Regular Governing Body Meeting - Last Wednesday
Wed, Apr 30, 2025 · Governing Body
https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/271

== Executive Summary ==
The City Council meeting covered a wide range of topics, with significant discussion and public input on proposed utility rate increases, a controversial land use change impacting a city park, and the structure of the Immigration Committee. The Council approved a plan to increase water and wastewater revenues over the next five to ten years to fund critical infrastructure projects, acknowledging the need to address inflation and deferred maintenance. However, a proposal to use a small portion of Candelero Park for a road widening project faced strong public opposition and council debate, ultimately passing with a split vote after an amendment.

Another key debate centered on the role of a City Councilor on the Immigration Committee. After extensive discussion about committee autonomy versus council guidance, an amendment passed to remove the requirement for a City Councilor to be formally appointed to the committee. The meeting also included a lengthy public hearing on a rezoning request by the Santa Fe Opera to build apprentice housing, which generated both support for addressing housing shortages and opposition from neighbors concerned about density and neighborhood character. Several items were postponed due to concerns about a Planning Commission quorum.

== Key Decisions ==
- Postponed Item 10W (MRA resolution) until the next governing body meeting for proper public hearing notice (Approved 9-0).
- Approved the agenda as amended (8-0).
- Removed Item T from consent agenda and placed it after petitions from the floor (9-0).
- Removed Item Y from consent agenda and placed it after petitions from the floor (8-0).
- Approved the consent agenda as amended (7-0).
- Approved a motion to amend the agenda to move items 15, 16, and 17 up for immediate discussion.
- Approved a motion to amend the agenda to move directly to 'petitions from the floor' (all councilors present voted yes).
- Approved Amendment A to the resolution regarding parkland use (technical amendment to correct attachments) (8-0, with one abstention/not present).
- Approved the main motion regarding parkland use (7-2).
- Failed Amendment A to the Immigration Committee resolution (non-voting liaison/member).
- Approved Amendment B to the Immigration Committee resolution (no councilor on the committee).
- Approved the main motion regarding the Immigration Committee resolution as amended (7-1, with one abstention/absence).
- Approved a motion to move land use cases ahead of the executive session (8-0).
- Approved the appointment of Pro Tem Judge David Thomas (9-0).
- Approved appointments to the Arts Commission (9-0).
- Approved a motion to postpone the agenda item related to the Planning Commission's vote to May 14th (9-0).
- Approved a motion to postpone Appeal Number 2025-9812-APL to June 11th (9-0).
- Approved a motion to enter executive session for attorney-client privilege discussion of pending and threatened litigation (unanimous).

== Motions & Votes ==
- Motion to Postpone Item 10W — Approved (9-0)
- Motion to Approve Agenda as Amended — Approved (8-0)
- Motion to Move Item T from Consent — Approved (9-0)
- Motion to Move Item Y from Consent — Approved (8-0)
- Motion to Approve Consent Agenda as Amended — Approved (7-0)
- Motion to Amend Agenda to move items 15, 16, and 17 up — Approved
- Motion to Amend Agenda to go to petitions from the floor — Approved (all councilors present voted yes)
- Motion to Extend Meeting (outcome not provided)
- Amendment A (technical amendment to correct attachments in parkland resolution) — Approved (8-0, with one abstention/not present)
- Main Motion (related to parkland use application) as amended — Approved (7-2)
- Amendment A (Immigration Committee: non-voting liaison/member) — Failed
- Amendment B (Immigration Committee: no councilor on the committee) — Approved
- Main Motion (Immigration Committee resolution) as amended — Approved (7-1, with one abstention/absence)
- Motion to move land use cases ahead of executive session — Approved (8-0)
- Motion to Postpone (Planning Commission quorum issue) to May 14th — Approved (9-0)
- Motion to Postpone Appeal Number 2025-9812-APL to June 11th — Approved (9-0)
- Motion to Amend Agenda (Appointments) — Approved (9-0)
- Appointment of Pro Tem Judge David Thomas — Approved (9-0)
- Appointments to Arts Commission — Approved (9-0)
- Motion to Enter Executive Session — Approved (unanimous)

== Public Comment ==
The public comment period was extensive and passionate, particularly concerning the proposed use of Candelero Park for a road widening project. Residents vehemently opposed the resolution, citing legal challenges, concerns about developer actions, and a perceived 'power grab' of public land. They warned against setting a dangerous precedent and eroding public trust. Concerns were also raised about the city's budget priorities, the impact of new developments on existing infrastructure, and the lack of affordable housing.

Regarding the Santa Fe Opera's rezoning request, public comments were divided. Proponents highlighted the opera's economic benefits and the need for apprentice housing, while neighbors expressed strong opposition due to concerns about increased density, traffic, infrastructure strain, noise, and the potential for the development to become 'transient' rather than contributing to a stable neighborhood. There were also calls for improved language access in city council meetings and support for the immigrant community, with discussions about the role of a City Councilor on the Immigration Committee.

== Topics ==
- Water & Wastewater Rate Increase
- Planning Commission Quorum Issue
- Agenda Changes & Postponements
- Executive Session
- Public Hearing Notification
- City Appointments
- Community Recognitions
- Invocation & Remembrances
- Pledge of Allegiance
- Amicus Brief on Citizenship

== Full Transcript ==
We are live. Use my mic and indicate that we are convening the regular meeting of the governing body, April 30th, at 5:06 p.m. We will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilor Michael Garcia, salute to the New Mexico flag led by Councilor Faulkner, and invocation and remembrances started by Councilor Cassutt. So please rise as you are able.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Good evening, everyone. I just want to take a moment to express my gratitude to my colleagues and the staff who have been putting in a lot of hours over the last week, in addition to our usual business, which is always busy for budget hearings, and are here tonight to continue doing the business of the city. So, I look forward to working with you all, and again, as we do this work, as we have these conversations, remembering that we are so fortunate to be sitting in these seats, that we are in service of this community, and that what we are all really looking for is how do we make Santa Fe a better place. And every single person I know on this dais truly passionately cares about this community, wants to do good work, even when we disagree. So I want us to remember that we all have good intentions here, even when we have different ideas. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. Are there remembrances at this time? Go ahead, Councilor.

Thank you so much, Mayor. It's been an interesting week, and so I just want to say thank you to Jason and Nathan Abeta. Good travels to Pablo Kelly, CJ Franklin, and Given. Thank you.

Others would like to be... I'd like to, for those who are just joining us, I'd like to be able to say that we had a celebration here a few minutes ago of three great recognitions: one, Elevate the Spectrum Day; two, Cecilia Rios Day; three, Talia Mestas Garcia Day. These are wonderful parts of Santa Fe, and they remind us of the beauty and the joy of the work we do as a community. So, while we think about folks in our community who are suffering or struggling, dealing with challenges, we also give thanks to people who come every day to make life better in Santa Fe as volunteers, as residents, as people looking out for each other. They really are the heart and soul of our community, and they give us the inspiration for this work in public service. So let's have a moment of silence for those we are thinking of, and also a moment of thanks for those who are contributing so much. Thank you, everybody.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?

Yes, Mayor. Councilor Cassutt, here. Councilor Castro, present. Councilor Chavez, here. Councilor Faulkner, here. Councilor Lee Garcia, here. Councilor Michael Garcia, present. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero-Wirth, here. Mayor Weber, present. You have a quorum.

Thank you, ma'am. I believe we have some agenda changes that we need to make before we vote on adopting the agenda.

Yes, we have two changes to the agenda. 10W needs to move to item 20. It's a public hearing. It was noticed as a public hearing. And we need to remove Las Estrellas Subpart 8 from the executive session item.

Move to approve as amended.

Second.

Is there discussion?

Yes, Mr. Mayor.

Yes, Councilor Garcia.

Given that 10W is scheduled for a public hearing, it was not noticed in the governing body agenda as a public hearing. I recommend we postpone this item until our next meeting to properly notify the public that it is a public hearing.

And let's double-check. Was it... There seems to be a slight discrepancy. It was or was not noted as a public hearing?

So, in the newspaper, it was noticed as a public hearing. We do have confirmation of that. But in terms of where it landed on the agenda, it was in the consent agenda. Yes, but it is under here as 4:30, which should be a public hearing.

Mr. Mayor, with that being said, it was not properly noticed in our meeting agenda, which most of the public reviews, not necessarily the newspaper. I want to ensure that the public is properly notified upon any public hearing, whether it's this issue or anything else, that it's properly noticed in our meeting agendas.

Well, I think it's an important enough item that if there's any concern about it not being properly noticed, we should put it...

Mayor, Councilors, I would just say that you certainly can move it to another meeting. In terms of the Open Meetings Act, it was properly noticed on the agenda, and in terms of the requirements for an MRA, it was also properly noticed. If you would prefer that it is under the right category, then certainly that would be a move you might want to make.

Right. I think, well, my instinct is to say if there's any confusion, we don't want people to be misled.

Yeah, I just want to ask a clarifying question. It's a resolution, which we normally do not have public hearings for. So is the move because it was improperly noticed as a public hearing, or because it has to do with the MRA, even though it's a resolution, it needs to be a public hearing? Where did the mistake occur is essentially what I'm trying to figure out.

Mayor, Councilors, so whether it's a mistake or not, I think is a judgment call. But the requirement that there be a public hearing and that it be noticed in the newspaper as such comes from the MRA statute and our ordinance.

Yeah, thank you for clarifying that for me. I mean, I don't have a horse in this race. I think if there's any confusion about how best to get public participation in a public hearing, it's better to delay it and have it done at the next council meeting.

Yep. So, we would need a motion to... At what point would we take that up?

Motion to postpone until the next council meeting.

Second.

Take it up right now and vote on... Okay. The motion is to take item W, which was by the Clerk identified as being moved to the public hearing category off of consent, and instead turn it into an item properly put in the right slot at the next meeting so there's no ambiguity. Would you call the roll on that motion, please, Madam Clerk?

Oh, wait a minute. Mayor Weber, Councilors, I would just like to verify, will we be able to do the right amount of notice if it's at the next governing body meeting? So, is it a 30-day notice requirement? That's... I might need to refresh my memory on that because there needs to be two notices before the public hearing, and one might need to be a certain number of days. So, we need to verify those numbers of days. So maybe we do wait for a minute just to look that up because you could say the next properly noticed. I think the motion could stipulate that it has to be at the next proper...

Right. So I'd amend my motion to stipulate that we hear this item after it has been properly noticed, and that it be placed as soon as it's been properly noticed, that it be placed on the next governing body agenda.

Second that.

Very good. Any other discussion? Councilor Garcia. Good. Madam Clerk, could you call the roll?

Councilor Castro, yes. Councilor Chavez, yes. Councilor Faulkner, yes. Councilor Lee Garcia, yes. Councilor Michael Garcia, yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero-Wirth, yes. Councilor Cassutt, yes. Mayor Weber, yes.

Motion is approved. Staff, thank you for coming tonight. Sorry for the mix-up. We'll get this properly noticed so that there's zero ambiguity about when and how it will be heard. And maybe in the meantime, if there's any questions, we could all come back and ask you about those. Use the delay as an opportunity for any issues to be further clarified. But sorry to bring you out tonight and then not take up your item. But thanks for being here.

Mayor, I apologize. I have a request from Councilor Chavez. She's trying to sign on on a different device. Can I please promote her to a panelist so she can better join us this evening? Did that work? Do we know she has been promoted? Okay, I think Councilor, are you good to go?

Yes, thank you. So, I literally just walked into my hotel room and crew says, so I apologize for all that.

No worries. Thank you. Thanks for zooming in from afar. Good to have you. With that, we have a... We have a change to the agenda. So, we need a motion regarding the agenda as amended.

So moved.

Second.

Any further changes? Madam Clerk, could you call the roll?

Councilor Chavez, yes. Councilor Faulkner, yes. Councilor Lee Garcia, yes. Councilor Michael Garcia, yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero, yes. Councilor Cassutt. Councilor Castro, yes. Mayor Weber, yes.

Motion is approved. And Madam Clerk, we also need... You mentioned the items from consent. I believe you identified T and Y.

Yes. Two items from the consent agenda have been asked to be removed. Items T and Y.

Councilor, I'm sorry, Mayor. I didn't have my mic on. Yes. I would like to move item T to after petitions from the floor so that the public has a chance to be heard on this. And Mayor, I would also like to move item Y after petitions of the floors. The community has a chance to be heard on that item.

Okay. So, we will have... There are two separate motions. One is to move these both items, both of these items removed from consent. In addition to that, the first is an amendment that would move item T to after petitions from the floor.

Second that.

Is there discussion? Could you call the roll on that motion?

Councilor Faulkner, Councilor Lee Garcia, yes. Councilor Michael Garcia, yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero-Wirth, yes. Councilor Cassutt, yes. Councilor Castro, yes. Councilor Chavez, yes. Mayor Weber, yes.

Motion is approved. And now we have a separate motion. Councilor Castro, I was to move item one to after.

Second motion to move item Y, both remove it from consent and place it after petitions from the floor. Discussion. Please call the roll on that motion, please.

Councilor Lee Garcia, yes. Councilor Michael Garcia, yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero, yes. Councilor Cassutt, yes. Councilor Castro. Councilor Chavez, yes. Councilor Faulkner. Mayor Weber, yes.

Motion is approved.

Move to approve the consent agenda as amended.

Second.

Motion has been made to approve consent as amended. Is there discussion? Madam Clerk, can you call the roll on that motion, please?

Councilor Michael Garcia, yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero-Wirth, yes. Councilor Cassutt. Councilor Castro. Councilor Chavez, yes. Councilor Faulkner. Councilor Lee Garcia, yes. Mayor Weber, yes.

Motion is approved. Thank you. With that, Madam Clerk, could you take us to 9A?

9A. Presentation, Water and Wastewater Division increase revenue adjustments. And here to speak is Interim Public Utilities Department Director Jesse Roach.

Mayor Weber, Councilors, thank you. Can I get my presentation up on the screen? Would it be possible to have it be full screen? Thank you. Good evening. Before I jump in, I want to acknowledge and thank three other people here in person or virtually for being here to support this presentation and be available for questions. These are Mike Doer, the Wastewater Division Director, Emily Oster, the Finance Department Director, and Melanie Hobart from our financial consultant FCS, who is joining via Zoom. With that, I will jump in. And again, if it's possible to have the presentation be full screen until questions at least, that would be great. I think any Zoom people have to turn off their camera. Okay, perfect. There we go. So we've reached a point in the water and wastewater utilities where we need to increase revenues, and I appreciate the opportunity to bring you up to speed on why. This slide sums up the three key reasons we need to increase revenues, as well as the average impact the proposed increase will have on the average water and wastewater bill.

First, I believe after the last couple of years of inflation, we are all sensitive to what inflation does to our buying power when our own resources increase more slowly than the prices are rising. Since 2013, inflation has increased by 41%, which said another way means that a dollar of revenue pays for 41% less goods and services that we need to run the utilities than it did in 2013.

The second point is that both utilities have large and critically important capital improvement projects slated for completion in the next five years. And the third point is that the year 2013 was selected for the inflation comparison because that's the last time water rates went up. Wastewater rates, on the other hand, have gone up once since 2010. But the combination of inflation, a lack of rate increases, and large infrastructure needs leaves us needing to increase revenues. And as you will see later in this presentation, we are exploring other options for increased revenues, but we must also propose increased revenues from utility customers.

The proposed average water and wastewater user would see an increase in their monthly bill of approximately $3 per month for each of the next five years and another dollar per month for five years after that. Set a different way, that average user would pay an additional $36 in 2026, $72 in 2027, and so on for five years, and then an additional $12 per year each year for five years after that. This is the investment we need to make now for the long-term health of the services provided by both utilities.

Here's a look at the average monthly residential bill for a user who uses 2,800 gallons of water per month in the winter and 4,200 gallons of water per month in the summer. Those are the average residential usage rates for these two utilities. That bill was $60 per month for water and wastewater services from fiscal year 2013 through 2018. It rose to $65 per month in fiscal year 2019 due to a wastewater rate increase and has stayed at $65 since. Had rates kept up with general cost inflation during that time, they would now be at $90 per month for that user. The increases recommended here, as will be seen in a later slide, would slowly bring this average bill up to $82 a month, still less than rates would be right now had we kept up with inflation.

The bottom of this slide shows three inflation indices, including the general cost inflation already mentioned. And it is worth mentioning here that about a quarter of our operating budget goes to salaries and benefits, and we try to adjust those salaries to keep up with inflation. So with that, let's look more closely at the water utility specifically.

First, the photo in the slide is of a coffer dam at Nichols Dam and Reservoir, which allowed us to rehabilitate the inlet and outlet conduits on the dam while still pumping water around the construction site for the benefit of downstream users, including water customers. This $20 million project is underway and will be complete before the end of the year and is one of four large capital projects in Water's five-year capital improvement project plan.

As mentioned, there are four large capital improvement projects planned for water in the next five years. And here I must apologize for as recently as earlier this week putting out a very round $100 million as the amount of spending represented by these four projects. They actually represent closer to $125 million in spending: approximately $20 million for each of the two dams, an additional $25 million for an upgrade to part of the treatment process at Canyon Road Water Treatment Plant, and over $60 million for the San Juan Chama return flow project, a critical project for long-term water supply resiliency in the face of persistent drought and increased demands. I only realized my mistake as I was preparing for this presentation.

This graph shows actual spending on capital projects from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2024 in red and projected spending for the next five years, including the current fiscal year 2025. The upshot of these four large projects is that Water's capital spending is projected to go from an average of about $9 million per year since fiscal year 2013 to over $31 million per year for the next five years. These capital costs are the bill coming due for critical infrastructure repair and the price we pay for a safe, reliable, and resilient water supply going forward.

Many people are aware that at the beginning of this fiscal year, Water had a healthy cash balance, over $77 million, in fact. However, this graph shows that that cash doesn't go very far in the face of $125 million in planned projects on top of the annual operations budget. This graph shows the projected cash balance at the end of each fiscal year if we paid for the planned projects with cash resources alone. We see that by the end of 2027, just over two years away, we would be in the negative, obviously not something we can actually do. The dotted green line shows our minimum fund balance target of 270 days of operating expenses, which is currently approximately $20 million.

So, hopefully I've shown that we need more revenue. And here a fair question is where else might we find some revenue before we raise rates? And so this graph is showing three additional strategies that are being implemented by Water in addition to the proposed rate increase. First, we are seeking about $77 million in grants and low-interest loans. Almost half of that amount, about $38 million, is in the form of grants: $20 million from the state and $18 million from the federal government. The rest is in the form of low-interest state loans. And I apologize, there is a typo in the packet in the slide deck that you have. The $36 million in state loans should be $39 million in state loans as shown on the screen.

Second, new development in our code must offset added water demand to the system by bringing us water rights from the Rio Grande to put into our Buckman Wellfield. Development that's bringing new water demand below a certain threshold, however, can pay the water utility what we call a fee in lieu of actually acquiring water rights. The fee we charge for that water is very outdated at $16,600 per acre-foot, where it has been since 2010. For perspective, the county currently charges $36,000 per acre-foot for their fee in lieu charge. We are currently working on a resolution sponsored by Councilors Cassett and Romero Worth to increase that fee.

Then third on this graph, once that aforementioned return flow project is online, we will have less need for water rights from the Rio Grande and more need for revenue to pay for that project. Once the project is in place, we propose changing code to increase or perhaps eliminate the threshold below which we would allow a fee in lieu of water payment rather than an actual water right. And finally, even with those other three strategies in place, we also propose a 4% increase to rate revenues each of the next five years to support the important infrastructure projects we have planned.

