrian experience and soften the architectural massing within the streetscape. Methods of articulation include, but are not limited to, recesses or projections, change in material, roofline variations, and setbacks." So, they're still there. Oh, and then the second amendment to section 5.6 is a change in building height from three stories max to five stories max to match with the height that is allowed elsewhere.

Finally is section 5.8. And really what this is, is just providing, it's adding standards and language that had not existed prior. So, for example, the first being landscaping. The proposal will require 2-inch caliper trees throughout the entire Midtown site, whereas street trees will require 4-inch caliper. This is an illustration just to show the height difference when they are planted. This amendment was reviewed by our landscape engineer, Lawrence Rivera, and here is a note of him approving that amendment.

Next is just a general statement about signage located in a Midtown site that is governed by section 14-5, which is the Midtown Overlay Link, in addition to the requirements found in section 14-810, which are just general sign standards in Chapter 14. I know we've been here a while, but I have to read this. Proposed text language for building signage: "Signage and font shall be similar or the same as found on existing buildings throughout the Midtown site, which form the basis for future Midtown standards. Signs shall be painted on the building skin or on panels mounted closely to the building. Pin and channel letters and numbers shall be mounted closely to the building. All mounted signs are not permitted. Hanging signs may be placed under canopies or portales. Sign logos and text may be internally illuminated if lamp is not visible and light does not glare or impede vision."

Next are site directional wayfinding signs. "Signs are to be fabricated in metal and finished in durable high-quality metal paint finish or natural metal finishes. Wayfinding signs shall be used at street edges or bus stops. Sign colors shall be consistent with the Midtown color palette. Sign forms shall be simple and minimalistic. Signs shall be constructed of metal. Color shall be black plus one or two accent colors using the Midtown color palette. Signs, logos, and text may be internally illuminated if a lamp is not visible and light does not flare or impede vision. Wall signs associated with film studio stages within the Midtown Link Overlay District and whose sign spaces parallel to a wall or garage attached to the film studio stage shall be painted and not exceed 380 square feet."

And finally, the last amendment. It is to our murals and art installations. The language reads as follows: "Publicly visible murals and art installations are permissible with approvals from the Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency. The relocation of existing sculpture and installation of new art in public and publicly visible spaces are encouraged and must consider structural stability, weather, circulation, and safety. Murals on public property shall comply with the MRA Public Arts Murals Agreement."

The applicant has met the requirements of this process. They did go through an ENN in June of this year. They received a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission in July of this year. This governing body was duly notified with letters and post site posts on November 24th, as well as legal description post on November 24th. Site posts are required to be visible 30 days. The approval criteria for the master plan amendment is provided in your staff report. Staff finds that the applicant has met the approval criteria and concurs with their findings. And to get to the bottom of it, the Planning Commission and staff does recommend approval for case number 202510706, the Midtown Master Plan Amendment. Motion is there as followed. If you have any questions, I can take them now.

Mayor: Thank you. Actually, not right now. First, we have a little more business to do, but thank you for the presentation.

Cruz Harbor: Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor: Yes.

MRA Representative: Mr. Mayor, I am the agent as the Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency.

Mayor: I was going to acknowledge that you're actually the applicant here. So, you have the floor. Again, I hope you can be reasonable in your time constraints.

MRA Representative: I will do my very best, and I take this opportunity to say good morning. Mayor Weber, Councilors, I will be as quick as I can. I want to first thank Howell Cruz Harbor for his work collaborating with both the City Attorney's Office and the MRA. And a big thanks to NV5, who has acted as our agent, represented this evening by Emily Reynolds and previously Lisa Gabioli. I just want to take a moment. I do not need to be sworn in, correct, since I am staff?

Mayor: Councilors, it depends on what you're going to say. If you're going to be giving personal testimony, then you should be sworn in. If you're going to be speaking to the record and where people what people can find in it, then you don't need to.

MRA Representative: I will be speaking to the record. Thank you for that point of clarification. So, moving right along. I've discussed the background with all of you many times before. College of Santa Fe ceased operations in 2009. The city purchased the campus and leased it to SFUAD. The city collaborated with members of the public to produce the Remake Plan, one of the first initiatives along our commercial corridor over there. In 2016, another effort was implemented with the Midtown Link, the local innovation overlay, local innovation corridor. As of 2018, SFUAD closed, and this governing body passed a resolution 201854 to initiate the redevelopment process. This kicked off community engagement and identified that part of the process moving forward should include a master developer. In that case, KC Sienega was selected as a master developer for this process in 2020 amidst COVID. KC Sienega and the city did terminate that master developer agreement. And then we know the rest of the story from here. It's 2022. The master plan was adopted by resolution. 2023, not far after in January, the Community Development Plan was adopted. The MRA was born, and the MRC was created with appointed commissioners. So, with the background out of the way, I want to hit some highlights, not going through each of the amendments as requested as Howell did, but instead speaking to why these amendments are needed. As I said, really early in the community engagement and redevelopment process, interested developers requested that the city generate redevelopment plans.