This slide, similar to a slide a couple back, shows our projected year-end fund balances, this time with these four increased revenue strategies in place. As you can see, we now stay in the positive for the next 10 years and above our reserve target for the next seven. There is, of course, uncertainty in these projections, so the ability to push any gap out past five years is acceptable to us now. And if we still see a gap as we get closer to fiscal year 2032, then we'll need to re-evaluate.

So that's sort of a focus on the water utility. Now, let's look specifically at the wastewater utility. Pictured here is the Pojoaque Water Reclamation Facility near the airport. Although the Pojoaque Water Reclamation Facility has had some well-publicized struggles to comply with water quality discharge standards, it has now been in compliance with respect to E. coli for nearly six months. A tremendous amount of energy and money is being dedicated to ensuring that the facility stays in compliance in the near term, but in the long term, staff and consultants both agree that the plant will need to be upgraded. A study done by an internal consultant estimates a price tag of $182 million for rehabilitation, and we are currently focused on some site condition assessment to reduce the uncertainty associated with that estimate. The other option is a partial or completely new plant, and the working assumption we are using in these financial projections is that that option will cost more than $182 million. We're working on an RFQ and RFP process to have the market give us the cost of a new plant. And when we have that information, we will bring it to the governing body for a decision on what infrastructure solution we implement to ensure the long-term success and compliance of our wastewater reclamation facility.

The revenue requirements for the wastewater utility presented here assume a capital investment of $182 million in the reclamation facility over the next five years. We are currently in the process of obtaining a $114 million 0.01%, yes, you heard that right, essentially zero interest loan to cover a large portion of this expense.

This graph should look familiar, and now we're looking specifically at wastewater and looking at the actual spending on capital projects by wastewater from fiscal year 2013 through 2024 in red and projected spending for the next five years, including the current fiscal year 2025. The upshot of the planned $182 million investment in the water reclamation facility is that wastewater's capital spending is projected to go from an average of $5.4 million per year since fiscal year 2013 to over $27 million per year for the next five years. These capital costs are the bill coming due for critical infrastructure repair.

This graph, like the similar one for water shown earlier, shows that cash reserves are unable to pay for this level of investment. This graph shows the projected cash balance at the end of each fiscal year if we funded our planned investments with cash reserves alone. The cash resources would be in the red before next July. The dotted green line shows Wastewater's minimum fund balance target of also 270 days of operating expenses, which is currently approximately $8 million.

In addition to the rate increases being proposed here, $114 million in almost zero interest loans mentioned before is in the works. $1.6 million in state legislative funding has also been obtained and is so new it's not included in these projections. The financial runs also include over $32 million in revenue bonds needed as needed in the future to balance cash flow. The rate increase recommended here is a 4% revenue increase each year for the next 10 years.

This slide shows Wastewater's projected year-end fund balance from this fiscal year through 2034 with the loans and proposed rate increases in place. As you can see, we stay in the positive and at our fund balance target for the next 10 years. In this scenario, we propose an increase to wastewater rates for 10 years every July starting in July of this year and an increase to water rates for five years every January starting January of 2026. The average user bill would go up a dollar per month in July and an additional $2 in January, another dollar in July of 2026 and another $2 in January of 2027, and so on until the dollar increase in July has happened 10 times and the $2 increase in January has happened five. This is the impact to the average utility customer of starting to catch back up to inflation and investing in the infrastructure we need to maintain the level of service our customers deserve to expect from these utilities.

Here is how the average bill will look going forward from the current average of $65 per month to $78 per month average in fiscal year 2030 at the end of the water rate increases and a total in water and wastewater bill of $82 per month in fiscal year 2030 when these proposed increases are complete.

Tonight, an ordinance sponsored by Mayor Alan Weber and Councilor Romero Worth will be introduced to this body. That bill would implement the wastewater increase here. I would like to thank the sponsors and the Public Works and Utility Committee Chair Amanda Chavez for their help and guidance in getting us to this point. And a quick shout-out to Marcus Martinez and Marcy Ianarino of the City Attorney's Office, who were instrumental in getting this ordinance to the finish line so that the increases, if this bill passes, can be effective in only two short months. A resolution related to the fee in lieu mentioned in the presentation will be forthcoming, and then an ordinance related to the water rate increase after that, so that if passed, the water rate increase can be in place by January. With that, thank you for your time, and I will stand for questions. And again, I have Mike, Emily, and Melanie Hobart from FCS available to help. Thank you.

Before we go to questions, I wonder if Director Oster would want to step up and add an element of the perspective of our finance department. I know you've been working hard on the bond ratings and other related factors that lead to this kind of a decision. It is a finance decision as much as anything. Maybe you could just add a little context, and then we'll go to questions and members of the governing body.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here this evening and speak to you about the proposed rate increases for water and wastewater. So, from my perspective, I work with the utilities department in the bond rating review process, and the first year that I was involved in that, we heard concerns from the rating agencies about the lack of investment in deferred maintenance and capital infrastructure. They were concerned that we weren't spending enough on deferred maintenance and capital infrastructure. And then in the last 18 months or so, the last rating cycle, when we started to show those much larger investments and bigger needs, the concern shifted to, "How will you pay for those needs?" So, I think even before we started to show these large capital needs in our projections for future years, there was recognition, even from external parties such as the bond rating agencies, that there was a significant amount of deferred maintenance and that eventually that was going to need to be addressed.

So, I think the last rating review that we had with Fitch back in the fall, they expressed that they thought it was a good thing that the city was planning to move forward with significant investment in both the wastewater treatment plant and in the water utility infrastructure. And in particular, on the wastewater, on the rating for the wastewater outstanding bonds, there was a lot of discussion about different ways that we could finance those infrastructure needs. Director Roach touched on a couple of those things here, which I think are very important. That extremely low-interest loan that we've been able to secure through the New Mexico Environment Department Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, allowing us access to up to $151 million of funding at the interest rate of 0.1%, is exceptional. From a finance perspective, there's no better option to finance a major capital need like this. And it's still a loan, so we have to pay the money back. So, even though it's almost no interest, we still have to ensure that the utilities can make those payments in future years. As Director Roach showed, the current level of revenue does not support the outflows that will be needed in future years to address these capital needs and make payments, for example, on that Environment Department loan. So, that was something that we discussed with the rating agencies, and there was recognition at that time that we would need to bring forward a proposal like the one that we're introducing this evening to increase revenues as well through a rate adjustment.

I also wanted to really commend the Utility Department for their efforts to identify other financing sources to address capital needs. The Utility Department has been very, very diligent and proactive about submitting applications to the State Water Trust Board every year, and we were fortunate to receive an award that is half grant and half low-interest loan. I believe the interest rate on that is 0.25%, which is still really great, very, very low interest. Even comparing it to a GRT-backed bond would be something probably around 4%, so extremely favorable from a financial perspective. These very low interest rates really help reduce the cost of these infrastructure needs that we have. So, I wanted to commend the Utilities Department, though, for looking at other options, including grants, low-interest financing, everything that we can do to try to get others to help pay for some of these needs. We also have a number of projects for all three utilities—water, wastewater, and environmental services—on our Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan, which is what we use to request funding through the state legislature. So, we've put that request out, and we did receive some funding to help address the needs at the wastewater treatment plant. So, really, the things that I would say from my perspective in the Finance Director's seat here is we have some extremely favorable financing opportunities that we have available to us now. And even with those incredibly low interest rates, we need to increase revenues for both water and wastewater to ensure that in the future, the utilities are able to make the payments on those future financial obligations.

Thank you, Director Oster. City Manager, I don't know if you wanted to provide any context. I know you've been instrumental in the meetings with our management team and reviewing the different options, as well as bringing your experience to bear. Not to put you on the spot, but before we get to questions from the governing body, if there's any context you'd like to provide, we'd love to hear.

I would only comment that I've been impressed with the very careful, cautious method that has been used, the total evaluation of the current rate structure and the future needs that the community's going to have. I would say that it's been a long time since we've changed our rates. I've seen worse, and I've seen cities that suffered tremendously difficult rate increases, 50% or more for multiple years. I'm very pleased to be in a city where the request at this point is frankly very modest and considering all of the money that gets spent in these very vital functions. So, I'm just very impressed with how this has been done, and I look forward to the opportunity to educate the public.

Thank you. And this bill will go through all of our committees, so there'll be ample opportunity for discussion as well. But I thought we'd kick it off tonight so that when it does go to committee, there's no surprise about what we're considering and what the public will get for the money that will be provided through a rate increase. With that, Councilor Lee Garcia, if you want to kick off comments or questions, Councilor Faulkner will be our official timekeeper, keeping the shot clock. But if you want to kick it off, you have the floor, Councilor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you for the presentation. Very thorough. It is definitely something that is on the top of many residents' minds as we get calls from them. "Where does the water come from?" Well, I always tell them, "Have you ever thought of where it goes and the whole cycle of everything?" And I think that this is a very important conversation to be having. I know we had some discussion earlier today in our Finance Committee hearings, and I raised the question in regards to how are we looking at all resources of funding and not just rate increases? Now, I know that rate increases are something that is definitely something you're an enterprise, we're an enterprise fund for our utilities. And I really question in regards to how we can incorporate looking at that income being a portion of that, and it looks like that's what we're addressing here. And so, I don't think anybody likes to see an increased cost to their bill, but the reality is that everything has gone up quite considerably. And so, I do appreciate the thorough presentation. I kind of want to ask a little bit more about the fee in lieu of, and how that, how that, the nuts and bolts and how that would work. I would assume it's kind of mirroring what we did with P and Lua for housing, but maybe not. Maybe you can address that.

Mayor Weber: Councilor Garcia, thank you for that question. The fee in lieu of, the real basis of that is that in our code, when a developer brings new demand to the system, they have to essentially bring the water rights associated with that demand. And the way we do that is that at the Buckman Wellfield, we have a permit to pump from that wellfield, but we have to offset impacts to the river associated with that pumping. And we bring water rights from the river and put them in the wellfield. So, this is a water rights legal accounting mechanism that we need if we're ever to pump that wellfield at higher rates year in and year out. But if a residential development is bringing less demand than 10 acre-feet per year, so we calculate the demand, we say, "How many houses do you have?" Okay, each house is going to use on average a quarter of an acre-foot per year, something like that. And they produce a water budget, and if that water budget is 15 acre-feet of new demand on the system, then they need to go buy the water rights and transfer them into the wellfield. That's a difficult, timely, time-consuming, and expensive process that is being more and more protested by other water rights holders or potential water rights holders. And so, they would much prefer, they're in the business of development, not in the business of water rights transactions. And so, their preference is, "Can we just pay you and you go get them?" And they're allowed to do that if they have a residential development below 10 acre-feet of additional demand, or a commercial development below five acre-feet of additional demand, or a mixed-use of seven and a half, halfway between them. And so, at the moment, then they would say, "Okay, I have one acre-foot." We say, "Here's your water budget. You have one acre-foot of extra demand. You need to give us $16,600." That's a steal for them. And the savvy developers create developments that fall under the threshold because that is a huge, a big lift to try and bring us actual water rights. And so, the idea here is with the return flow project in place, we're not going to need as many water rights, but we're going to need revenue to pay for the project. And so, we're thinking about shifting or eliminating that threshold completely to create a new revenue stream to help us offset the pay, you know, that pay for the cost of that development rather than having to bring us water rights. Now, we'll still accept water rights. So, people who already have transferred water rights into the water bank as a proactive move for incoming development, they can use those water rights.

But we propose having the option, or many, or maybe all of development, to pay a fee in lieu of instead. Thank you. So if a developer pays that fee in lieu of, that fee is supposed to theoretically be for us to purchase water rights on their behalf. Currently, that's true. And we feel like that in the case of the return flow project, we're essentially creating new water for the system. So they're paying us for that new water that we're creating. Okay? Because that's the question: Where does the water come from? Everybody asks that question. Where does the water come from? And so I know we're talking about paper water rights versus actual water that we're getting. And so I would just like to dabble into that a little bit more in the future here to see how that will work. I mean, if we're accepting a lot of fee in lieu for this and not actually, I guess we would be purchasing more water rights. It's just, but we'll be utilizing the money for our funding of future assets. Is that correct?

Yeah, we do have a certain target amount of water rights that we will continue to acquire as available, but really the water will be coming from the increased efficiency of use of water through this return flow project. And so the way that that return flow project works is instead of releasing all the water that we divert at Buckman from Abeku, we'll release a portion of the water we divert along with another portion that goes back to the river to keep the river whole with return flow. So that project will create more water for us, and that's the water that we would be selling to these developers.

When we don't have that return flow pipeline, and when are we projected to have that?

That's a great question. So we have a 30% design engineering design. We have a state permit for the return flow credits. We're working on a federal permit, the environmental permit that we hope will be done in the next year or so. Construction after that, we won't see that project wouldn't be operational for another three years at least.

When will, I mean, when are we theoretically looking at possibly implementing this, the return flow project?

No, the fee in lieu. The fee, the in lieu of, we already have draft language for the resolution, and we hope to bring that forward in the next couple months.

We're going to have a time lapse of when we're actually producing water from the return flow pipeline to what we actually can do. So I guess in the meantime, we would be purchasing water rights. I mean, is that?

Yeah, and let me clarify the fee in lieu. There's sort of two steps in that fee in lieu of. The first is just increasing the price. That only requires a resolution because this is something we should have been doing every couple years since 2010, and we just haven't done it. And so that's on us. We've dropped the ball, and now we're going to catch up and not wait for 20, you know, for 15 years before we do it again. So that's the first piece, and that doesn't require a return flow project. And you're right, in the meantime, before that return flow project is available, we'll continue to use those funds for water rights if they're available or other, you know, conservation efficiency improvements. And then the second piece is once the return flow project is going to be in place, once we know it will be in place, then we can move forward for the code change that would allow us to offer the fee in lieu of to a wider range of developers.

Thank you. That's just kind of where I wanted some clarification. I was speaking to somebody, I think a previous mayor at one time, and he said, "If you really want to get a headache, sit down with water rights people and see how this all works in legality from federal to state to local to AI associations to Native American pueblos." And I'm sure Councilor Romero Worth could attest to that. It's a very intriguing but difficult process. So I don't have any more questions at this point, but thank you, Director Roach.

Thank you, Councilor. And I think all of this is fair for deeper dives as we go through the committee process, and it is a very complicated and significant part of our city's investment package and providing for the future. Councilor Cassid, 10 minutes should you wish to use it all.

Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Director Roach, for being here again in front of us today. We had a pretty robust discussion earlier today. I know we'll have more. So I don't really have too many questions at this time, more some comments. I really do appreciate, as Director Oster was saying, that, you know, looking for other resources so that we can raise rates as little as possible. But unfortunately, this does go back to some of the other conversations we've been having during budget hearings, and what you just mentioned with the fee in lieu is that we kind of let these things linger a little, and so when we do have to make these changes, they feel, they feel a little bit more painful, but you guys have done a good job minimizing that pain. So something for us to think about and future people sitting up here to think about is how we stay on top of these things. And I mentioned this with the fee in lieu that, you know, if there's any way we can put some type of trigger in that really makes sure that we're on top of these things so we don't get to the point where, what is it, 15 years later, we realize we haven't done something that we were supposed to be doing annually. Can you discuss our tiered rate structure for water at this moment in time because that, that's important for people to know as we're talking about their water rates?

Yes. Mayor Weber, Councilor Casset, thank you for that question. So currently, water has a two-tiered rate structure, and we charge a usage rate of $6.6 per thousand gallons or in when you're in the first tier. But once you go to the second tier, and here's maybe a place where Melanie can jump in if she's got the numbers right on her hand, I believe it triples up to, you know, some larger amount. I won't give the exact amount because I don't actually know it off the top of my head, but the idea with that tiered rate structure is to send a strong price signal to large users. Some of those large users aren't going to care, but some of them will, and they will use that signal to try to use the water more efficiently.

Yeah, thank you. I think that that's important for individuals to know. This also can really impact you if you have a leak that you don't know about, which has happened with me before. And you know that that's why that Ion Water app. So my recommendation is that during this time period, we also take advantage to push some of our conservation education efforts. I know that there's been a lot of work around what individuals can do in their home to reduce their water usage, as well as pushing that Ion Water app so people really start to get a good understanding of what that looks like. And so I want individuals to know that, you know, we reward people for being responsible with their water, and that there are some tools and resources out. And I feel like this is a moment that people will be a bit more attentive to this. And so we should take advantage of that as well as we know that water conservation is really important to this city. And, you know, we've seen some benefits from it where we recently were able to take some of those conservation, take some of that, those, you're going to say this, the technical things better, but we took some of the conservation savings, and we were able to apply it to some of our city projects and affordable housing. So that's my only comment for now. I know we will be jumping into this a lot more as it goes through the committee, and we have a long night ahead of us. So thank you.

Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Mayworth, you have.

Thank you. Just really quickly, since we have our consultant, can we take this presentation down and bring the consultant on screen? Thank you. I was trying to think of the word I wanted. Is she? Our consultant is Melanie Hobart. Melanie, if you can hear us, can you turn on your camera?

I am not. My camera has been disabled, but I am here, and I can hear you.

Okay, terrific. I just, can I, I'm just, I'm sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to like give some input. When we're done presenting, is there any way that we could change the view so those of us virtual can be part of the discussion because we're unable to put on our cameras or see who's talking on the when we don't get off of presentation mode.

Very good. The city clerk is nodding a yes. Go ahead, Councilor Mayor Worth, you have the floor.

Yeah, and just to Councilor Chavis's, I think Councilor, you could turn your video on now. It was just for that presentation that they wanted the full screen.

It still is telling me I cannot. I've been trying for a bit now.

Okay, it's a technical problem. Anyway, I was hoping since we have a consultant here who works with cities in thinking about rate structures and how we plan for major infrastructure and that kind of thing, if you could just, I mean, speak to what you see other cities with, what we're doing here is appropriate in line with what we should be doing given our needs. Just give us a little context that we're not, that we're being responsible. You know, obviously we might have raised rates sooner, but here we are taking care of business, and if you could just speak from your perspective as a regional and, I maybe national consultant, I'm not sure how far your reach goes.

Yes, of course. Thank you. I will say this is, I think that the city's in a really, a really great position here. As was mentioned earlier, often these rate increases come into play too late, and they become really, really big impacts. And I know that any change is a big change here as you've been lucky enough to not need to do that. But given the increased costs coming up and that reinvestment in your system and the regulatory requirements, as well as just inflationary impacts on your costs, I think that these, you know, $1 to $2 impacts per month, but, you know, changes yearly, that 4% for each utility is a really good outlook. As far as how you approach it, these questions have been fantastic. We've been working really closely with staff to make sure that we are maximizing all the other resources available and really thinking through the timing and the impact of these on your customers. I will also say going forward to the rates question, the tiers specifically, that is something that we've started talking about as well with staff. So, you know, we're also looking at not just the overall impact, but the specifics of how it hits your individual customers and if that needs to be tweaked or shifted going forward and those types of considerations as well. So, you're in a really, you know, from my experience, you're in a really great position. You're looking at, you're looking forward proactively at, you know, a little bit higher than inflationary increases, and you're doing it with eyes wide open with really good communication and questions about it. So, thank you.

I think that's helpful perspective. And I did, I won't take too much time. We did have a good conversation about this this afternoon at, or this morning at the budget hearings. I think we'll be having more of a conversation, and I think the presentation was excellent.