Those including a master plan, and then later, the community called for a community development plan. Those two together we referred to as the redevelopment plans. It's a little bit easier, less of a mouthful. We have a lot of acronyms to work with.

Like I said, KC Sienna out of Dallas was identified. However, the city and Sienna terminated that agreement due to some of the market conditions with COVID. The master plan was then later adopted, but it was in that case overly prescriptive with a secondary permitted use table that lived within the master plan, and it included many subzones that were overly restrictive on commercial uses throughout, despite the community development plan calling for a lot of housing units, specifically 1,130% of those being affordable.

So, moving right along to when I say the Midtown subzones are overly restrictive, many of these do not allow housing throughout, and they're ultimately restrictive on the commercial uses within these smaller blocks. When you look at this graphic published and adopted in the original master plan, you can see over 15 subzones. This made sense for a private master developer to take forward development by right. However, if you look at, say, the upper right-hand corner, that yellow portion, or any yellow portion that is mixed-use neighborhood, in that mixed-use neighborhood, the only commercial interests that would be permitted include antique stores, art supply stores, bookshops, and floral shops. Not to disparage any of these ventures, of course, because they are a part of our community. They do not provide the same community benefit that, say, a childcare center would, or corner store, or some type of third space where people can gather. This is what I mean when it's overly restrictive.

I want to remind folks this evening, although I was before you a little bit earlier, the Midtown development proposal review process does allow this body and our Metropolitan Redevelopment Commission, as well as the public, a few bites at the apple. Before I came before you today with items 10C and 10D, I had to review the development proposals according to the criteria from the master plan and community development plan. Since you approved these ENAs, I now have about a year and a half to negotiate with these developers, bring it before all of you, and hopefully request the approval of a development and disposition agreement. Following this, if that all passes, then it must go in front of my colleagues in land use for an administrative development plan, which includes multiple development review team members across the city, as well as, if it's over 30,000 square feet, the proposed development has to go to an early neighborhood notification meeting. Like I said, a lot of acronyms. Upon the approval of the MRA plan, the MRC will also be added to this review process for a recommendation to this body and your committees. So, just reiterating, there's a lot to review here, and at many different stages, these will be before the public and this governing body as their representatives.

Getting a little bit into the weeds of the facade zone condition, I just want to quell any concerns that this does not increase or alter the underlying permitted height. Rather, it allows for additional housing units to naturally occur at the street frontage with natural lighting and with additional eyes on the street. Planning Commission assisted us in the clarification of this amendment by defining methods of facade articulation. In the case that there was a master developer, they could go ahead and create various facades at any moment, like we see downtown, right? This development occurred naturally. However, in the case that we are playing master developer as the city, as the MRA, it is up to us to define articulation in this case through methods of recesses, projections, change of material, color, stucco, roofline variations, parapet offsets, balconies, and so on. The intent of these facades facilitating high pedestrian density in some cases and commercial activity or an intimate streetscape along the edges will remain. This will remain in the plan. These graphics as examples for future developers will remain and will help in our stewardship, as well as these frontage types that we see naturally occurring downtown in Santa Fe every day. We even see here a couple of these examples where naturally articulation and frontages occur through arcades, portales, and varying setbacks. It made sense to be overly prescriptive at the time when we had KCCNA, when we were approaching a master developer. However, since the MRA took over, we need the capacity to implement these incremental development proposals with the oversight of the MRC in this governing body.

So, in conclusion, I'd like to thank all of you in advance because to know this master plan is to love it, and to love it for some of its faults, and identify what we need to change as a master plan, as a community development plan, as the land use code. These are meant to be living documents, and they're meant to be adjusted to the community aspirations as we empower the intent of the community and respond to market conditions as well. Thank you.

Mayor: Thank you very much. Let's turn to the general public. Anyone in the audience here in the room who'd like to step forward, be sworn, and testify, please do that now. Or alternatively, if there's someone on the Zoom with a hand up, we can swear them and take testimony from them.