Director Roach, I want to thank Councilor Chavez, who's been involved with some conversations about how to think about this and how to really present the information in a way that builds the case for what's happening and helping us tell the story in a way that builds that case. I think that's reflected here. Her insights in some of the meetings we've had have been, I think, really important in how this was ultimately shaped.

I just want to caution us about the fee in lieu for water. I think "fee in lieu" just gets everybody worried. This is a different circumstance. This fee in lieu for water, we do need to increase. It is very difficult to buy water rights and bring them over. It's getting harder to do, as Director Roach mentioned, and we can use this money to invest in things like the return flow pipeline, which will help us be more resilient and provide the water that this community needs to do the things it needs to do to thrive. So, I just want to make sure people don't get off on the wrong foot with what this is. We'll be talking about it more as we go forward, and I won't take up any more time. I know we have a long night. Thank you.

Councilor Faulkner, you're going to time yourself. You have the floor.

I just want to say I'm in full support of this. This is nominal. I think most people spend more on coffee every morning than this would be to help our whole system work better. I deeply appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into this and designing this and doing it in a way that it wasn't a big hit all at once, that it tiered in. I think this is a great plan, and I thank staff and the councilors who are working on this. I'm in full support of this. Thank you, Councilor.

Councilor Lindell: Thank you, Mayor. You don't need to time me. It won't take long. Oh, here we are again, Dr. Roach. The presentation that you put together tells the whole story. The numbers are there. There's nothing to argue with. There's no lamenting them. They are what they are, and that's our future. So, thank you for putting the story together so clearly, and it's something that we have to do. So, thank you.

Mayor Weber: Councilor Lindell, I just want to thank again Mayor Weber and Councilor Marworth and Councilor Chavez. They're the reason that this is so clear. I try to see the forest through the trees but lose sight of it, and they have helped refine this message and keep what's important.

Councilor Michael Garcia: Sir, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jesse, I just got two quick questions for you. One, in the presentation, you have plant rehabilitation at $182 million, but there are different focuses where we might go with a complete rebuild, which is a much larger number than that. What happens in the instance we move with the much larger number, and what kind of impact is it going to have on consumers, grants, bonds, etc.?

Mayor Weber: Councilor Garcia, I think that's a very insightful question, and I think we all had a little bit of sticker shock with some of the initial numbers that were thrown out by our own consultant as to the potential cost of a brand new plant. I have reviewed that study, and I feel like we set them up with a few limiting assumptions that really changed the outcome of that number. But it is such a big number that we feel like the best place to have that, the actual number given to us, is in the market from the experts who build plants of similar size. We are hopeful that we can find a solution that's going to be much less than the numbers that have been quoted. But if we, when we come with, and this is our task, is to bring you all two different options, or maybe it'll be three depending on what the market gives us, bring the options which are, here's the upfront cost, here's the life cycle cost of getting a plant that will always meet the environmental standards, and weigh those against each other. And so, our promise to you is to bring back better numbers for rehabilitation and a number for a completely new or mostly new plant, and have the conversation about which way we want to go.

Now, I think the heart of your question is, what if we decide we need to invest, let's throw out a number, let's say we decide we need to invest actually $250 million? That 4% increase then would need to be revisited based on whatever those better numbers are. What we're trying to do is set ourselves up for success with what we think will be the minimum spend. On the other hand, if somehow we end up discovering that we can solve this problem for less than $180 million, then maybe we revisit how long these rate increases, the duration of those rate increases. But there is significant uncertainty and huge numbers involved here. And so we're taking the time to try and bring better numbers to you all so that we can make that decision. And if $182 million is not enough at that point, then we'll have to revisit where we get the additional revenue.

Councilor Michael Garcia: Okay. And so, a quick follow-up on that is, when are we going to make the decision whether we're moving forward with rehabilitation or a complete new build? I mean, because that's, we need to set a target at some point in time. We can't just be saying $182 million to rehabilitate it, but then we're going to actually go a different route, which is going to cost much more, which is going to cost residents potentially much more. And I want us to think of this in a manner where we're not telling residents, "Oh, your rates are going to go up $1 and $2 a month," but, "Oh wait, wait, we're going a different route, and it's going to be much drastic." I mean, you got to remember a lot of folks sometimes struggle to make the payment every month for these utility bills, and every dollar counts. And in the instance of determining how we're moving forward with the wastewater treatment plant, I would have thought we would have made that determination before we figure out how we're setting these rates because they're tied. They're coupled together.

Mayor Weber: Councilor Garcia, my response would be that we're not investing $180 million in a wastewater treatment plant rehabilitation. We're investing at least $180 million in some infrastructure solution for that plant. And you're correct, we haven't decided exactly how that looks. And as I mentioned, we feel that an RFQ/RFP process through the market to a 30% design is worth the time and money that it will take us to get the right answer. And I'm hopeful that we'll have that answer within a year, and that we're moving forward with what we need in the meantime.

Councilor Michael Garcia: Okay. When is the, I thought the master plan was supposed to be finished by now. Do you know when that will be done?

Mayor Weber: The master plan is largely complete, and that's where the $182 million came from. But the dollar amount for the estimated new plant is the amount that gave us sticker shock, and that I feel was based on some flawed assumptions, and that I feel we need to improve upon with some sort of information from the market.

Councilor Michael Garcia: Okay. Thank you for doing the due diligence on that. And then just a last question, just to clarify, you had a slide that showed the utility bill, right? That portion of the utility bill only covered the water portion, not necessarily trash, because in actuality, the bill somebody might be receiving is not $65 because it doesn't include trash. It's actually an $85 bill, right? Am I understanding that? Because I don't want to mislead the public again saying your $65 bill, which is really $85, is going to go up to another amount. I think that we want to cover all the costs associated with the utility bill. That way folks have a better picture because when you look at getting up all the way to fiscal year '34, it's not going to be $82. It's going to be $102, right?

Mayor Weber: Councilor Garcia, you are correct. We are only showing the water and wastewater bill there. And there is also environmental services related fees on that bill. So when our customers look at their bill, it's split into three pieces, and we're only showing two here. The changes to those two are reflected accurately. But I appreciate that perhaps in future presentations we could show the entire bill for an average user and then just show the increases associated with water and wastewater only.

Councilor Michael Garcia: Right? Because we did the increase for trash a couple years ago and knocked it up by like $3.50. And I know there's talks about increasing it again, and we want to make sure that again we're prepping residents for the increase in these utility bills because some of these folks live check to check, and every dollar counts. So with that, thank you to you and your team. Director Roach, no other questions. Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Chavez, you've been at the table on these conversations.

Councilor Chavez: And I know that Director Roach keeps shouting out the people sitting at the table, but he had to hear us talk a lot about what we thought should be included or not included, and he was always very receptive and engaged in conversations and very thoughtful. And I think that just his investment in time outside of those conversations and during those conversations and in response to them just shows how dedicated he is to the work, but also making sure that our community is being taken care of in regards to how this would impact them. So really, I just want to shout out Director Roach and his work. The presentation was very clear, and so thank you for that.

And I did just want to clarify, I know that at the table we did have conversations about the fact that we haven't made a decision of rehabilitation versus remodel in regards to the wastewater plant. But I think what really stood out to me is there's an immediate now of what we have to do to be in compliance. And so the rate increase is going to invest in that, and that is going to have a positive impact on our community. And so I know there's some unknowns there, but the known is work needs to be done now in order for us to be in compliance, sustain compliance, and the increase in these rates are going to help us do that. So, that was an important fact to me. And I know there are unknowns, there are decisions to be made, but we're putting in, or we're investing in the work that must be done. So, I just wanted to include that statement. And again, thank you, Director. I appreciate your work on it.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Castro, you have the floor.

Councilor Castro: Thank you so much, Mayor. Thank you, Director, for your presentation. I will also try to be brief. Could you go over a little bit some of the payment programs and some of the lien options that folks might have if they were not able to pay their bill?

Mayor Weber: Councilor Castro, Nancy Jimenez asked me if she should come to this presentation, and I said, "I think Mike and I can handle it." But apparently, I should have said yes. We do have low-income programs for assistance of certain customers who meet income thresholds, or don't meet, I guess we should say. And then the liens on homes comes into play when we have unpaid utility bills. And at some point, the water is turned off, and at some point, a lien goes onto the house. And that's the mechanism we use to get payment for all three utility services. We don't stop collecting trash.

We don't stop collecting wastewater, but we do stop delivering water if that's our big stick, the big stick in our quiver. Just to be clear for anyone who's listening that might be buying a property, there is the potential that there are liens on some properties that they'll have to take care of if they were to buy those. And also, there are payment plans if there are liens already. Is that correct?

There are payment plans for customers who end up owing the utility money and come and talk to us. We can set up payment plans for them. I'm not super familiar with the exact terms of that, but I think overall the intent of your statement is correct.

Great. Thank you so much. I just want everyone to make sure that we understand that folks might need some support and that we're trying to offer those as best we can. And then the next question I had was the external funding and some of the grants. Do you want to explain a little bit? Are we getting federal grants? Is the state revolving fund primarily? What are these external sources?

Yes, I'd be happy to clarify a little bit on that. I think in the wastewater utility, it's pretty simple. We have a large $114 million loan that we're working on acquiring. It's really a line of credit. The terms, as mentioned by Director Oster, are incredibly favorable. And then we did just get $1.6 million from the legislature. So those are the external resources that we have been able to identify and bring to bear for the wastewater utility.

On the water side, there are a few more, and I will explain those in a little bit more detail. They add up to $77 million. Let me find my notes here. So there's $26 million in New Mexico Environment Department loans for Nickels and the Canyon Road project. Some of those could actually become grants. They could be sort of forgiven as grants. There's $13 million of loans, low-interest loans from the Water Trust Board also for Nickels, for actually for all four of the projects that I mentioned. And there's $20 million in grants from the same source. So those are a 60/40 grant, low-interest loan combination that we're hoping to get $20 million in grants and $13 million in loans. And then there's an additional $18 million in grants from the federal government associated with the San Juan-Chama return flow project. And altogether those add up to about $77 million of loans and grants, of which $38 million, almost half of that, is grant and the other half is low-interest loan.

Wonderful. And I just want to flag that there is some wastewater disposal money at the USDA, which I'm sure you already know. And if we were to apply with other governments or municipalities, we would get more money. So, thank you. And no further questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Counselor. I think we're all aware there'll be a lot of discussion going forward at the committee and back here at the governing body level. I want to thank you for the hard work that went into working out the proposal that will be coming through. I think, as has been said by many folks, including the City Manager and earlier during Finance Committee meetings, Counselor Mayor Worth, the temptation is always to attempt to kick the can down the road and not face the brutal facts of life, which are the costs of inflation as well as the responsibility to make investments for future generations to have the public infrastructure they need and deserve. The temptation is a strong one, but I believe historically people who have sat in these seats before us have had the courage to make the right call. That's why we have the water resources we have. That's why we have the water conservation record that is the envy of the country because people are willing to do the right thing in order to guarantee the future of this community. So I think we need to keep our eyes focused not only on the immediate impact of this proposal but the price of not doing this proposal. There is a high cost to inaction, and it doesn't lead to good outcomes. It doesn't lead to clean water. It doesn't lead to fresh and drinkable water in our homes, in our businesses, and it certainly doesn't lead to a sustainable future for the City of Santa Fe.

I'll be very brief, Jesse. This isn't even a question. I just wanted to flag a document that was made available to me previously, and I think the City Manager or you will be sharing this with members of the governing body and the public. It's an independent overview of what we have been doing with wastewater treatment. The document looks like this, and it is an individual who was, on his own reconnaissance as I read it, a specialist, did an overview of the in-progress work and completed work that's been going on. And I think Counselor Chavez made a very important comment, which is this is not an all-or-nothing effort by our public works team. This is an ongoing effort by our public works team to make the improvements that are required for us to be not only in compliance but to do our duty to the people of Santa Fe as we deliver the infrastructure for our wastewater treatment.

A quick overview: in the last three to five years, these are all improvements that have been made: entrance works, primary clarifiers, anoxic selectors, aeration basins, effluent filters, new textile media filters, UV disinfection, reuse storage tanks and pumps, belt filters, filtrate flow equalization, and other improvements including upgrades in personnel training and staffing levels. The record goes on. I recommend this, I commend this document to everybody on the governing body and folks in the public who wonder how their public works department works and what kind of an ongoing effort is being made to really provide the best level of service and improvements to make sure our infrastructure is operating as it's supposed to do. I don't know if Mr. Doer wants to comment on that, but I think it's a very strong commendation to the work that you all have been doing, and it should answer anybody's questions about whether or not you take this work seriously and have endeavored to make improvements all along the way leading to where we are with this rate increase to fund even more significant step changes in our public infrastructure.

Thank you for that. I just wanted to let the credit for that report, or the outcome of that report, goes to Mike. So I just thought you might want to provide just where it came from.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. The report was actually put out from a gentleman named Robert George. That is his own private company. He was previously at the county, also worked for the state for years, and he went in, I believe it was in 2020, for his first assessment. And this is like the after five years version of what he has seen, what he's gone through, what we've done. I mean, it's been a long, difficult five years to get through, and we've found ways to make it work, ways to get other pieces of equipment replaced, rebuilt, and just trying to move forward. And that's just, I guess, a listing of where we were and where we're getting to now.

Thank you. And I do, I was basically piggybacking on Counselor Chavez's comment about the work that's already underway. We, this is an ongoing and steady improvement effort, and the rate increase is really the next step we need to take in order to do the next higher level of infrastructure upgrades, but you haven't been not taking care of business every day of the week. So, you have been on this consistently for five years at least. Thank you. I don't have any other questions. I think this will be going, the proposal will be going through committees, and the public will have a chance to comment on it. I think the opportunity to take Counselor Castro's lead and demonstrate options that people have if they are struggling with financial issues and ways to make the payments more viable is something we definitely need to add to the packet as you go forward. Thank you.

Madam Clerk, what's the next presentation for us?

Item 9B, Downtown Employer Permit Program Pilot Update. And here to speak is Parking Division Director Steve Caspen.

Mayor, Council, good evening. The purpose of this presentation is to fulfill the requirements of Resolution 2022-63 by reporting on the pilot program created by the resolution. Background: The resolution created a one-year pilot program to encourage and incentivize downtown employers to pay for certain income-qualified employees to park in the city's three parking garages. This program was named the Downtown Employer Permit Program. Per the resolution, 150 permits are allocated at a reduced monthly rate of $25 to be purchased on a first-come, first-served basis. Monthly permits are sold directly to the businesses, issued in the name of the business, and may be shared by employees at the business owner's discretion. A limit of 10 permits per business is allowed, and businesses are required to prove that employee beneficiaries of the permits make $21.71 per hour or less. The program began on January 9th, 2024, and was promoted by the Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber, the Rail Yard Community Corporation, and the city. An informational flyer was provided for outreach. And as you can see, the flyer provided information on what the program is, who is eligible, and how to participate. These flyers were also distributed to downtown businesses by parking staff.

The information requested by the governing body in the resolution includes the number of permits purchased per month, the number of permits scanned at each of the garages, input from downtown businesses that use the program, and other data deemed relevant by the Parking Division. Starting with permit applications per month, 111 of the 150 total permit allocation was utilized, with the bulk of the applications occurring in the first month of 2024. No applicant was rejected, and each business was able to provide the required documentation for a permit. That includes application and income verification. As you can see, January had the highest number of applications with 90, which indicates to me that our promotional efforts were effective.

Number of permits scanned: The average of approximately 1,000 entry scans per month show significant permit usage, and permits were allocated to garages based on preference and availability. As you can see, the Convention Center Garage had the highest permit allocation with 79.

Input from downtown businesses that use the program: Survey questions and responses to the question, "What percentage of your total number of employees use the program?" Two answered 100%, two answered 75%, one answered 50%, and four answered 40%. To the question, "Has the program helped you recruit and retain employees?" Eight responded yes, one responded possibly but unsure. To the question, "If the program continues at the end of the first pilot year, do you plan to renew?" Eight responded renew all permits, and one responded renew some of the permits. To the question, "Is this program valuable to you?" All responded yes. To the survey question, "Would you like to share any other thoughts about the program?" One business stated, "This program is so wonderful and has been a godsend. Thank you, City of Santa Fe, for helping provide affordable, safe options for our staff. We are really grateful for this program and would love to see it continue." Another said, "This is a very helpful incentive to hiring people downtown. By using the Convention Center parking, it also helps relieve the use of lots used for visitors."

Another said, "This program has been a real benefit to our staff, and the team at the parking division has been great to work with. Thank you." Another, "This program makes it more affordable for our business to allow our employees the benefit of paid parking. We truly love this program and hope that it continues." Another said, "It has been a great hiring incentive so employees do not have to figure out where to park or how much they have to pay to park." Another, "We'd love to see this program remain intact." And finally, "Please continue this program. Allowing us to purchase permits for employees has gone a long way towards retention and has solved an issue that was a huge priority for us. We would likely add permits if the program continues."

So, in conclusion, the responses to the survey questions show that the program helped to recruit and retain employees, was valuable to the businesses, and that businesses were very likely to renew their permits at the end of the pilot. The data shows that the one-year pilot has proven the program is useful to businesses and employees with little or no impact on parking operations, including summer events. The parking director has the authority by the Uniform Traffic Ordinance Section 12-9-1 to continue the program and plans to do so.

Finally, I'd like to thank the governing body, particularly Councilor Chavez, for creating this program. It's really fantastic. That concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. I don't know if we're going to need the 10-minute rule, but I certainly welcome anybody to raise their hand. Councilor, we're going to come to you in a second, Councilor Garcia, but I think since Councilor Chavez was called as the originator, I'd give her the opportunity to speak first, and then we'll come around.

Mayor: Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate it. And I will turn on my camera as soon as I can. First of all, we started these conversations when I first got elected, so this was hard to get through. And I have to really give a lot of credit to D, our parking director, because as soon as he joined our team, things moved rapidly. And he was available to all key partners in making sure this was successful. So, he attended meetings with me at the railyard, was super responsive to me nagging constantly to get it going. So, just fantastic work. This would have been started long, long before if we had you part of our team earlier. So, I just want to give you a lot of credit for just making this successful.

And I also, this was not my idea. I actually had business owners downtown and some of our essential workers downtown come up to me and say, "Did you know we're paying this much for parking?" We had a lot of business owners that were paying thousands of dollars a month, paying full price for parking for their employees because they knew how essential they were and did not think it was right that they were paying for parking to keep our city going. And then we had employees who were coming to me like, "This is killing me." Like it's making it, "I can barely afford to live in Santa Fe, and I'm paying this much for parking doing a job that gets tourists to Santa Fe." Like it doesn't make sense. So, they're the ones that provided the feedback that started it.

I would love to continue conversations, and I know I've sent emails before that since minimal impact has happened to our parking system, I would like to see a further outreach that would allow us to expand it. As much outreach as we do, sometimes we do miss businesses, and they don't become aware. So, if we could do more outreach and see if there's any expansion that we can do since the feedback has been so positive. So, I'm glad that, you know, we have an impact on those employees that keep downtown Santa Fe running and provide that customer service that a lot of our visitors come to receive. So, thank you for the presentation and thank you for the work, Director.

Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Michael Garcia, you have the floor, sir.

Councilor Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Director Caspine, for the presentation. Through the survey results, it seemed like there were nine businesses that might have responded. How many total businesses participated in this, given there were 111 permits issued? Was all 111 utilized by nine, or can you help me understand how many different businesses applied for that total number of 111 permits?

Director Caspine: Yes, Councilor Garcia, I believe there are 21 or 22 businesses total. The survey questions were sent anonymously. So, I don't know which businesses responded. But, you know, it could have been that all nine businesses that responded had 10, the maximum 10 permits. So, they could account for quite a number. We just don't know.

Councilor Garcia: Okay. And then you mentioned that you have the authority to continue the program, which you intend to do. So, is your plan to continue with the number of 150 permits, reduce it based off the use last year, or what is the plan in regards to the permit cap?

Director Caspine: So, I think the plan would be to repeat our outreach, and as far as the cap goes, I think we have about 30 more permits to reach the cap. But considering that we have plenty of space in the railyard garage and the convention center, if those businesses wanted to use those garages, we could go above the 150.

Councilor Garcia: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you for the presentation, Lindell.

Mayor: Thank you, ma'am. One quick question. How many businesses purchased the maximum number of permits?

Director Caspine: Councilor Lindell, I'm sorry, I don't know that number. I can get that to you, though. It was quite a few, if memory serves me correct. A small number of businesses purchased a lot of the permits. From memory, I do remember a significant amount of businesses going for the maximum of 10. There are some that just took one. There are some that just took two, but I would guess it's at least a half a dozen that took.

Mayor: And the businesses that purchased the maximum number of permits, how do they prove to you that the people receiving those permits are making less than what is it, $21 an hour or something?

Director Caspine: When they applied for a permit, the two requirements were an application and then an income verification. So, they sent us W2s, I believe, with redactions.

Mayor: So, are the permits specific to a person?

Director Caspine: No, they're issued to the business, and the business has the freedom to distribute it as they see fit.

Mayor: Do we know they aren't distributing them to themselves, the business owner, and their neighbors?

Director Caspine: Councilor Lindell, we do not know that. We just, that's one of the things that we cannot verify. We ask them to verify that they are distributing them to employees. I don't know how we would verify that. I mean, they can give us their word. They do sign an affidavit saying that they would do that, but we just don't have any way of proving it. I would say that one thing we're thinking about doing is having people reapply on an annual basis. So, that would mean providing new W2s for employees. So, that might mitigate it a little bit, but not totally.

Mayor: That seems like a good idea. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions? Councilor Lee Garc.

Councilor Lee Garc: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do recall this, and I think this is one of the first pieces of legislation that I had the opportunity to work on with Councilor Chavez and Councilor Lindell when my term started. And so, I do appreciate the thoughtfulness of how do we address this issue of helping out our people who contribute to businesses downtown because it is difficult to park, and it can be very expensive. And so, I just wanted to say thank you for continuing the work on it. I believe that it is something that is very important. And, you know, having the verification, I think that's important and that's great, but I really believe that businesses would utilize this appropriately because you need employees to work for your businesses, and I think it's a valuable asset to them for hiring and retention of their employees. That's just my comment. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Other comments regarding the presentation? One quick thing from Councilor Fner.

Councilor Fner: So, as employees of the city, if we want a parking pass, we have to fill out a form that has our license, our registration of our vehicle. Councilor Garcia and I just went through this. That may be one way that you can mitigate people maybe not using the program as it was intended.

Mayor: And Councilor Chavez's hand is up.

Councilor Chavez: One of the reasons why we didn't set those risks, so we have a way of tracking if somebody's cited or if there's an issue because they do sign the affidavit, and that's why we have that purpose. But a reason why we aren't getting that information is because the resolution does allow permit sharing. If you think of most of the businesses downtown, many of the, there's more than 10 essential workers that would require support with parking, and we had to limit it to 10 because we had limited spaces. So, it does allow the employer to use it to meet the needs of all of their employees. So, there were employers who talked about shift changes and how they were having individuals that were transitioning shifts share passes. So, there was a lot of need that further control over the city would actually have negative impact on employees being able to use the permits. And so, we didn't want to do that. So, then that was something that is why we kind of were like, we're going to go with the affidavit. We're going to trust our businesses. If we run into issues, then we could come back to that and say, "You signed this. You're not following the program requirements. You're not allowed to have the permits."

Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Other comments or questions about the presentation? Thank you very much for bringing this to us in a timely way and appreciate the update.

Director Caspine: Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor: Madame Clerk, next item on the agenda, please.

Clerk: Next item is item 12, matters from the City Manager.

City Manager: Mr. Mayor, Councilors, very quickly, I've passed my 10-week period here with the city, my first milestone, and I am enjoying it a lot. But I wanted to comment about how impressed I've been the last few weeks with the preparation both from the staff and from the city councilors as it relates to the budget process. I couldn't believe that it was possible that the Finance Committee was going to spend as many hours as were scheduled for budget review. In my experience, I've not seen that level of diligence. But I am learning a lot. It's actually a tremendously useful process, and I don't know how many people we have watching these meetings, but I actually recommend it. I've also been getting questions from the other councilors who were not at the table for all of these sessions. And I do want to offer to the other councilors, or any of you who want to spend more time with me or with the staff regarding the learnings that I've had with the Finance Committee process, we just, we welcome that. We look forward to working with the rest of you as well and for the presentations to the full governing body. But it's been very, it's been a really solid effort, and I've grown in my admiration for all the people involved in the government here. How hard people work to be prepared and how much people care about providing the best service they can provide. That's really noticeable in this community, and I hope our public is able to see that because it really does matter. So, I thank you for the 10 weeks, and I will let you move on with the rest of the meeting.

Thank you, City Manager. Happy anniversary.

Madam Clerk, it is about 4 to 7. I don't believe we'd be well served by going into executive session at this time. I think we want to take up some other items from other parts of the agenda perhaps. Oh, Councilor Chavez's hand is up. My apologies, I didn't see it.

I wanted to move to move up item 15 and 16 next on the agenda. Second a motion to amend the agenda by taking up items 15 and 16 now before we go back to regular order or actually go on to petitions from the floor.

Is there any? Councilor Cassid, make a recommendation that we also move 17? It looks like that's going to be a fairly short introduction and it's always great to do that early enough that people can hear it.

You'd have to amend your motion, Councilor, if you're...

I amend my motion to include items 15, 16, and 17.

Okay. Change the agenda in that fashion. Thank you. All good. Could you call the roll on that motion and that second, please? And then we'll dive into that and put us close to being on time to take up petitions from the floor.

Councilor Lindell, she has stepped away for a bit. Councilor Worth, yes. Councilor Casset, yes. Councilor Castro, yes. Councilor Chavez, yes. Councilor Faulkner, yes. Councilor Lee Garcia, yes. Councilor Michael Garcia, yes. Mayor Weber, yes. Motion is approved.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, I believe the next item refers directly to you.

Yes. Item 15, matters from the City Clerk. I wanted to do a brief thank you for the egg hunt. We had 2,500 people come out for the egg hunt and we spread out 60,000 eggs. It was a pretty big success and I wanted to say thank you to a lot of our city staff. Andrew Baca, our Director of Operations for Transit, Fire, his Jason Topia's team, Police Department, Sergeant Celestiano Lopez and Sergeant Plumbers' teams. Environmental Services, the lead was Deborah Trujillo. Public Works, Complete Streets, Jennifer Marrow. Public Utilities, the Wastewater Management lead, Gilbert Rodriguez. The MRC Parks crew led by Tom Miller. Erica Montano from HR who jumped in seeing that we didn't have enough staff on one of our fields and helped out. The Santa Fe High ROC, Capitol High girls basketball, volleyball, and the football team. And we were happy to have tabling done by the City Library lead Tiffany Paisley, Affordable Housing Trust, and the Santa Fe County Clerk's office. So it was a real major community event and we are happy so many people participated.

The next thing is I just wanted to plug the State of the City which will be happening May 8th. It starts at 5:00 p.m., the program starts at 6:00 p.m. And we'll be having our first movie in the park which will be Sonic 3 on June 6th. We also in tandem, the Railyard will be having movies in the park as well. So we'll be advertising that and that is it.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Item 16, communications from the governing body. Very good. Councilor Castro, you get to kick it off for us.

Sure. I just want to give a huge thank you to Local Progress for hosting us in Denver this weekend for the immigration convening. There were 60 elected officials talking about some really intense things. I am burnt out, but I'm super happy to have been there. So, thank you very much.

Thank you, Officer Chavez.

Thank you, Mayor. With the 10 weeks of our City Manager being here, I have to say that not only do we, and some of my colleagues have talked about, feel the positive impact by you, but I feel like the community already has this feeling of confidence. So I just want to really emphasize that your efforts are being seen by all of us, including the community. You have a great mind, you have great communication, a great heart, and so I just am glad you've been here for 10 weeks, and I hope to keep you as long as possible.

I also want to thank you. I know Councilor Faulkner and Councilor Lee Garcia and I have been working on some public safety town halls, and we've been bugging you about that and you are always as helpful as you can possibly be with your busy schedule. So, I want to thank you. Speaking of those town halls, they are discussions about a public safety package that we're going to be moving forward on and we really want to hear the community input. We've had one in District 3. We are having one in District 4 on the 6th of May, which is next Tuesday, I believe, from 6:00 to 8:00 at the Genoveva Chavez Center. And we're inviting all community members. So, this isn't District 4 specific. Public safety impacts our entire community here in Santa Fe and we want to hear from everyone. We're hoping to have a big crowd and we're going to make sure that we have things in place so everyone's voice is heard. We really want to listen and respond to what our community feels needs to be addressed. So, I invite everyone to attend.

And I want to wish Councilor Lee Garcia happy birthday. His birthday was on April 23rd. And I hope you had a wonderful day, Councilor. Thank you for everything you do on council, but for our community. I know that you are a huge contributor to our youth and just contribute in a lot of ways. So, I hope that you took care of yourself for once and took some time to enjoy your day at some point. But happy birthday.

Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Garcia.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Last governing body meeting, we had the presentation on the beautification efforts that are going on in the city and we touched base on the nuisance abatement process we have for privately owned properties. What I'd like for us as a city to do is begin to, in tandem with that, begin to work to identify city-owned property that have become nuisances within our community. There are several. For example, Vargas Park. There are issues with many city-owned properties. I think we need to identify how we are mitigating the issues and clearly represent that to the public.

And then in addition to that, I would like to begin the process of developing a compassionate and responsible plan to transition the services offered at Pete's Place and transition them away from the Pete's Place location to a new location. This transition planning would be in collaboration with the Interfaith Shelter, in collaboration with other entities like the Governor's Office and this County Commission and other interested stakeholders because I think it's our responsibility as, again, as the property owners of that city to hold ourselves accountable when city-owned property becomes too problematic for the community. And so I think it's imperative that we begin to work on this issue and we begin to develop this strategy and plan and my hope is we can get a plan in place within 90 days. With that, no other comments. I just think we've got a lot of work to do and do some self-reflection and looking at city-owned property. Thank you.

Councilor Faulkner.

I also would like to wish happy birthday to my counterpart in District 3. I have enjoyed working with him so much. I think we've made an incredible team and he makes the job fun and even when we don't agree, we still get stuff done for our district. So I just really appreciate you, Lee, so much.

I'd also like to do a shout out to one of my constituents. I met him when I was running for office and his family are immigrants and they finally made it through the United States today. He just sent me pictures. So, I'm super happy about that. We were worried because of what's happening on the federal level, but he managed to navigate the system and all his four kids and his wife are here now and they're safe and I'm super excited about it.

Thank you, Mayor Ward.

Thank you, Mayor. I don't have anything tonight.

Councilor Cass.

Thank you so much, Mayor. Happy birthday, Lee. Hope you really did have a wonderful day and rested up before jumping into budget hearings because then you dove into work quite a bit. I have a couple birthdays in my house that have happened or will be happening. So, I do want to wish a very happy birthday to my partner, Marco Cerna. He turned much older than me a couple weeks ago. So he's trending towards mid-40s now and I just barely scratched the surface. And also obviously to his twin brother Carlo, of course they do share a birthday and actually his best friend Aaron. So happy birthday to Aaron as well. But really just wanted to wish him a very happy birthday and thank him for every wonderful thing he brings to my life, as well as my bonus daughter. His daughter Ilana will be turning four this week. So, I want to wish her a very happy birthday. Very excited for the unicorn themed birthday party that shall be coming up.

I also wanted to congratulate the Santa Fe Little League on a wonderful start to the season. Between our three kids and two teams, I think we are there Monday through Thursday at this point except for when we get cancellations for rain and wind. But it has been really wonderful to see how many members of the community are out there. It is just such a lively place. There are so many families really enjoying each other and having the chance to utilize those new fields. So thank you to everybody who was involved with the new fields, as well as to the Parks team, especially the team who takes care of Ragle because there's getting a lot of use there right now and it always looks wonderful. So, I just really want to give them the credit that's due. There is so much that the city does behind the scenes to make sure that these leagues can happen. So, I want to give a big shout out to our Parks crews. And that's all, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilor Lee Garcia.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you so much for the birthday shout out. I know that a lot of times I just work through my days and it's just another day, but actually every day that we are alive is another birthday. So, but that is a very special day. So thank you for the shout outs.

I don't have much, but I did want to read the invitation to the Public Safety Town Hall similar to what we had in District 3 a few weeks back. And I'll do it in English and in Spanish so those that are listening that are bilingual or Spanish speaking can comprehend it or to get the information. Public Safety Town Hall, and this is hosted by Amanda Chavez, this is our District Court Councilor, in conjunction with Pilar Faulkner and Lee Garcia. The date is May 6, 2025. Time is 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The place will be 3221 Rodeo Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Community Room at the GCC. So the Genoveva Chavez Community Center. I will also do it in Spanish.

Thank you, Councilor. I'll be brief. I do want to give a shout out to all the different organizations in Santa Fe that are in full gala mode these days. Tremendous turnout this weekend for the Children's Museum, tremendous turnout this weekend for the School for the Arts. This is the time when all of us can support the various groups in town that are trying to both do outreach, but also in light of some of the looming federal cuts, they need our support. So, if you have a group you support and they are sponsoring an event and you'd like to give them your financial support as well as your presence, please now is the time to do it.

Did see at the Girls Inc. Gala as well, right, Mayor?

Girls Inc. Gala was a huge success. Lots of people there.

A very significant fundraiser for that organization. I mean, the list goes on. It's the season here in Santa Fe where a lot of different groups make their big effort. I think Planned Parenthood as well. So, check the calendar and support the groups that you feel most drawn to. They could really use it right now. Coming up Friday, opening of the LGBTQ+ center, the first time an actual gathering place. Plaza Cleanup Day on Saturday at 8:00 AM. Cinco de Mayo, our friends at the Life Link are hosting a celebration. The amazing work they do to offer people second chances as with turning their lives around rather than doing time in prison. It's a phenomenal program and we're fortunate to have a branch office here that does great work. And then I hope folks will come to the State of the City address and event and celebration. It's open to the public and all comers are welcome. And I hope folks will come and participate. That is on the 8th as the City Clerk mentioned. So, looking forward to seeing folks at that event as well.

Next item, Madam Clerk, as we're trending towards 7 o'clock. Item 17A, introduction of legislation, consideration of Resolution Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Councilor Jamie Cassutt and Councilor Sydney Lindell. A resolution authorizing the sale and consumption of beer, wine, and cider during the Santa Fe Pride Festival June 28th, 2025, in a beer, wine, and cider garden adjacent to 100 South Lincoln Avenue pursuant to Section 23-6.2C SFCC1987. Thank you. Councilor Cassutt, you want to say a few words about this? It's pretty self-explanatory, although I would say Councilor Sydney Lindell should be the primary sponsor on here, not myself. So, let's correct that because she's the one who got this rolling. And we are excited for Pride as we are every year. Thank you.

Next item, Madam Clerk. Item 17B, consideration of Bill Number 2025-11, adoption of Ordinance Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Councilor Romero Worth and Mayor Alan Webber. A bill updating the rates and fees for wastewater utility services. Councilor Romero Worth, I think you have your name on this.

Councilor Romero Worth: Thank you, Mayor. I don't have anything to say about it. I think we heard a presentation earlier this evening that lays the foundation for why this change in our rates is necessary. And I look forward to seeing the bill move through the committee process and then coming back here. So, thank you.

Mayor: Thank you. At this time, I'd entertain a motion to amend the agenda to go to petitions from the floor.

Councilor: So moved.

Councilor: Second.

Mayor: There's a motion and a second to go to petitions from the floor. Is there discussion? Madam Clerk, could you call the roll on that motion, please? We're skipping over the executive session. Okay. Let's see.

Clerk: Councilor Romero Worth, yes. Councilor Cassutt, yes. Councilor Castro, yes. Councilor Chavez, yes. Councilor Faulkner, yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Oops. You had to step out for one second. Councilor Michael Garcia, yes. Mayor Weber, yes. Motion is approved.

Mayor: Thank you. So, with that, we'll go to petitions from the floor. If there's something you'd like to speak about that is not a public hearing later on the agenda, now is the time to do it. Everyone will be accorded a two-minute opportunity with the City Clerk as our timekeeper. When the time expires, please be respectful of others who are waiting in line to have their opportunity to speak. And please, we'll take people first in the chamber and then we'll go to folks who are watching or listening on Zoom. Michael, will you please put up the timer for two minutes, please? Oops. Close. There we go. Very good. We're ready to begin.

Katherryn Rivera: Good afternoon. Good evening. Make sure the mic is on. Is that better?

Mayor: Much better. Thank you.

Katherryn Rivera: Good evening, Governing Body. My name is Katherryn Rivera. I'm a resident of District 1 and I wanted to share a couple of experiences that I had earlier this year and tie it into the budget hearings that I have been tuning into over the last few days. Earlier this year, I attended an early notification meeting regarding Swan Park Phase 2 and that was at the Teen Center. And while Santa Fe has some ambitions to expand and move into the what we've described as the expansions of Swan Park, the residents were very vocal and said, "You can't even manage what you have now. Are you sure you want to do this?" So, they were very vocal at that particular meeting. A few weeks later, I attended a meeting nearby downtown regarding the Fort Marcy swimming pools. And of course, there was a lot of questions there from the residents who use those facilities. And it was very hard to explain why we've had the same four pools for 24 years. And the city has somehow lost the recipe for how to manage them and keep them open on a regular basis. I guess enough to satisfy those residents. Many of those residents moved to that neighborhood hoping that they could use that facility and now they're disappointed. So, I tuned into the budget hearings. I tuned into the ones regarding Parks and Rec. I think it was yesterday. And I also tuned into the opening of the budget session. I was somewhat disappointed to hear from our City Manager that this current budget, if adopted, would not have enough money to support an additional staffing crew for the Parks and Rec. And that was even quoted in the newspaper, but also with the understanding that it's disappointing because that is where the noise is coming from. So, in listening to the budget hearings for the Parks and Rec, I was encouraged by some of the questions that came from you all, including comments from one of the councilors about setting the alarm and watching about expansion, other comments about we don't have enough for deferred maintenance, and then other comments about don't fall for the or be aware of the shiny objects. So, one of the things that I would mention to you is I think I heard from the City Manager in the opening that there is a plan to have two additional departments to also hire some additional executives that we are right now looking to raise that salary because we can't afford to hire them right now. And I would challenge you guys, is this really the year to do that? Is that really the year to hire these new folks if we can't take care of what we have today? So my challenge to you to reconsider and think about are those the shiny new objects that maybe this isn't the year to have. Thank you.

Mayor: Thank you. Thank you very much.