There is no one in the Zoom room with their hand up.

Mayor: All right. I'll turn to my colleagues on the governing body. Are there questions of staff or agent? Councilor Sydney Lindell, you have the floor.

Councilor Lindell: Mayor, I'm just, I'm not sure what section of this I'm in. I'm in the part about signage. I'm the sentence that says, "Wall signs associated with film studio stages within the Midtown link D shall be painted and shall not exceed 380 square feet." I'm just so curious, how did we come up with 380 square feet? Because that's a big sign. That's a huge sign.

Mayor: Councilor Lindell, I agree. It's a very large sign. But when it comes down to the health, safety, and welfare, when we're identifying these in the case of emergencies, when a large panel garage door says "Stage B," it is considered a sign. And so, in this case, we've made language that tailors directly to our film interests to help our first responders. In the case of this, it is considered a sign. Those garage doors are 380 square feet exactly. So, it's that case where we can point exactly to those sections.

Councilor Lindell: You know what? I'm not, I'm still not following what sign would be 380 square feet identifying what?

Yeah. So, if you go to the Midtown area today and you see the Driscoll building or the film studios, sorry, Garson Studios, there are existing large A, large B, large C letters on the garage doors that lead to the stages. And the idea is to simply make it, as Carly mentioned, easier for emergency responders to go to those, to know which stage, to know which building to go to, because New Mexico is unfortunately aware of accidents happening on set. So, and also this is a language also derived from the railyard master plan and also looking at the Netflix studio in Albuquerque. So, that's the idea. The letters are already 380. The max these garage doors, we're trying to keep them enclosed within that. So, they'll be staying 380 within those garage doors. It's, we're fitting a code to an existing sign.

Councilor Lindell: Okay. So, they're strictly for identifying a location. Correct?

Mayor: Councilor Lindell, that is correct. They're strictly for identifying the sound stages. Not all of our emergency teams have participated in loss bus. However, those who do were able to see the Stage A through E on those doors.

Councilor Lindell: Right. I just wanted to be clear that that wasn't going to be some other type of signage because a 380 square foot sign is super intrusive.

Mayor: Thanks. Thank you. Other questions during the public hearing? Councilor Caster, I can't see if you have a hand up, but if you have a question, I don't want to forget that you're present, but not, you're zooming in.

Councilor Caster: Thank you so much, Mayor. And I mean, to the point that Sig just made, it doesn't prohibit a giant sign. I mean, we are sort of opening the door to those things, and I want to be cautious, but I understand the intent. Thank you.

Mayor: Any other questions? If there are no other questions, I would close the public hearing part of this evening's hearing on this item and now turn to a motion, a second, and debate.

I would like to move to approve the master plan amendment for case number 2025-10706.

Second.

Mayor: There's a motion. There's a second. Is there discussion? I would just say that Carly is amazing as always. Thank you.

It's not actually discussion, but thank you.

Mayor: Whatever. I think we can vote on that later. Madame Clerk, we have a motion and a second if you'd like to call the roll.

Clerk: Councilor Cassett?

Councilor Cassett: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Castro?

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Chavez?

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Faulner? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia?

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia?

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lindell?

Councilor Lindell: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Maroworth? Yes. Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you. Thank you all for presentation and for sticking with us, not just tonight, but through the whole process. So, I appreciate your hard work on this project. Thank you and welcome to presenting in front of the governing body. Madame Clerk, can you take us to the next item, please? 20C, consideration of Bill Number 2025-20, adoption of Ordinance Number 2025-TBD, a bill rezoning approximately 1.49 acres of land located at 3439 Seros Road from R3 residential, three units per acre, to C2 general commercial, case number 2025-10276. And here to speak or present is Senior Planner Claudia Cath.

While you get plugged in, let me once more remind everyone of our process. If there's anyone who has had pre-hearing communications prior to this hearing and you can no longer be fair and impartial, now would be time to recuse yourself. We'll start with staff presentation, appellant or appellant's agent, go to public hearing, public comment, take questions from the governing body, and then entertain, after we close the hearing, entertain a motion and a second and debate and a vote. So, with that, you have the floor. Again, I'll encourage you to try to keep it within a 10-minute presentation envelope. And welcome. Got to get that mic right in front of you.