Aku Oppenheimer: Okay. Good evening and thank you for the opportunity. My name is Aku Oppenheimer. I'm the president of the Candelero Neighborhood Association. I live in Candelero. Regarding the Zia Road widening resolution before you this evening, Land Use has made several false claims and even ignored the state statutes in trying to repurpose Candelero Park land. First, Land Use has claimed that this was approved as part of the Zia approval. Parkland is public property separate from the Zia Station property and repurposing it requires a separate process and a separate Planning Commission approval under New Mexico Statutes 3-20-12 and which was affirmed by Sprag versus the City of Santa Fe in 1984 in the New Mexico State Supreme Court. NMSC052 is the case and it applies to this situation. The recorded plat for the Zia Station final development plan shows what was legally approved by the Planning Commission and it shows no changes to parkland were approved. Second, the words Candelero Park were never mentioned during any of the approval hearings, including the final development plan hearing, nor was it ever mentioned in the findings of fact and conclusions of law, nor in staff recommendations. Nowhere did it appear except in two diagrams. Third, the City Attorney's office has misconstrued the park dedication in the Zia Road resolution before you to make it seem that the city can repurpose park land without obeying subdivision laws for vacating the park property. The resolution states that the parkland is dedicated to the city for public use while the actual park dedication is dedicated to the public for its use as a park forever. So Land Use routinely refers to the city versus the public. So we know that it knows to whom Candelero Park is dedicated and for what purpose. Not to the city but to the public for public use as a park. Please vote for the Zia State Road resolution, a vote on the resolution according to your oath of office to support the New Mexico Statutes as affirmed by the Supreme Court Sprag decision. Thank you.

Mayor: Thank you very much.

Tom Agard: Tom Agard, District 2. Once public land is paved over, we never get it back. Tonight, we're being asked to give away part of Candelero Park. Good evening, Mayor, Councilors, and community members. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. The resolution to widen Zia Road may seem like a technical fix, but sidelines the legal safeguards that protect public parks. It would allow a portion of Candelero Park to be transferred to a private developer without full public process and consent. This isn't about opposing growth. We're welcoming over 300 new families to our city with this development. But who are we to decide the value of parkland before they even have a voice? Public parks aren't unused space. They are essential spaces for health, connection, and community. Candelero Park was dedicated in 1978 and acknowledged by this developer. Over 10 years ago, they promised it would remain untouched. So I ask you, would you give away any part of your land without due process? Our public land deserves at least that much respect. The resolution sets a dangerous precedent. Mistakes can be corrected, but hiding them erodes public trust. Please vote no on the resolution. We can grow a city without giving away the heart of our community. It is our duty to protect, preserve, and pass these shared spaces on. These are treasures. They are our legacy. Thank you very much.

Mayor: Thank you very much.

Barbara Leven: Mayor, Councilors, thank you for letting us speak. I'm talking to you about the changes in Candelero Park. We need...

Mayor: We need your name.

Barbara Leven: Barbara Leven and I live in Candelero. Thank you. The planning staff is arguing that the line lot line adjustment and taking part of our Candelero Park is necessary for the public safety. I do not for one minute think that this action or the past actions of the city are primarily concerned for public safety. If the city had been concerned, the city would never have approved the outrageous density for the 22 acres at the corner of Zia Road and St. Francis Drive as they did when approving Ordinance 20218. This intersection was already determined to be one of the most unsafe intersections in all of Santa Fe. If the city had been concerned for public safety, the city would have required the developer to abide by all provisions of the Central Highway Corridor Act, but instead they adopted Ordinance 20217 exempting this development from all of those provisions. The backhanded manner in which portions of our Candelero Park, excuse me, is being taken does not serve Santa Fe well. You are retroactively trying to correct an error through shortcuts that skirt the proper procedures to be taken. We ask that you do not approve this resolution and stop this power grab and leave every bit of parkland alone. I also would ask that you look at the way that the developer has already sufficient land for his deceleration lane. Thank you.

Mayor: Thank you very much.

Antoinette: My name is Antoinette. I live at Candelero. I'm here to object. I am here in objection to the spell casting and word magic being used in regard to the proposed lot line adjustment to use Candelero Park land to widen Zia Road.

We are here again due to the failure of our city council members and city planning staff from 2021. Going unnoticed by everyone involved, the developers of Zia Station deceitfully and knowingly placed a diagram of said deceleration lane in the final development plan. Had we all known, again, city council planning staff members, as well as Candlelight neighborhood, that such a thing, the deceleration lane, needed to go through our parkland, there would have been an uproar. Let's be honest, the city is not stupid, knowing a new land use director would come in, and unbeknownst to her, all was approved. So, hey, take it. The only person who questioned the parkland was the contractor. It took the city attorney more than two months to come up with Safe Base Core Idea. I do not consent to the process presented. I do not consent to taking away parkland to appease the developer. The answer is no. You cannot have the park. If, in fact, you need it, then follow the correct law procedures. Have we not learned parks are not safe under Mayor Weber's watch? The oldest park in the oldest capital city was ravaged under the mayor's watch. Our city parks are vulnerable, vulnerable under this man's leadership or lack thereof. You talk of public safety when we call foul on how outrageous this Zia project was. And now you say you need the park for this, excuse me, for this plan to work.

Thank you for being here. My name is Robin Gay Wakeland, and I'm here to oppose this Pandelaro Park utilization for to widen West Zia Road. And I'm going to appeal any such decision to use the park like this, including the resolution or any kind of paperwork like the lot line adjustment for the following reasons. And this is based on mine and the public's constitutional rights to 100% use of the park, and also because this action by the city will be arbitrary for the following illegalities. Santa Fe City Code 23-1.2 to ETSC does not support use of the parkland for a road because the city is successor at Grantor and interest to Western Holdings in the Candelero 2 subdivision plat in 1977, which created the park, and there is no mention there of any reversionary rights into the grantor. Also, there is no finding of facts in this action. In addition to that, the Planning Commission has already denied Zia Station LLC application in their final development plan for use of the park, and this was in their final development plan as shown by the engineer's drawings. They specifically show in the engineer's drawings in the final development plan the use of the park, and this was denied by the Planning Commission. How do we know that? We know that because of the county records, Book 901, pages 29 to 34, absolutely show there's no use of the park by any way by the developer. The park boundaries remain intact exactly the way they are in the 1977 plat. Thank you very much.

Evening, Mayor, counselors. My name is Mark Randall.
Mark, you're going to have to get much closer to the microphone.
My name is Mark Randall, at 2144 Candelero Street in District 2. Over the last several weeks, I've been observing the lane change construction on Zia Road for the new Zia Station subdivision. I noticed that they just built the curbing for the last of the S-shaped medians directly across the entrances to the subdivision, blocking any left turns coming out of the subdivision. In other words, right turn only are possible from the north side of the subdivision. Drivers wanting to go east towards St. Francis Drive must turn right and go west on Zia Road and make a U-turn. The first opportunity for which is at Candelero and Zia, which is my street. The drivers leaving the subdivision south side that want to go west on Zia Road, they have to turn right into the traffic, waiting at the rail crossing and the signal at Zia and St. Francis. Then they either have to cross St. Francis Road and make a U-turn at the Zia Crossing shopping center or turn right and go south on St. Francis Drive in search of some opportunity to get back to Zia Road. Statistically, there are 7 to 10 vehicle trips per day per unit in the subdivision. So, between 2,600 and 3,800 vehicles per day will be added to the already congested area. Between 260 and 380 of those trips will happen at peak traffic times. The potential for accidents will increase dramatically forever. In addition, all the construction trucks and worker vehicles being involved in this mess, I'm calling it, started a couple of days ago for the next two to three years as the subdivision builds out. So, the city has approved a fiasco of epic proportions and is apparently comfortable with forcing it upon everybody living and driving within a mile of Zia Road and St. Francis Drive. I could go on, but I will just close in saying that the time to fix this is now before they pave it. Take out the section of median that was just installed across the entrances to the subdivision and allow left turns from both sides. In that way, the problem will be confined to that intersection rather than involving thousands of drivers and residents in the adjacent neighborhoods. The time to fix this is now. I do have copies of my comments for the counselors who want to give them over to the city clerk. That would be super. Thank you very much.

Let's reset the timer before we start. Make sure it's on the screen. There you go. You have the floor.
My name is Pat Hastings. I live in the Candlelight neighborhood. That's District 2. I'm most concerned about the city's ignoring its own process and transferring a portion of the Candelero Park to the developer. The city has taken dedicated parkland without community input and given it to a developer who in early negotiations promised Zia Flats would respect the park boundaries. Such opaque maneuvering sets a terrible precedent for the future of dedicated parklands in our city. All this has resulted in the communities and my personal lack of trust in city leadership. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. You have the floor.
Thank you, Mayor and counselors. My name is Anne Watkins. I live in the Candlelight neighborhood. I did not oppose this development when it first came about. I attended every meeting that was held about this up to and including the approval, final approval by council. This removal of a very small sliver of this park was included in every plat that went through this process. It's unfortunate that the city did not follow state and regulatory procedures when this happened. I feel certain that new Director Lamboy will ensure that those procedures are followed in the future. I think that this particular resolution is an elegant solution to this problem, and I encourage you to approve it tonight. That will allow this project to move forward, which will accelerate the time of its completion. And I think many of my neighbors agree with me that what we really want particularly is to get the roadway improvements completed so that we can get on with our traffic challenging life. Again, the project has been through the approval process. I want to take a moment to thank the developer for doing an excellent job of traffic management during this very dicey roadway change. It's been quite good. I want to encourage the city also to move quickly on other issues such as the Richards extension because the traffic going through that intersection coming from that part of Santa from the south part of Santa Fe is going to dramatically overwhelm it much more than that minor amount of traffic added by this development. Thank you. I urge your approval.

Thank you. Thanks for being here.
Good evening. My name is Elizabeth West, and I want to first say that I really appreciate, given the state of the amazing world we're in right now, the opportunity to be able to speak to you and that we are allowed to come here and pretty much say whatever we want. And it's something I'm really grateful for. And I often hear lots of things that I agree with and things I don't agree with. And I'm thankful that we can disagree, hopefully most of the time really politely. I've been studying the City of Santa Fe Land Development Code, Chapter 14. And you might wonder, well, she looks like an interesting person. What on earth is she doing that for? Well, I live in the city, and I decided it would be fun to learn about it. And then a couple of friends of mine said, "Well, you're kind of odd." So, I did send to the governing body what I'm going to refer to tonight, but I didn't send it to you all. So, I'm going to hand out to the
Great. Wonderful. Thank you very much.
What I'm going to hand out is what I have been studying. And I underlined some parts of it. Some parts of it I thought, "Oh, maybe I shouldn't underline that. Maybe I should." But I am going to read one important part of the land code, the Land Development Code in Chapter 14-2.6B. And here it goes: "Review and decision-making bodies, Historic Districts Review Board. The delegation, the governing body, and the Planning Commission hereby delegate their authority as set forth generally in Chapter 3, Articles 19 through 21 in the New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978." It, I guess it's been updated. Oh, I heard that. Can I quickly read the next sentence?
Give us the next sentence, please.
Thank you. "Except those powers retained by the governing body and the Planning Commission in the Santa Fe City Code. The HDRB, Historic Districts Review Board, shall carry out the city's powers and duties pursuant to Chapter 3, Article 22, NMSA 1978." Thank you ever so much.

Thank you for being here. You are an excellent reader. Wait one second, and we'll get you teed up. All right, you have the floor.
Stephanie Benonato. I did put these into public comment, but I'd like to make them publicly as well. I am dismayed that the Mayor, who's the one forming the budget, has not dedicated $3 million to the affordable housing fund. I've read that in the paper. If I got that wrong, I apologize, but again, I thought we were concerned about housing, and leaving it up to extra gross receipts tax doesn't really quite cut it in my opinion. Also, I have to say that I appreciated having Cecilia Rios honored today, but she was actually not informed. If I had not called her this morning to wish her a happy Cecilia Rios Day, she would not have known to show up here, and it wasn't even a part of the public meeting, which really I thought she should have that recognition publicly. The other thing is that you had a resolution about the St. Michael's corridor, and you want to declare it a blighted area, but when I read the contents, it's mostly about the Midtown campus being blighted and buildings being decaying, which of course is because the city hasn't really taken care of them. And I understand that this gives you some grant money, but it seems sort of, I'll say, hypocritical because you're telling developers what a great opportunity this is, and yet you're declaring it a blighted area. Additionally, the diagram for the street, St. Michael's changes, I think, is a disaster. It looks like there's going to be one lane of traffic going in each direction. And I can tell you that the changes made on Siler Road, which looks similar, although there's no actual bike lane, people are not going to walk down from Christo Rey to come to get their lunch, and Siler Road backs up on both sides to Cerrillos and Rufina. It takes three lights to get through now. And to cut down the amount of traffic that St. Michael's can handle, I think is a really bad idea. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, you have the floor.
Good evening, Mayor Weber, counselors. My name is Adam John Grigo. I'm a member of the Justice Advisory and Accountability Board to the American Civil Liberties Union here in New Mexico.

I'm also the legislative liaison for the Entrepreneurial Institute of Northern New Mexico. I'm here in support, and I want to say first of all, I'm sorry, Mr. Lee Garcia, thank you so much for addressing us in Spanish as well. I'm here in support of our immigrant community.

I have, as an adjunct at the community college, I currently have a student whom I'm mentoring through school, but was sitting in my classroom in tears. So we had to remove him and sit down and have a conversation. He lives in fear every day of being forcibly removed from our country. And that's an issue that not only is very polarizing, but it's something that we really need to think about as human beings. How are the citizens of this nation being treated? He's somebody that contributes to the infrastructure of this community. He has two jobs. He's a student. And I just really feel like it's wrong for us as a nation, but as a city as well, to not look at what's going on with our immigrant population here, especially young kids.

I support inclusion and diversity. I believe that we really need to look at the sharing of essential information with the federal government. Is that necessary? I don't know. I don't know how the laws are written with regards to that, but as it relates to human beings, how critical is that? Why is ICE alerted when anyone in the country is arrested? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Listen, I appreciate your time. Thank you so much for having me.

Thank you for being here.

Councilors, my name is Rick Martinez. I'm here to speak on two issues. They're both land use, and they're both developers on the back to say, "Go ahead and do what you want to do." So the first one is the kind of light one, which I feel that, Mayor, you attended the meeting on February 18th, neighborhoods, about the park, them taking the land away from the park. I couldn't see why you couldn't have gone to them and gotten it straightened out with them personally, and you went to counselors and had that counselor do the work for you. I think that was kind of wrong. I think that this could have been settled a lot better. The neighbors are victimized, and they're called "nimbies" now because they're complaining about something that should have been done in the right way, properly, by adjusting that land to where it's legally done. It hasn't been done that way. So, it's done through a resolution.

The second is the Dosa Park, that development there on Alfria Street. There's an acequia that ran through there, a historic acequia, and it was destroyed by the developer, completely destroyed, wiped out. And they rebuilt a retention pond. So the retention pond, when it rains, it fills up. It doesn't drain its water. And I was told that they were going to fix it, and they wouldn't give any COs to any of the housing developments that go on in that property. Now they're building houses, they're giving a CO. So people are moving in with the retention pond still not working. And I got a reply from the landings director saying that the poor guy has already built the house, and this could take them a long time to fix the retention pond. So they can go ahead and do that. So why do they tell me one thing, tell me another thing? The same thing what you told the neighborhoods. You told the neighborhoods we'd do something, but they didn't. But you never did do it. So it's kind of a mix-up here. I can't figure out who gets more attention, the neighborhoods or your campaign donors. So maybe you can ask that for me one day. So thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Hi, good evening. I'm Tara Lujan, House District 2. I'm here as a private citizen, but you know me also as a state representative, House District 48. And I'm here just to make a couple comments in regards to the amendment B, amending immigration committee membership, sponsored by Councilor Garcia Lindell and Castro. Just very quickly, as we have passed new state law regarding privacy and data, I'm here with gratitude to the governor and all those that worked on this legislation, and the governor for signing that bill. But what we need to do and continue to do is strengthen our local leadership and vigilance over immigration, and that includes placing a city council liaison on this committee to champion the one thing often overlooked in immigration debates, which is data privacy. The federal government already has access to much of our local data, but we can fight back. Sanctuary policies do work. We know they do, and Santa Fe knows how to do that. And when we build strong relationships with our local elected officials, we protect our communities. Criminalizing our community doesn't make anyone safer. Protecting privacy does. And in Santa Fe, protecting each other is the strongest policy we can make. And I want to commend those that have worked on this policy and working with our local government and our state government and our federal government to ensure that those privacies of data are protected. Thank you.

Thank you for coming.

Good evening, Mayor, City Councilors, and City Staff. My name is Ivan Corno. I am the current chair for the Santa Fe Immigration Committee. And today I'm here in regards to the resolution listed in the agenda, letter Y, item 10. I'm here because I believe the minutes to our past meeting on April 14th have not been available yet. However, I'm here to reiterate that the committee took a majority vote to make an amendment to this resolution, Resolution Number 2025. We do believe that we can work together, as we've always had for years, for decades. We can surely use the support and the guidance from our city officials, city councilors. But we voted to remain with this committee only as a committee conformed by only community members, fully composed by committee members. And like I said, we are open to having a counselor as a liaison, which is great. We definitely need that support. But we would like for that position to remain as a non-voting member to the committee. I'm grateful to hear that other people here are concerned with what's going on. So it is an all-hands-on-deck situation. Let's continue making Santa Fe a welcoming space. So thank you very much already for the support that has been provided already by Councilor Castro and also Councilor Faulkner. Thank you very much. Let's continue with that. Please, thank you for your consideration to this amendment. Thank you.

Thanks for coming.

Mayor, Councilors, my name is John Paul Gano, and I'm here to talk about the immigration committee. And the one thing that I did want to say is if we're a city different and we're working towards these goals, I commend everybody for putting back together, or you calling it together, to have the immigration committee put back together. But how we respond and what we consider help. The word "help" is vague in the extent of how much help and in what capacity we're going to be able to get some resolutions from that committee. What can we do to speedline some of those processes? Because if we don't think right now of being proactive, we're going to be cleaning up a mess later. And you've already taken one step by putting them together. Can we make this process a little bit faster to get them together a little bit more for some more clarity? Thank you.

Thank you for coming tonight. Is there folks in the Zoom room?

Madame Clerk, there are folks in the Zoom room, and the first person with their hand up, Naomi, is allowed to speak. Please unmute.

Good evening, Councilors. Can you hear me?

Yes.

My name is Naomi Todd Reyes. I'm a professional court interpreter working in Spanish and English all over the state. I just wanted to state that I'm in favor of a counselor being assigned or being on the immigration committee. I don't think I need to go into detail of all of the perils that the immigrant community is facing right now. Sorry, I have a call coming in. I think you all are well aware that the community is basically in terror. I would also highly encourage you to invest in high-quality, professional language access, translation, and interpretation for city council meetings. This can have all kinds of economic benefits, inclusivity and equity benefits, improved well-being, health outcomes, stronger community bonds, not to mention cultural preservation, especially taking into account the Spanish-speaking heritage of New Mexico. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next hand raised, Andrea, you're allowed to talk.

Hi, good evening everyone. This is Andrea Romero. Are you still there, or did you mute yourself by accident? Sorry, apologies. That was me. You want to start over? Sure. Good evening, everybody. Andrea Romero, District 1. Just grateful to speak up today on behalf of the immigrants in our community, in support of elected officials on the committee to not only defend immigrants, but ensure that any federal administration action cannot intimidate our citizens in our community. I think having not only elected representation on the committee will help reinforce the work that needs to, I think, with this committee and in its charter, ensure that all the way up and down the state that us as legislators stay connected to the issues that are happening on the ground, and appreciate to have that connection between elected officials that we're sharing information and understand directly what's going on.

So, I just want to stand in strong support both with our immigrant community against any attacks, knowing that elected officials in many ways will hopefully be a bright light for folks in protection of their rights and their safety. But that said, I'm looking forward to hearing more about this work and ensuring that our immigrant community is defended. Thank you.

Thank you for coming tonight. There are a couple other people in the Zoom room. If you would like to speak, please raise your hand. I am seeing no one else raising their hand. Very good, Madam Clerk. Thank you. That completes petitions from the floor. Can you take us back to our regular order?

So after petitions from the floor, we're jumping to 10T, consideration of Resolution Number 2025 TBD, sponsored by Councilor Jamie Cassett and Councilor Par Faulkner. Resolution authorizing and directing the widening of Zia Road to accommodate a necessary deceleration lane, using adjacent unimproved land comprising approximately 1% of Candelero Park on its far northern boundary, and directing the City Manager to designate an agent to apply for a lot line adjustment and any other administrative steps required as the governing body's agent. There also is an amendment, I believe, in your emails, and it is uploaded to Civic Clerk.

I'm sorry, I lost track of where we were. You said there's an amendment and that. Oh, okay. All right, fine. Well, I think the next step would be to begin with a presentation, which I think you're all teed up to do, and then we'll take it up from there.

Okay, just have a short PowerPoint presentation. So I'm just getting that loaded.

You going to slide the thing around? Apologies to the folks on this side of the room who get blocked, but we're getting a better view of the presentation. Are we ready?

Good evening, Mayor, members of the governing body. Yeah, we lost a couple of councilors. You want me to... We've lost a couple people, and I think we should wait for them to return. I think we need them. Take a pause, and hopefully they'll be back shortly. I'm not quite sure what, maybe we've just been sitting for such a long... Maybe next time. No, it's okay. We, I think we've been small. Well, everybody needed, we didn't take a break during the long stretch we were already in. And maybe we should have just taken a five-minute stretch. You're going to take a stretch now. We have a quorum, but I think this is a presentation that I haven't seen yet. Maybe you have, but I think it's going to be instructive for the conversation we want to have subsequently. All right. I think the sense of the governing body is we're going to take a five-minute official pause, a little break, and we'll be back by 8:00 to resume this, but everybody's needing a little stretch. Thank you, everybody.

Is what I signed up? Well, if... Can you hear me now? Ma'am, can you hear me? No. Better. Okay. All right. Okay. Can you hear me now? Okay. Yeah. There's a lot of noise right now. Turn the volume up. Okay. Can you hear me? Much better. Right. Okay. Thank you, everybody. If you take your seat, please. I think we are on schedule to resume at 8:00. Thank you for the little break. I think the Finance Committee spent all morning sitting, and we've been sitting now for three straight hours. So, there probably was a good cause for taking a little stretch. Councilor Faulkner needs to return, but I think she's right around the corner, perhaps. Okay. We have a presentation followed by discussion from the governing body. Let's give Councilor Faulkner one more shot at getting... Okay. Well, you could, why don't you begin your introduction, and hopefully she will magically reappear. I think she knows we're getting back together at 8:00. Thank you for the presentation. Go right ahead.

All right. Good evening, Mayor, members of the governing body. My name is Rebecca Mina Kerman. I'm an Assistant City Attorney with the Santa Fe City Attorney's Office, and I'm here to give a short presentation today on the Zia Station resolution that is currently being considered by this body this evening. So, this would be a resolution authorizing and directing the widening of Zia Road to accommodate a necessary deceleration lane, using adjacent unimproved land comprising approximately 1% of Candelero Park on its far northern boundary, and directing the City Manager to designate an agent to apply for a lot line adjustment and any other administrative steps required as the governing body's agent.

So this is an image of the development, of the proposed development, just off of Zia Road. This is the Zia Station development. The staff report describes Zia Station as a mixed-use planned unit development designed as a pedestrian and transit-oriented community, utilizing the site's multi-modal transit options, including the Rail Runner Station, Rail Trail, and Santa Fe Trails bus service. The preliminary development plan for this development was approved by the governing body as part of a rezoning and a general plan amendment in the early morning hours of April 9th of 2021. That hearing started on April 8th, but it concluded early in the morning of the following day. And what that hearing did, what the governing body did at that hearing, was establish a planned unit development that required this plan to be developed in phases and subphases. The first phase, Phase 1A, is to include 244 multi-family units on 10.16 acres of land. The development plan also includes the following road improvements, which the applicant is required, as a condition of the plan's approval, to complete before the city issues any certificates of occupancy for the Phase 1A apartments.

Okay. And so those road improvements included Zia Road modifications to create three eastbound left turn lanes and one through right turn lane with associated bike lanes and sidewalk improvements. Realignment of the northern extent of Galasto Road approximately 187 feet west. New extension of Galasto Road north of Zia Road to serve Phase 1. A mid-block Hawk activated crosswalk with mid-street pedestrian refuge island, and a secondary gated emergency access drive between St. Francis and Galasto. So the city required these roadway improvements as part of Phase 1, largely in response to community feedback. The city almost always requires public improvements in order to offset impacts that developments will have on the city. The developer is responsible for those improvements, but these are the required improvements that the developer has to do for the city before it moves on to that next phase of development.

And so what you see on this slide is a depiction of the deceleration lane that was also part of the traffic impact analysis that was part of those broader roadway improvements that are part of this entire development plan. And so this is a depiction of the deceleration lane that extends into a city park called Candelero Park. This is a graphic that city staff created and showed at an earlier community meeting to illustrate basically the relationship between the deceleration lane and that park. The traffic impact analysis that staff relied on in making its recommendation, both to the Planning Commission and later to the governing body, included this deceleration lane. So that traffic impact analysis was submitted by the developer as required by the city, and it was signed by a professional traffic operations engineer. Specifically, that traffic impact analysis recommended expanding Zia Road to include east and westbound right turn deceleration lanes from Zia Road onto Galasto Road, designed to New Mexico Department of Transportation State Access Management Manual, also known as SAM, deceleration lane standards. How those standards are applied is a professional determination that needs to be made by a traffic engineer. Mr. Leroy Pacheco, who is present tonight, is the traffic engineer for the city who also considered these factors and ultimately determined that the deceleration lane would be needed in order to meet those New Mexico Department of Transportation SAM standards and also for some other issues, including for reducing rear-end crashes and other safety matters related to the intersection. So the deceleration lane is something that has been identified as a necessity by both the developer's traffic engineer and the traffic engineer for the city. And so, since we have Mr. Pacheco here this evening, he would be the person to ask questions about the factors that he may have considered and the length of the deceleration lane. In order to create a deceleration lane of the necessary length as identified by those traffic engineers, the deceleration lane would need to be expanded into a little bit less than 1% of Candelero Park, as is depicted on the image in the slide you're looking at right now.

So I'm going to talk a little bit about Candelero Park. This is an image of Candelero Park as it exists today. It is a 6.6-acre park. The park has a developed area with a playground, grass, trees, basketball courts, and water fountains that you can see kind of in that bottom left corner of the image there. And then you can see north and east of that developed area is a large area. It's kind of shaped like a backwards "L" wrapping around the neighborhood area in the upper left portion of the image. That portion of the park is not landscaped or paved. It's essentially a natural open area. And the far northern edge of that unlandscaped portion of the park extends all the way up to Zia Road. The city received the park through a couple of different dedications over time. And they're kind of in two different pieces, but the part of the park that's an issue in the matter that is before the governing body this evening was dedicated to the city by a developer named Western Development Company back in 1978. And so that's included in your packet as Exhibit A to the resolution. And so you can see what it says in the dedication plat is that the streets and park shown here on are hereby dedicated to the public for its use as such forever. And then here's just an image of the basically of the impacted area. That's just a small, you know, it's just kind of that northern, that far northern edge of the park as depicted on the 1978 plat.

And so this is the process and the recommended next steps. And this is why you just kind of give some context for what the governing body is doing here tonight. This includes expansion of the roadway according to safety standards recommended by the city traffic engineer, and that would require the city to expand Zia Road into that far northern edge of Candelero Park. The Candelero Park should be adjusted on the plat. The city as the property owner is the applicant for, would be the applicant for a lot line adjustment in order to adjust that park boundary. The code gives the Land Use Director authority to review and approve lot line adjustments, according to several different code sections that I've cited here, both the definitions for lot line adjustments and resubdivision, which is also defined as a lot line adjustment or sometimes a lot split. The city as property owner must designate someone, someone referred to as an agent in the code, to submit an application for a lot line adjustment on the city's behalf.

And then, upon receiving the application, the Land Use Director reviews and determines whether to approve the application. Alternatively, the Land Use Code provides that the Land Use Director may refer an application for summary subdivision to the Planning Commission for review and decision, either in response to public input received or on the Land Use Director's own initiative. However, City Code Section 14-3.7D1 provides that no preliminary plat or hearing is required. So, in this instance, even if the matter were to go to the Planning Commission, it would likely be for a discussion rather than a public hearing.

And so some potential outcomes if the city were to take no action: one is potential litigation against the city, or the deceleration lane might be built contrary to the city's traffic engineer recommended standards, or potentially extended disruption to traffic due to construction delays.

And then, just briefly, I wanted to address some of the public comments that were raised earlier regarding some of the questions that the public had regarding the plat and why this procedure, this process, is being done this way. First of all, there's been a lot of discussion about vacating plats and whether this would follow the procedure for vacating a plat. With respect to that question, I would disagree that this is a vacation of a plat. We do have a definition of vacation of a plat, not in the Land Use Code, but under Streets, Parks, and Public Places, and that states: "Vacation of a plat means properly affected reversion of dedicated property to the grantors or their successors in interest and recording in the county real property records that the plat is vacated."

Additionally, that section, the vacation of plat ordinance under 23-1.2, provides that "it is intended by this subsection that important factors to be considered in vacation or partial vacation of a plat shall first be whether the public right-of-way continues to be a necessary part of the city's utility easements, which should not be disturbed; whether the public right-of-way is a necessary and integral part of the city's traffic and neighborhood scheme for travel, balanced against other interests such as whether the public right-of-way is no longer needed or used as a public right-of-way or has become a public nuisance and no other reasonable remedy is available to abate the nuisance."

And so, in this instance, no public right-of-way is being reduced or vacated or removed. So that analysis would not apply. And additionally, there's no change in ownership. So the city is going to be, so if this resolution were to pass, the city would still keep the land but would be changing the use. So there would be no change in ownership. And so, for that reason, we would recommend doing a lot line adjustment in lieu of that vacation of a plat procedure since it's not impacting more than one property. It's not increasing the number of lots in the development. It's not increasing density. So that's typically, so that would be an administrative procedure.

There were also some concerns raised about whether or not Candelero Park was discussed in the earlier Planning Commission and when this came to Governing Body as part of the rezoning proceeding. And the reason that we're here is because there wasn't, it does not appear from the record that there was really a deep discussion of the impact on the city property. There were some references to the deceleration lane, including in that traffic impact analysis, and the information about approving this road, this traffic scheme, as part of this development. But the issue of property use and city property use does not appear to have come before the Governing Body in a way that really allowed the Governing Body to consider it and allowed it to come before the public. And so that's what we're here doing tonight is going through the process for allowing the Governing Body, as the owner, as the voice of the city who is the owner of the property, to weigh in on that application and designate an agent to apply for that lot line adjustment, which would impact the city property. And so with that, that concludes my presentation. I would be happy to stand for questions, should there be any for me. Thank you.

Mayor: Thanks very much. I think I'm going to entertain a motion and then turn to the sponsors to see if they would like to kick this off.

Councilor: Move to approve.

Mayor: There's a motion to approve and there's a second. Councilor Cassid, Councilor Faulkner, you are the sponsors. I don't know if you want to make opening comments or engage with the City Attorney's Office just to open up the dialogue. I suspect everybody will want to have a few questions or comments, but as the sponsor, I think you have the opportunity to speak first.

Councilor Cassid: Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Rebecca, for being here, and thank you to all members of the public. First and foremost, I do want to say I understand what a challenging development conversation this has been throughout the four and a half, five years that we've been having these conversations. The reason that I wanted to sponsor this resolution was in the 20 hours of hearings around Zia Station, 10 at the Planning Commission, 10 at the Governing Body. This was a case that I looked very closely at. I do not pretend that any development has no impact on our community. I know it does, both positive and negative. And as the District 4 Councilor, where we do have the most residential development happening, I believe that's still accurate. At that time, that was very accurate, with District 3 not too far behind. Really understanding the need for housing. We know that we need a lot more housing. We know that this is the number one issue in the City of Santa Fe. And it cannot just happen on the south side. We do have to find other places for this development to go. So, I did just want to start there.

I think what's really interesting for me, and another reason that I was up for sponsoring this, is that precisely where the road is is not a surprise to me. I had no idea where the lot lines were. That is, I think, the crux of this conversation. So when I was thinking about where this would be impacted, and Zia and St. Francis is an intersection I hit pretty much every single day coming from my house downtown. So that piece was not a surprise. The lot line, of course, was something that I didn't have as much knowledge of, although Councilor Faulkner can speak to some of her knowledge at that moment.

One of my questions, I know that there's a big, the big piece of this is how do we really consider this in a way that is legal, as well as gives us the opportunity to have this conversation and gives the community the opportunity to have the conversation. When was this mistake, this oversight, discovered?

Councilor Cassid: We might need Director Lamboy up for this one.

Director Lamboy: Thank you, Mayor, Chair. My apologies. Heather Lamboy, Planning and Land Use Director. So when the developer was out there grading and doing some preliminary grading, the concern was raised by the community when they saw that the park itself was impacted, was part of that deceleration lane.

Councilor Cassid: And if we had, if this understanding had been there during the time of the Zia Station hearings, what would that process have looked like?

Director Lamboy: Mayor, Councilor Cassid, the process for, so the development plan was for the property which was being affected by the developer, and at that time, the Galisteo right-of-way was realigned, and this Governing Body approved that realignment. And so at that time, what would have been best is as a follow-up step to do this lot line adjustment to reflect the impact of Candelero Park as well. It was all, like I said, or like Rebecca said, it was sort of obtusely part of the conversation, but not directly so. Correct. So the appropriate step would have been to make that clear through the life.

Councilor Cassid: And so would the same process have happened then as we are looking at now, except for we wouldn't have to have a separate resolution? It would have been part of the entire approval packet for Zia Station.

Director Lamboy: Mayor, Councilor Cassid, that is correct.

Councilor Cassid: Okay. Thank you. That's important because I do think, you know, this conversation of what is the process that should have been followed and how do we now rectify that is important. So understanding that at that moment in time, this conversation around making the lot line adjustment, the city directing to go ahead and make the lot line adjustment, would have occurred. And this resolution essentially has us follow the same process just later. Am I understanding this correctly?

Director Lamboy: Yes.

Councilor Cassid: Okay, that's correct. Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. I know there's going to be a lot of conversation for the Governing Body at this time. I will go ahead and pass it over to Councilor Faulkner. I know that she has a different perspective from being on the Planning Commission as opposed to Governing Body at the time. Sorry, just one more thing. Lot line adjustments are always administrative. Correct. Doesn't matter if we own the property. Doesn't matter if somebody else owns the property.

Director Lamboy: Correct, Mayor, Councilor Cassid. That is correct.

Councilor Cassid: And if it had happened at the time of the hearing, it would have been administrative then as well. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's important. So thank you so much. I will go ahead and hand it over to Councilor Faulkner.

Mayor: Councilor Faulkner's keeping the clock on herself, and then we'll go to everybody on the Governing Body who may want to ask questions or offer an opinion. Go ahead, Councilor Faulkner.

Councilor Faulkner: So, I co-sponsored this legislation because I was on the Planning Commission at the time that this project was being discussed. We spent an extensive amount of time on this project. At the time, the Planning Commission was very community-minded, and I remember this being discussed enough that I remember it being discussed. It wasn't glossed over. It wasn't hidden from the public. None of that happened. I had questions about it as well. And I also believe that when we're talking about land use, although communities may be impacted, as leaders, we have to weigh how much of an impact does it have on the community versus what good it can do for the community in total. And so, in my opinion, this is 1% of a piece of a park. But the impact on how it's going to affect the flow of traffic in that area in a positive way outweighs the loss of 1% of a park. And so I just, in case the public, my concern is that it's being said that it wasn't discussed at Planning Commission. It absolutely was discussed at Planning Commission for the long hours that we discussed this project. And I agree with staff in that it wasn't like a highlighted part of the discussion on this project, but it was definitely discussed. Thank you.

Mayor: So, let's just start to my left. Councilor Garcia, if you'd like to, if you have questions or comments or observations, we'll try to be within the 10-minute time limit to the best of our ability. I know we've gotten more work to do tonight, but I know everybody wants to get clarification on some of the issues that were raised during public comment or that you may already have brought to the meeting tonight.

So, go ahead, sir. Thank you, Mayor. I think one of the main questions I have in regards to what was stated as being in compliance with New Mexico Department of Transportation standards, and that question may be for Mr. Pacheco. So my question would be, and I too recall this, I was on the Planning Commission at the time with Councilor Faulkner. And we, there was a lot of time spent on the traffic issue and the lanes, whether they're left-turning lanes, right-outs, no left, no left-outs, coming across from Candolero, different things of that nature. And I do somewhat recall about the deceleration lane. However, how does either having this extended, so let's just say for example, we don't approve this resolution, we don't get a 1% reduction in the park, and we don't get the lengthening of the deceleration, what does that do to this transportation standards and our possible liability?

Mr. Mayor, Councilor Garcia, can you hear me? I can't tell if this is... You have to get right in front of it and be very clear.

Mr. Mayor, Councilor Garcia, the location of this intersection in this development is adjacent to a US federal highway, a state commuter train station depot, and obviously a major or principal arterial in the city of Santa Fe. And so the engineering standards that were chosen were to maximize safety for all modes of travel: pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorized traffic. The intersection is going to be the first HAWK signal for pedestrians crossing Zia Road at Galisteo. HAWK is a high-intensity activated crosswalk, which is basically a signal for pedestrians. And the deceleration lanes move traffic that is going to be slowing down from the speed limit of 35 miles per hour on Zia out of that through lane onto a sole right-turn lane. They can't keep going through the lane to St. Francis. So the traffic in that lane will be moving very slowly. I think one of the members of the public talked about slowing traffic down. That's specifically what these deceleration lanes do, and that's safest for all modes. And so because it's been designed to that highest standard for public safety, it would be a significant step to lower standards for public safety on such a busy intersection.

I think that's kind of just my main concern in regards to this. I'm not very fond of giving up our parkland for development or things of that nature. I think we experienced a lot of that on the South side and District 3. I had extensive meetings over that with the South Meadows project. And to the point where former Councilor Chris Rivera and I had looked at possibly putting in some city ordinances in regards to losing park to housing or things of that nature. 1%. Yeah, I think it's a fairly decent trade-off from my perspective in regards to safety on the roadways. Our roadways are definitely something that we are focusing on through other legislation in regards to keeping people safe. How do roads and roadways, and from an engineering perspective, how can we keep people safe while they're traveling in their vehicles? And I think this is, from my perspective, that was my biggest obstacle is to make sure that we are meeting transportation standards and that it was a very, very big part of the public comment in opposing this overall development is that the traffic was going to be horrendous. And so I think anything that we can do to help alleviate the traffic situation, whether it's deceleration lanes or no left turn-out lanes and things like that, I think it's very important that we address that. That was my main question in regards to the extension of the lane, and I have nothing else.