Morning, Mr. Mayor, counselors. I am bringing before you case 2025-10276, 3439 Surreal Road Rezoning. The agent is Jenkins Gavin. The applicant is RKSS Santa Fe 1. And the applicant requests to rezone a 1.49 acre property from R3 residential, three dwellings per acre, to C2 commercial, C2 general commercial. So, this is the site is right here. This is Serios. This is Rufina. This is Richards. This is the Home Depot. This is Trailer Ranch. So, this is the parcel that we want to rezone, and it's actually part of a development plan for a multifamily residential that there, it has a legal lot of record and an approved development plan recorded with the county. So, this shows more clearly, you know, the buildings, high-rise multifamily, and this slot is called A2, and right now just it has just an access road that connects the two parts of the development plan. So, in a rezone, there are six criteria, and the criterion one has three parts. There was a mistake in the original zoning. Staff finds there's no mistake. Two, there has been a change in the surrounding area altering the character of the neighborhood to such an extent as to justifying the zoning.

So, this neighborhood started with mainly agricultural, the long skinny lots, and right now it's a mix of residential, commercial, and some vacant lots. Changing the zoning from R3 to C2 makes them the general trend for that area. So close to Cerrillos is more general commercial. The parcel is surrounded on three sides by general commercial. So it makes sense that it's coherent with the surrounding area. And then three, a different use category is more advantageous to the community as articulated in the general plan. So, Cerrillos has public transit services. By changing this to C2 and encouraging the multi-family development plan for RKSS, it is more advantageous to the community. And you can see here's the existing zoning. Here's the lot we want to change. And then the dashed line is the RKSS development plan that this will be part of. And you can see the red is the C2, the yellow is R3. So, and we're just taking over a little more C2 here.

The second criteria is that rezoning requirements have been met, Chapter 14, and they have. The applicant has had a pre-app posted, ENN posted, correctly produced development plan. It was reviewed by the DRT, went before the Planning Commission, was approved, and also this parcel, the A2, was approved by the Planning Commission. Criterion three requires that the reason is consistent with the applicable policies of the general plan. So, this is the future land use map. And here's our little site. And it's 50% transitional mixed-use and 50% community commercial. And it supports the themes of high-density housing, pro public transportation. And so it seems like it is compliant. Staff finds it is compliant with the future land use map.

Criterion four requires that the amount of land proposed for rezoning and proposed use for the land is consistent with city policies regarding the provision of urban land sufficient to meet the amount, rate, and geographic location. So it is consistent with city policies. And you can see in this, it's there is mostly C2 in this area and by rezoning this little parcel from R3 to C2 is consistent with development in the area. And criterion five requires that the existing and proposed infrastructure such as streets systems, sewer water lines, public facilities such as fire stations and parks will be able to accommodate the impacts of the proposed development in this case, the rezone. And you can see this is a utility map. Here's our site. There's water lines all around, sewer lines, fire hydrants. So, it is adequately served by city utilities.

And lastly, criterion six provides that unless the proposed change is consistent with applicable general plan policies, Planning Commission and governing body shall not recommend or approve any rezoning. The practical effects which is to allow use or change in character significantly different from the area affect an area of less than two acres unless adjusting boundaries or benefit just one or a few land owners at the expense of the surrounding community. And staff finds that rezoning this from R3 to C2 does benefit the community. It supports the multi-family RKSS multi-family high-density adjacent to transit and other area sites nearby include the Stagecoach Motor Inn Apartments, the Oslo, and Trailer Ranch. So these are some site photos of the parcel which is primarily vacant. The applicant, as mentioned earlier, successfully hosted an ENN. The Planning Commission recommended approval on June 5th. This governing body hearing, the site was posted. The letters were sent to property owners. It was posted in the New Mexican legal section and signs are on site for 15 days prior to this hearing. Lastly, staff recommends recommendation and a motion is that the governing body should approve case 2025 10276. One motion is required in this case to approve or deny 3439 Cerrillos Road rezoning.

Mayor: Thank you. Let's turn now to the applicant's representative and whatever you have in the way of your presentation.

Speaker: I state your name.

Mayor: Residing at Grand Avenue, solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury.

Speaker: Thank you. Good morning, Mayor Weber. Counselors, I'm here this evening on behalf of RKSS in request for the rezone that was presented to you by Claudia. I have a presentation. I don't think anybody wants to see my Claudia was very thorough. So, I am going to respectfully request your support of this. It's a very simple little rezone. It's just an inholding parcel that is part of an approved development plan. And so it's just kind of cleaning up that situation there. We were encouraged by staff to go ahead and come in and get this rezone done so we can get everything informed for the project. So with that, I'd be happy to see questions. Thank you very much.