Mr. Mayor, thank you, Councilor. Councilor Romero Worth, we'll go to you next.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, everyone, who came out to provide us with your perspective. I hope that we can answer your questions tonight and develop an understanding of what's happening and why, and we'll see if we can reach an agreement on how to move forward. I do want to be clear that we are not approving a lot line adjustment here. We are, I think as was said in the opening, approving a resolution that would direct the city manager to designate an agent to apply for a lot line adjustment and any of the other administrative steps that are required to move, to resolve the problem that has occurred. I guess I do, based on what we heard from the public, I do have a series of questions that I want to go through, and since Leroy, you're up there, when there was a traffic analysis done, we spent a lot of time, as I recall, talking about the traffic and how to handle this very complex intersection. When an engineer signs a traffic analysis, I think you talked about this in a previous hearing, but I think we probably have more people listening tonight. So, it's important sometimes to backtrack a little bit about the things we've learned as the resolution has moved through the process. Can you speak to what it means to put your stamp on a traffic analysis, what that means professionally, and the signal that it sends?

Mr. Mayor, Councilor Romero Worth, yes, state law requires that all state agencies and any political entities in the state or any public works are done under the seal of a professional engineer. So we cannot do public works without a stamped, sealed engineering document, and that license places the engineer as professionally responsible for the work that he stamps, and that includes planning, design, drawings, etc. And this later comes up, you know, as life goes on, and 5 to 10 years later, it's not uncommon to be summoned by a lawyer and go through public depositions on behalf of public works that you were involved in signing and stamping. So, it's important to understand, you're required by law, or we're required by law as the city, to ensure all our documents are done under the professional engineering licensure, and that license has professional responsibilities that carry with the weight of the engineer through his time it's licensed.

So it's fair to say this isn't something you do lightly.

Okay. So, is this lane needed? Do we need a deceleration lane, or could we just build this development without one?

Mr. Mayor, Councilor Romero Worth, we need the deceleration lane, and you do it without the park taking the 1% of the parkland. I'm going to pretend I'm being answering a lawyer five years from now. No.

Okay. And if you were answering a lawyer, your lawyer would probably tell you, don't elaborate. But I would like you to elaborate about why, you know, is there not enough space to do all the things you need to do? I, that's what I'm guessing.

Well, some of the factors that go into these calculations are speed, volumes, turning, sight distances, etc. And the bottom line is rear-end collisions, which are the majority of accidents that occur on streets in the country. I think I mentioned at a meeting to the public, and they understood that of the rear-end collisions, most are, you know, lower speeds, so car damage some, but they can be very physically damaging. I don't know if anyone's been in one where you get whiplashed or you have possible brain or spinal injuries, and 8% of the rear-end collisions in the country result in death. So that's where we get very serious about the no, they are, they can be, the probabilities and the possibilities, they go up with speed, they go up with volume, so we're being conservative in providing this amenity, which I think will increase public safety. And the other thing I think we should know is this is actually a project under construction, and the sooner it is built, all the public infrastructure is built, the study has shown that the levels of service of that intersection will improve. It's currently impacting not only the motorized traffic but pedestrians and train users and the train depot. So the other element is right now we have an active construction zone, and it's in the public's best interest of safety to conclude this and finish the project.

Right. And we heard public comment tonight about it. It is sort of a unique arrangement in terms of where you can turn left and where you can turn right, and the fact that you have to do U-turns and that kind of thing. And we discussed that in the, as Councilor Garcia said, I think the Planning Commission in its 10 hours, and I know in the Governing Body in our 10 hours over two meetings, we discussed the uniqueness of this traffic pattern and how to handle, again, the complexity of this intersection and the impact this new development would have. And again, in your professional opinion, this has been handled in a way that should serve the public long-term by putting your name on or by signing this analysis.

So, Romero, yes.

Okay. I think, so this may be a question for Rebecca. The city owns all the land in question, correct? We own the park, we own the current roadway. What's the relevance of that to this, to this issue? We, I mean, if we didn't own some piece of it, then we might have to do things differently, including, I think what the neighborhood is suggesting, and what you talked about in your presentation about a vacation and the state statute that was cited.

Yes. So there's no change in ownership here. It's basically expanding the city street into the city park. And so that's, that's relevant, in part, well, so the state statute doesn't provide a definition of vacate. So even in, even in the situation where the city were giving up some land under the state statute, I'm not sure that vacation would apply, but certainly not under our, under our code, which has a very specific procedure for vacating plats. It applies to right-of-ways, and it also is the process for giving property back to a property owner where there's a right of reversion. And so in this case, there is no reversion. The city, the property is staying exactly the same. And so that's why those, those laws are not implicated.

Oops. Sorry, my mic wasn't on. Are we transferring land to the developer?

No.

So this is all city land. It's a question of how we decide what part is park and what part is needed for the public safety in the traffic patterns that are necessary because of this new development.

That's correct.

Okay. And there was reference in the public testimony about the dedications, and in your presentation you talked about that a little bit, and I'd like you maybe to elaborate a little bit, because I, what, and the importance of dedications, and I, it seems like one of those dedications was more broadly written, but maybe you can help me better understand the two dedications and what they allow for. And I think it goes also to this question of the fact that this is all city land. And I, I think that one of the dedications had a broader, broader language for the possible public uses of this area, but I, I could be wrong about that. I guess that's an area where I, I am, maybe confused.

So the only, the only dedication that I, that I brought in my presentation tonight was the one that dedicated the, the specific piece of the park that we're talking about. I, I don't have the other park dedication in front of me. I would be happy to, to pull that up later if, if needed. So with respect to the dedication they were talking about tonight, what that dedication says is, and the streets and parks shown hereon are hereby dedicated to the public for its use as such forever.

And so that's a dedication for public use. It's not, that's distinguished from other dedications that might just say, where like you'd have an easement that just says like drainage easement. Like there's one case that talks in great detail about that, where there was a question about whether a city owned an easement. I think that was the Amre case that one of the other, one of the community members had mentioned. And if there's no reference to the public and it's on private land, then you wouldn't, there's no, you couldn't, there would be no reason to think that the city owns it or that it's public property. But in this instance, it's to the public and so public, it is, it is public property. So there's no, there's no question this dedication was intended to, under the statute, give the land to the city for its use. It's not being held by the private property owner. And there's nothing in there saying that the private property owner can take it back if it were no longer used as a park, for example.

Okay, I'm out of time. We'll have to maybe come back to this, but just the language you just read was street and park. That's, that's, I think that's where I got the idea about this, but we may need to come back to this conversation. I'm, I'm, I'm out of time, so I'll, I'll, I'm going to go to my right now, Council Lindell, and then we'll go down the line on the right.

I'd actually like to hear the rest of what Councilor Romero Worth was asking about. I'm happy to give my, you come back to it.

Okay. So a couple of quick questions on this. What would be another procedure for going about changing, whether changing the lot line? What, what other procedure is there to accomplish this?

I mean, going back in time to when this was originally considered and doing it as part of the development plan, is basically what I could think of. I mean, the planning commission would have jurisdiction to amend lot lines as part of a plat amendment generally. Like they do have jurisdiction over plat amendments, but that level of, that, that process isn't triggered unless you're increasing the density or increasing the number of lots. So, the planning commission could do this through like a plat amendment hearing. Like generally anything that is amending something that would, like if something went before the governing body or planning commission, the amendment procedures are for amending that, that development plan or whatever would be the same. But in this instance, we do have specific wording in the code that allows the land use director to, when it's just moving a lot line, there's no increase in density, there's no increase in the number of lots, to do that administratively. And so that's the default for when you're just moving a lot line. So, you wouldn't do this through any other process unless it were part of something else.

Thank you.

Thank you, Counselor. And Councilor Michael Garcia, you're good. I'm going to go to Councilor Chavez on the Zoom.

Thank you, Mayor. And I, I'm not sure I'm going to have any questions. I've been part of this conversation and as a planning commissioner and well on City Council, so I've heard a lot of conversation about it. So, there's just a few things. I want to acknowledge the frustration in the room, though. I, I think that we're in a place where all we can do is say that we missed something. And it's unfortunate and I know it's frustrating to the public, but we can't go and undo it. And so we just have to know that we have to be better next time. And I think that, you know, all of us, especially seeing the concern of this being missed, will be very aware of not making that same mistake.

I will say I don't remember conversations about the park. I do remember tons, tons of hours focused on traffic. And the reason why there was a focus on traffic was because of safety. And during those conversations, safety was the most important topic. And it's because it should be. Parks are so important. It's where we come together. It's where we enjoy our city. It's where we interact and socialize and make memories. And it is very important. But I, I cannot say that there's anything more important than safety. And I would imagine if this was discussed or included, included as it should have been originally, I don't know if we could have put safety on the back burner because of the concern of the 1% of park. And I'm not minimizing, I'm not minimizing that. I know that it's, it's an important thing to the community and what's important to you, I will respect and I can see that frustration, but I don't think we can ever put anything in front of safety.

We have professionals that have analyzed the traffic and have come to us with what is required to keep our community safe. As city officials, I feel like that's probably our most important responsibility is to acknowledge that we have to make hard choices. And we have to look at what outweighs something else. And I think in my mind, a lot of times public safety is always going to be at the front of certain decisions that we make. So just a few comments. Mayor, I just wanted to acknowledge the frustration. I wanted to reassure the community that we will always do better. And I will also, I just want to emphasize public safety will always be important. And I think I was part of those original conversations. I would have chosen public safety then. And this is necessary for public safety. And it's unfortunate that it is cutting into a portion of the park, but on the large scale of who it would impact if we didn't do that and what may be caused and who may be harmed, it's just something that we have to move forward with. And so we have to continue with the process. We have to get someone to apply to make this happen so that the work can be continued and so that safety can be promoted. So that is all I have. Mayor, thank you.

Thank you, Counselor. Counselor Castro.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Ms. Mor Kerman. Similarly, I think that my frustration is with the process and I wish that we could go back in time and fix this. We cannot. But thank you, Counselor, for honoring the fact that folks do feel not necessarily unheard, but that they weren't part of the process in the way that they wanted to be. We tried our darnest tonight to listen and it's difficult in public comment because we can't answer back and I wish that we could be in better dialogue. We're going to work on it as a governing body to be able to do these public meetings in a different format and be able to discuss things better. But in this case, we are sort of in a difficult position. So, more comments than questions. Thank you for your time. I know it's been a lot. No further questions.

Thank you. Counselor Casser, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I apologize everybody for my coming out and leaving. I thought I had to go. Don't have to. Very glad. I, I do have, actually one question that I'm not, I'm not sure who's prepared to answer this because I think, you know, Counselor Chavez's point around, you know, this balance of, of public safety and open space and park access reminded me that I think that there's a park that is being developed within this development that this neighborhood will now have access to. Am I remembering that correctly? Is there anybody who can recall? I know you were not here and you were not here. But I don't, I don't believe, sir, that because this is not a public hearing that you were allowed to respond to that. But if, if I recall correctly, there is, there's an emphasis on, on open space like a, a gathering space.

Thank you. And that's on the north side of the development if I'm recalling correctly. I thought it was stealth, but I don't know. I'm not sure. Let me see if I, I know that we have, we have some items in the packet. Let me see if that's that information. And, and the reason that I am thinking about this is, you know, one of the, one of the conversations that Counselor Faulner and I were having at Quality of Life was, oh, you know, we understand again, this is, this is an impact. And while looking at it from a citywide perspective and, and all of the different ways that we really need to adjust to accommodate increased housing in this city, what can we be doing to help the impacted neighborhoods? What amenities can become a benefit of the fact that there's this increased development? I would say that in some, some developments, I've seen this done better than others. But we did discuss, you know, with, with the sidewalk, there's a, a really, there's a strong emphasis on pedestrian mobility in this development. And, you know, is there a way that we'll be able to improve the access from the sidewalk to the developed part of the park? Now, that's not on the developer. We didn't require that of the developer. That would be on the city. That would be something that we would have to have a discussion of. We have a number of plans. We have a lot of capital projects. We heard reference to our capitalists these days. But it did make me think of what's already in this development and it's been so long that I can't quite remember. So, I would be curious about open space. There might have been some trail improvements that were happening as well as I know, you know, interest in, in some of the commercial access and amenity access that, that the neighborhood would have. There's a lot of paracity for this development to ensure that the neighborhood could be getting in and out easily. But I'm sorry, Rebecca, you're standing there. Look, you have an answer for me.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Counselor. I was just going to mention that when, when I was going through the packet of materials that was before the governing body for the preliminary, there was some land designated dog park that was kind of in that area right between like the Railrunner line and the north side of the development. So, and it sounds like Mr. PCO and Miss, Miss Lamboy recall something similar. So that's what I saw in the, in the preliminary development plan.

Okay. Okay. So then that's, that's on the south side of the development.

North side.

On the north side of development. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you. I, I do appreciate that. Do we know if there was any open space that was not for dogs that was for humans?

I, I, I don't have an answer to that. I don't.

All right. But I did just want to, I know that there was, there was an emphasis on how do we put an open space. So while there might be some, while there might, there will be some open space that, that will be acquired for this road, there are other opportunities to take advantages of the trails as well as developing some of this area that, that is not as easily accessible at this time. And I understand it's a trade-off. I know that it's not perfect. I know that, but that is, you know, unfortunately those are the lot of the choices in front of us these days when it comes to how do we grow in a city where we have some, some really huge housing shortages while also wanting to remain a beautiful city and that, you know, we appreciate the architecture. We have a lot of variety. I know there's parts of my district that I'm not very happy with the development because it does look like not Santa Fe and not something unique. And so these are tough conversations and, and I do understand as well the frustration. So thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Counselor. I think Counselor Faulner wanted to make a comment and I had, oh, and we've got a hand up from Counselor Marworth. So I, I am very passionate about the community having to say in development.

And so this was troubling to me as well. On the Planning Commission, as a policy chair, I was beginning to work on developing a new EN process so that the community gets a little more bites at the apple, maybe gets notified about things. What I saw that was aggravating to me as a commissioner was you get the project when it's just in the beginning phases, and then a lot can change. And then at the Planning Commission, the community gets alerted to all these changes that are happening. It's very different from when you get to see it to when it's completed a lot of the time. And so this is something I'm going to continue to be passionate about as a councilor. And as we re-address the code, I encourage all of you to be involved and really when we dig into the EN process, this is your opportunity and our opportunity to make sure that you guys have a voice at the table. Thank you, Council.

Mayor W: Thank you, Mayor. I want to go back to the dedication. So, in the process, I pulled it up and I think this is what you were reading to me, right? "The streets and park shown herein are hereby dedicated to the public for its use as such forever." That's what you read to me, correct?

Councilor: I think you mean, I think, Council, that's correct.

Mayor W: Okay. And I guess that's where I kind of, we're not changing the use of this land as a street or as a park. I mean, we are, we're changing the line. The idea is to change where one is a street and where one is a park, but it's still within the overall dedication as a street or a park. I mean, is that a weird way to look at it, or is that if it had said, if it had said, I don't know, is that, has that been interpreted, that language? Is that helpful? Is it not helpful? I don't know. Thank you.

Councilor: Thank you, Councilor. So, I have not found any case law or anything specific that analyzed a dedication with this specific language, only kind of the difference between, you know, where it says "for public use" or "for public" versus nothing of the sort, or "for public use unless no longer used for this purpose," like where there's a specific right of reversion. But so, in this instance, if we're looking to the language of the dedication, and specifically talking about what that dedication intended, I guess I would say that I think the most important thing is that it notes that it's public, but it is, I think it is relevant as well that it says "streets and parks." It doesn't say this land is to be parkland unless, and if not, if no longer used as parkland, then it reverts to the property owner. It doesn't say anything like that. It says "streets and parks." And so, there's no other kind of limitation in that dedication.

Mayor W: Yeah. Okay. And again, we're not changing it. It's still that we're, it's still dedicated for the public's use. It's still going to be a street or a park. We just do seem to need a little bit of that park in order for the traffic plan and the public safety, which was what was being balanced here and is still being balanced here. And thank you, Councilor. Yes, that's great. Okay. And I want to touch on this question about process because I know that's been an issue and we've, you all took some time to look at both the, there were a lot of emails from the neighborhood, a lot of idea looking up different legal theories and ways to go. And I forwarded all those emails to your office. You all spent some time looking at what we had, how to best address it. I think we've been clear that there was a mistake made and the question is what to do about it in this instance. And I guess, you know, Councilor Lindell said, "What other process?" I mean, it is an administrative process. It would have been an administrative process then. It's an administrative process now. And there is this option, the land use director could say, "You know, I'll refer it to the Planning Commission." But I want to be clear about what that is and what it's not. It's, it's basically, my understanding is that if the land use director referred it to the Planning Commission, that would be about just sort of asking the Planning Commission, "Hey, what do you think? Where should we draw this line? Is it okay to move it?" I think is what she would be asking. It's not a public hearing. And it's not a, it's sort of a, if she didn't know what to do, he or she, and in this case, she, if she didn't know what to do, she could lean on the expertise of the Planning Commission to help inform the decision. That, that's kind of what the referral is about, right? It's not about a process, an added layer of process.

Councilor: I, well, what layer of process is it? I mean, I guess it's, it's to help inform the director's decision if the director needed help in making the decision, if it was so complicated that more expertise was needed, I guess, is the way I understand that, but maybe correct me if I'm wrong.

Councilor: Thank you, Councilor. That, that was, that was my read of it as well. And I, I think that that was Director Lamboy's read of it also. What that section says, it's, it's 14-3.7D about the summary procedure. It says, "The land use director may refer an application for a summary subdivision," which includes lot line adjustments, "to the Planning Commission for review and decision either in response to public input received or on the land use director's own initiative." So, that puts the decision squarely within the land use director's purview. And so, I think that it's, it's reasonable to infer that it's if she feels that she needs help, or, you know, yes, wants their expertise or just their, their insight into the lot line adjustment.

Mayor W: Okay. I think that's, that's probably all I have. I do, this, this development has been a point of conversation for a long time. It's been litigated. It's been, I, I agree that, you know, I, Councilor Casset and I were working on the EN process before Councilor Faulkner was on the council. She was, she was, we were actually in conversation when she was a Planning Commissioner. She had a policy working group that made up of commissioners to look at the EN process and that was going to feed up to Councilor Casset and I at the time sitting here and we were, we were going to work on that. I think it's, it's still something that, that we are interested in. I think it's, as somebody else pointed out, can't remember who, it is, it is, I, I think a worthy conversation as, as we look at the code changes in the next phase and, and figure out how we best move forward and make improvements to that process. So, I really appreciate the comments of Councilor Chavez acknowledging the frustration and, and also just the, the situation we're in now where we are having to really do what we often have to do, which is balance interests and, and, and do what we think is in the best interest of the public. I don't, I also do not take using parkland lightly. I'm a big proponent of parks. We, we need our parks. They're very important. And so, I don't, I don't want anybody to think that we are not serious about parks because we very much are. So, that's all I have. Mayor, thanks.

Mayor: Thank you.

Councilor Garcia: Yes, sir. Thank you. Two quick questions. One to the city attorney. Could this be referred by the governing body to the Planning Commission? I see in our rules we can refer to a City Council committee, but does that open it up to the City Council or the governing body referring this matter to the Planning Commission?

City Attorney: Mayor, Councilors, this is, the resolution is asking whether you as the owner want to make an application. So, typically when you make referrals, it's about policy matters. I'm not sure that we have anything saying that advice on your ownership rights is generally within any particular committee's jurisdiction. So, this isn't really a policy matter, but more of a land matter, like how you want to apply for your rights to be addressed by the land use department. I'm, I'm not aware of a, of a committee that would have advisory rights on your land ownership.