Mayor: Thank you for that very brief but pithy presentation. Let's now see if anyone is in the auditorium who is a member of the public who'd like to be sworn and make a comment or anyone who is on Zoom who would like to speak to this issue. Now would be the time. Anyone on Zoom with a hand up?

Speaker: There are no hands raised in the Zoom room.

Mayor: Okay. Questions from members of the governing body to either staff or the applicant. No hands up for that either. So I will close the hearing part of this proceeding and ask for a motion and discussion. Council Lindell, you want to make a motion?

Councilor Lindell: Sure. I move to approve case number 202510276 adopting bill 2025-20 changing the official zoning map designation from R3 to C2 for plus or minus 1.49 acres located at 3439 Cerrillos Road.

Speaker: Second.

Mayor: There's a motion and there's a second. Is there discussion?

Speaker: No. No. Hands are up.

Mayor: Madam Clerk, would you call the roll?

Clerk: Councilor Castro?

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Chavez?

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Falner?

Councilor Falner: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia?

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia?

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lindell?

Councilor Lindell: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Romero?

Councilor Romero: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Cassett?

Councilor Cassett: Yes.

Clerk: Motion is approved.

Mayor: Very good. Thank you everyone for sticking with us. Appreciate it and for the pithy comments. Madam Clerk, what's next on the agenda? I don't think we're done yet.

Clerk: Appointments. 21A Metropolitan Redevelopment Commission Richard Chansky reappoint term ending 01/2031.

Speaker: Move to approve.

Speaker: Second.

Mayor: There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Madam Clerk, can you call the roll on the appointment?

Clerk: Councilor Chavez?

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Falner?

Councilor Falner: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia?

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia?

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lindell?

Councilor Lindell: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Romero?

Councilor Romero: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Cassett?

Councilor Cassett: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Castro?

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Item 21B, appointment of City Historian Dr. Andrew Lovato, term ending 12/2026.

Speaker: Move to approve.

Speaker: Second.

Mayor: There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Would you call the roll on this motion, please? Madam Clerk.

Clerk: Councilor Falner.

Councilor Falner: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia.

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia.

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lindell.

Councilor Lindell: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Romero.

Councilor Romero: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Cassett.

Councilor Cassett: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Castro.

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Chavez.

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you. And then we have C.

Clerk: 21C Poet Laureate. Tommy Archuleta term ending 12/2026.

Speaker: Move to approve.

Speaker: Second.

Mayor: There's a motion and there are many seconds. Is there a discussion? Call the roll, please.

Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia.

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia.

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lindell.

Councilor Lindell: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Romero.

Councilor Romero: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Cassett.

Councilor Cassett: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Castro.

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Chavez.

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Falner.

Councilor Falner: Yes.

Clerk: Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you. And then, I believe D is our next appointment.

Clerk: Audit Committee, I'm sorry, 21D, Audit Committee. Diane Rubin, reappoint term ending 11/2028. Aldo Montoya, reappoint term ending 11/2028.

Speaker: Move to approve.

Speaker: Second.

Mayor: There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Please call the roll.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia.

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lindell.

Councilor Lindell: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Romero.

Councilor Romero: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Cassett.

Councilor Cassett: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Castro.

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Chavez.

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Falner.

Councilor Falner: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia.

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you.

Clerk: 21E. Water Conservation Committee. Rick Herman, appointment filling an unexpired term ending 07/2026. Caribou Hong appointment term ending unexpired term ending 07/2027.

Speaker: Move to approve.

Mayor: There's a motion and a second. Discussion. Please call the roll. Madam Clerk.

Clerk: Councilor Lindell.

Councilor Lindell: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Romero.

Councilor Romero: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Cassett.

Councilor Cassett: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Castro.

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Chavez.

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Falner.

Councilor Falner: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia.

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia.

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you. And I believe there's one more.

Clerk: 21F. Santa Fe Women's Commission Anne Brunson reappoint term ending 11/2027.

Speaker: Move to approve.

Mayor: There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Please call the roll.

Clerk: Councilor Romero. Yes.

Councilor Romero: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Cassett.

Councilor Cassett: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Castro.

Councilor Castro: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Chavez.

Councilor Chavez: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Falner.

Councilor Falner: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia.

Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia.

Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes.

Clerk: Councilor Lindell.

Councilor Lindell: Yes.

Clerk: Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you. That completes not just tonight's work, but completes this governing body's work. Thank you everyone. We are adjourned. Good job, kid.