Councilor Garcia: Would the Planning Commission, they are land authority? I mean, I would think they would be the designated body to determine the use of city property.

City Attorney: So, Mayor, Councilor Garcia, the land use director is actually the specifically designated authority after you've decided if you want to apply. And so, that was the section that Ms. Bookerman was, was, was reading from earlier. So, the idea is the landowner typically. So, if it's not the governing body, it could just be any landowner and they wouldn't be coming to the governing body at all or to any of our committees. They would just apply to Director Lamboy for the lot line adjustment.

Councilor Garcia: Okay. Okay. But since there's not a singular landowner in this case, there's nine of you. We're asking all nine of you to, to vote to submit the application, right? Quick question for Director Lamboy. Just, this is looking in the future. I know we're doing the Chapter 14 rewrite currently and parks currently do not have a zoning status. They're zoned R1, R5. They're different zoning status, which really puts parks in a very weird predicament when the city wants to utilize the use of them. How is the city moving forward in Chapter 14 regarding that huge discrepancy with city parks?

Director Lamboy: Thank you for that question, Mayor, members of the Council. Councilor Garcia, we actually are introducing as part of Phase 1 of the Land Development Code update a zoning category. We're not placing it on the map yet, but a zoning category of parks and open space. And so, that would give a zone district to all the parks that are designated as part of Phase 2, its own zoning category. So, that makes it much more rigid when it comes to the use of land and clearly defining those uses and what can be done to them. So, that's not to say in the future there wouldn't be a need for something like a public trail or a roadway or something like that that would impact that park. But we do have a zoning category that, you know, if it is the pleasure of this, this board or this Council, that would be adopted as part of Phase 1 and then Phase 2 those standards would be further fleshed out.

Councilor Garcia: Because I think that gets to the point that Councilor Garcia had brought up that we, it was an issue in the past that parks do not receive a special zoning and to change the use. It's that the lift isn't as hard as it really should be for a park. There should be a hard lift if we want to change parkland use. And, and in my opinion, if we're changing parkland use into a roadway, I mean, it's a different, I'm of the opinion you don't use the roadway the same you use a park, right? Kids go play with their balls in park. Kids don't go play with their balls in roads. And so, I think that's where we need to begin to really flesh this, flesh this out with spaces such as parks and open space. So, thank you for giving me insight in what's coming down the pipe in the future. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor: Thank you.

Councilor Garcia: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want clarification. So, we keep, we're referring to 1%, 1% of what? How big is the park? I mean, it could be 100 acres. 1% is a very large section. I don't think it's that large, but, how is it on this slide? Okay. I just, no, I mean, again, I just wanted to make that point. It's, it's, it is, if it's on the slides and I missed it, my apologies, but 1% of a very large park could be a lot of land. In this case, I don't think that it is. And I think that's just the, the question that I have.

Thank you. Councilor Cassett, I was just going to say that there is an amendment to be moved, but we're not ready for that. Then, go right ahead. I think if there's an amendment to be moved, we should take it up right now. So, there is an amendment in the packet. I know it's a technical amendment, so I will ask for the technical expertise to make sure that it is properly described, as I don't want to mess that up. But there is Amendment A, and you can also see it in context. Miss Metarman, can you go over what this is? Thank you.

Certainly. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilor. Those are just the amendments to correct the attachments in the resolution. There were a few different versions of this matter that went to different bodies in this case. The resolution refers specifically to the ones that the governing body reviewed during that April 8th, April 9th hearing. So the amendments are to replace a different, an older, or in one case, a newer version of the reports with the ones that were actually in that packet. So Exhibit C is the traffic impact analysis that was in the governing body's packet at that time. It was the January 2021 version of the traffic impact analysis, which I think had some responses to questions raised by staff instead of the November 2020 one. The language about the Dell Lane was unchanged, though. So that's the same recommendation. And then also the staff report. The one that was in the original packet was the staff report that went to the Planning Commission for the final development plan, as opposed to the one that went to the Planning Commission for the preliminary development plan and was therefore part of the governing body's packet. So that was submitted to the governing body as part of their packet. So the recommendations regarding traffic improvements were the same. The recommendations regarding the Dell Lane were the same, but this is just to make sure that the resolution is accurate and was referring to those documents that were with the governing body.

Wonderful. Thank you so much, and thanks for that. That's quite the technical catch. So, thank you for that. I do appreciate it. Are we ready for movement of that amendment?

I would like to move Amendment A.

There's a motion to move Amendment, move to adopt it. Excuse me. To bring it onto the existing document. Is there conversation about that discussion? Questions? Madam Clerk, could you call the roll on the amendment?

Councilor Cassett, yes. Councilor Castro, yes. Councilor Chavez, yes. Councilor Faulkner, yes. Councilor Lee Garcia, yes. Councilor Michael Garcia, yes. Councilor Lindell, Councilor Marth, yes. Mayor Weber, yes.

Motion is approved. We have a main motion as amended. I haven't said a word, but I've been taking notes. First, I want to just thank everybody from the community who came out tonight. I really want to compliment you on the work you did and the issues you raised. I wrote down as quickly as I could every one of your comments regarding due process, the challenge potentially to other parks, the need to have proper procedures that we follow with clarity and transparency, the ongoing need for community engagement. I do think that the arguments that you brought forward, to your credit, were really designed to inform and to bring our attention to your issues rather than to argue emotion or personality or anything else. And I think that's the right way to try to fix problems, particularly when the whole situation we're in right now began with our team, our land use team, all of us up here who were at that initial meeting here in these chambers, saying this started with a mistake, started with an error. And I think most governments in the world would do everything they could to avoid ever saying those words. For some reason, you're not supposed to make a mistake if you're a staff person or an elected official. We're supposed to be immune. And the conversation started with a very forthright, candid, and direct, honest admission that while there could be a disagreement about the actual housing issue that was voted on originally, this was a mistake, and that mistake had to be addressed. It took our city attorney's team a significant amount of time to try to come up with a worthwhile, valid, and appropriate approach. Not to hide the mistake, not to pretend there wasn't a mistake, but to be again honest and forthright and candid about how our ordinances and processes allow mistakes like this to be fixed. I believe the council governing body members and our staff people have been very clear that what is governing the conversation among us is public safety, that there are times when you really do have to do a trade-off between two desirable goods. One is a public park, and the other is a public safety improvement as part of a housing development that was already approved. So I think the conversation and the way in which it's been, the process of arguing about the process, has really been to everybody's credit, and I want to thank you for that. I want to congratulate you and tell you how much I appreciate it. Any other comments, quotes, thoughts? I think we have a motion as amended. Madam Clerk, would you like to call the roll?

Councilor Castro, yes. Councilor Chavez, yes. Councilor Faulkner, yes. Councilor Lee Garcia, yes. Councilor Michael Garcia, no. And I'd like to explain my vote. Councilor Lindell, Councilor Marth, yes. Councilor Cassett, yes. And I also would like to comment on my vote. Mayor Weber, yes.

Motion is approved. Thank you. Councilor Garcia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think this process really showed that there were some flaws in our process, especially when we're dealing with parkland. I can only speak to the 10 hours that I sat through and listened intently during the process. And again, there was no mention of using parkland space for roadway. It's my opinion that using parkland space for roadway absolutely changes the use, and in those instances, that we as a city government have to be clearly transparent on the matter. I'm in no disagreement that we need to ensure safety measures in place. What I'm concerned about is that if we continue to have these hiccups, we're setting a precedent that doesn't allow for public participation. It eliminates due process, and as we move forward, I'm glad to hear that we're having discussions such as changing parkland and rezoning, but there has to be a clear-cut process when we want to change the use of parkland. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. So my challenge is with the process taken here tonight. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Councilor. And Councilor Cassett, you asked to have an opportunity to speak to your vote.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do appreciate it. Again, this has been a challenging case from day one, which was a very long time ago, at least as far as we are concerned. I did actually really want to recognize the staff and all of their work around this because I know that it was complex. I do not see a time that I hope that the City of Santa Fe ever thinks that our process is perfect. I think that this was a learning opportunity, really as we start to take a look at how do we balance things? Where are the holes? Where are the ways that we can improve? So I really appreciated just the staff's work here. I felt that there was a lot of learning on my part from you all and the time and energy that went into that. And in the end, for me, this really came down to the broader community, and we are in a very tough place in the City of Santa Fe, and we are all going to have to work together to figure out how we can accommodate more housing and how we can make sure that that is equitably spread throughout the community and not just happening on Governor Miles and Awafria and Airport and Jaguar, because right now those areas are taking the brunt of it and Midtown. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilor. Madam Clerk, could you take us to the next item? I'm keeping my eye on the clock. We have many more items to contend with tonight, including two land use cases. So, let's push forward and an executive session. Let's push forward then. Item 10Y, consideration of Resolution Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Councilor Almacastro, Councilor Sydney Lindell, and Councilor Michael Garcia. A resolution amending the Immigration Committee's purpose and membership. Is there a motion?

Move to approve.

The motion to approve, and there is a second. I would turn to the sponsors to please talk us through this, and then we'll take it up as a governing body.

Okay. So, thank you everyone for being here. I did sort of prepare something because I wasn't sure if I was going to be here, so I'll get through it quickly. It's an important conversation that we're having tonight, economically, politically, and socially. Now more than ever, it's crucial that elected officials take an active seat at the table, and particularly in the issue of immigration, work with community members closely. Santa Fe is a city rooted in diversity, tradition, and compassion. We are welcoming, and not just in name, but in spirit. Our immigration community is vital, and it is part of our local identity. But our communities are facing growing challenges: shifting federal policies, rising misinformation, and a fear that comes from feeling unheard. This is why elected officials must not just govern from the top, but listen from within. I find that this resolution in particular is really important because there are many councilors that do have direct contact with immigrant communities, but there are others that don't. And I think it would be really important for a councilor who is not as well-versed as some of us to sit on this committee and listen and really take the time to understand the complexity of some of these issues. Today we heard not only the chair of the committee come and speak because we were unable to present the minutes from the meeting where this was approved, but I do want to take a moment to say that the vice chair, when she took her vote, took time to say the reason she supported this was because there needed to be better communication with the governing body. And so, as part of this packet, I just think that it's really important that we show as a governing body and as elected officials that we stand with this community. Whether we have a vote or not, we need to be at that table.

Other sponsors want to speak on this matter?

You have covered it. Well, no further.

Other members of the governing body want to speak on this issue? I think there is an amendment in the folder. I don't know, Councilor Faulkner, if you want to take that up. I've got an amendment. My amendment is Amendment A. We're getting into amendments. Ah, good. I apologize. I missed that, but why don't you take up Amendment A, Councilor?

Sure. So, after consultation with the Immigration Committee, as Councilor Castro mentioned, they did have some recommendations. We initially, with this proposed amendment to this initial resolution, had the city councilor on the committee as a voting member. Based off of the recommendations from the committee, and as Councilor Castro noted, as well as the chair noted, the chair of the committee noted in their public comment earlier, they voted in the affirmative to keep a councilor on the committee, but would like to have the member as a non-voting member. As well, part of the amendment is to have the chairperson appointed by the Mayor.

And so that is the changes that Amendment A proposes. It keeps the city councilor on the committee, moves them to a non-voting member, and then it changes that the chair of the committee would be appointed by the mayor. So go ahead and move that amendment, Council. Motion to move Amendment A. There's a motion to add Amendment A to this resolution. Is there discussion?

Just really quickly, again, this is a recommendation by the Immigration Committee, and it's really important to me that if we are going to stand up these committees to be recommending things to the governing body, that we take those recommendations. Thank you. Thank you. Any other conversation? I wait one second. There's some sidebar going on here. I'm confused. I'll defer.

Councilor Cassid, did you have, I'm lost here. We've got, yeah, I think I'm lost too because I know we have two amendments in there. We have two different amendments with two different approaches to correct what's in front of us. And the amendment that has been moved would alter the, would add a member of the governing body of the City Council to the committee, but in a non-voting role. Yes, correct.

I think, so just from my own perspective, I think talking about the topic at hand before voting on amendments is helpful for sure. My clarification, absolutely. Because it is too different. So it's a, there are two different, it's not a move one then move the other scenario. Well, I don't know, but I feel like that's a, these are very different takes on the composition of, and some small language changes, but fundamentally the big question is about the composition of the committee and the approach. You want to have a conversation about that before voting? That, that I welcome that, of course.

I, I think so. I think so because I know that this has been one that I personally have kind of gone back and forth with. I definitely feel better about, you know, non-voting, non-chair member. My challenge has been, my challenge has been with the resident advisory committees as a whole, which, to Councilor Castro's point around, you know, we don't get enough of the communication. We don't for many of them. I mean, it really, this is, this is, I think a pretty, what's the word I'm looking for? Ubiquitous. That's the word I'm looking for, problem with our resident advisory committees. And so I think one of the things I've been worried about is kind of this patchwork quilt work that we've been doing around this and what is the best way for the policy recommendations. I know I did hear from one of the members that stated that they want to have actually some policy meetings and meet with the councilors and reach out to the councilors to provide some one-on-one meetings for those conversations.

So, so that's where I've really been struggling because I, I agree that, you know, this is an important issue. We have a lot of important issues that don't, and I think a lot of ideas that are generated within committee that are not brought up to the council level. But with the current, current makeup of our resident advisory committees, it is impossible for us to have a councilor on every single committee. And so that's where, where I'm really struggling is, is wanting to look at this as, as a whole. And so wanting to just hear the conversation from my colleagues around this, I think would be helpful. I see a hand up from Councilor Chavez.

Thank you, Mayor. So I actually have been thinking about this since our last conversation with the Quality of Life, where I was actually out of town then too. I think that Councilor Castro actually hit on something that's kind of been in my head about this. This is a huge topic that should be of importance to all of us. Her comment this evening about if we haven't been on this committee, we should be on it. If we, I feel like that's something that's why we need some organization around our advisory committees is so that we can better attend and participate and engage with them and to get the communication of what's important. In my opinion, right now, with the state of our nation, all of us should be involved in this committee. They should be able to have contact with every single one of us so that we can choose to advocate and drive policy. I actually think that it would be more productive that way.

I, I heard a lot from the public and I, I understand the perspective of having a councilor present helps, like helps make the connection to government and the fact that it's important to us, but it is important to us. It's important to us all sitting here right now. What we, how we prove it though, is each one of us needs to be more involved. Each one of us needs to be connecting to the chair of that committee or the staff liaison involved in that committee and choose how we advocate for that community. So it's hard for me to agree with the fact that the presence of one councilor on any of our advisories creates this really empowerful movement. It's just to me empty to a certain degree because I know that individual, that councilor that's in that committee will push a lot of things forward. But in reality, I've realized it, I need to, and I'll speak for myself, I would need to be better versed in every single advisory committee that we have and the work that we're doing and what's important to them.

You know, I sit on Public Safety. I am actually working on changing the format of that, so it's a, it's more of a voting committee. But in regards to our advisory committees that, you know, push recommendations forward, those recommendations should matter and we should be more aware of those recommendations. We should be more involved and it's our duty to do so. So I, I see the connection in government and how that can be empowering and that can make the connection and it lets the individuals in that committee know someone's listening. But I really feel with this committee in particular, all of us really should be listening. And I think that's where the advocacy and the empowerment will come from. And I think that we need to empower those committee members to also reach out to us when we're not doing our job in reaching out to them and say what they need. We need our staff to hold us accountable too and to say this is what they're pushing for. This is how you can support. All lines of communication to start making these advisory committees more powerful need to be improved. That is like our guiding light in regards to the pathway we should take to make sure we're meeting community needs because we put these committees together to meet community needs.

So overall, I'm just like, I've been like thinking a lot, like we have a lot of disorganization in this area. All of us, well, and I will speak for myself, I can do better in making connections with committee members and the staff that are supporting them because that's the purpose of these committees. And I don't know if there's something, you know, we can do so that we can streamline that process or have some type of organizational structure that kind of connects all the dots so we're better informed. But for in the meantime, I know I will speak for myself that I would want to step up more and be more involved in knowing what's taking place in these committees. But then there's also that hoop of is that information being published fast enough in order for me to be informed? So I was really hung up, hung up on that fact that we have kind of a broken system in my opinion with our advisory committees and the communication. I don't want anything to be in place or to feel like it's for boxes being checked because it shouldn't be. These represent our community, the voice of our community, and we need to be better at making sure that the people that can make a difference with that voice is actually hearing it.

In regards to this specifically, all of us should be involved. These individuals should have direct contact with all of us. That is where the empowerment happens, that's where the advocacy happens, that's where the policy happens. So it's hard for me to think that the success of this committee is reliant on a city councilor liaison being present. I think the success of this committee is all of us being involved, better communication in a timely manner occurring, and staff knowing that it's our job to push things through and to reach out to us so that we can make that happen. That's where I believe the magic is and not necessarily really hung up on this idea of a city council liaison. So, I just, I've been reflecting a lot and I just wanted everyone to know my thought process in that because I feel like it got me to a place where I was able to reflect on myself and how I could do better and how we can do better in regards to advisory committees as a whole. Thank you.

I mean, that's effectively what we have now. There have been two meetings of the Immigration Committee since it was reconstituted. Councilor Castro and I were at both of them. Councilor Faulkner was at one of them. There is an opportunity for us to listen and be informed by the members and to let the residents who have been appointed to this committee and who have the responsibility to bring their points of view to the table. I think that's been the way they've conducted themselves in the first two meetings. They've already created their structure, their subcommittees. We got a very thorough briefing of the work of the Immigration Committee over the years. That's a very substantial body of work. They've, they've pushed forward a significant number of activities and proposals that the city government has adopted going back to 1999. They've done it because, as Councilor Chavez says, every, I think without exception, starting in 1999, every governing body has been incredibly supportive of the values and the issues that the Immigration Committee stands for. They've had, they've had the ear of council members and the mayors who've been in office all through those years. They've been very effective. And they've done really outstanding work of being grassroots leaders that articulate the needs and the, the interests of our immigrant community.

And that, that's what I saw in the first two meetings already. I've seen a group of people who are highly motivated, highly connected to the community and eager to go to work, particularly in light of what's going on around the country. They're, they are strong, they're experienced, they're smart, they're dedicated, and I think it's a phenomenal group of grassroots leaders who are speaking out on behalf of the people in Santa Fe who are not only, who are immigrants, but who are concerned about the status of our immigrants, our immigrant population, regardless of their documents, their employers, their families, their friends, their church members. This is something that touches everybody in Santa Fe. And I think this committee has already rolled up its sleeves to go to work to, to do that. And I feel welcome at every one of the meetings to monitor and listen and learn from what the committee members have to say. And then when they're ready to move something forward, I know that there are champions, Councilor Castro and, and I are both shoulder to shoulder on this, who would bring their proposals forward. We're not shoulder to shoulder. All right. I think Councilor Castro and I would bring their proposals forward to the extent that we are in agreement about those proposals, but so far they're organizing themselves independently, quickly, and with the support of staff and, and the government, this government, this governing body. Councilor Faulkner and then Councilor Garcia.

On this discussion, I think that if we assemble resident-based committees or advisory boards, having a city councilor present and an active member of that board shifts the power dynamic. We can use semantics to say, "Well, I'm just there as a committee member. I'm not a city councilor." That is not how being elected works. You are a city councilor wherever you go, anything you do, you are elected. Everyone knows you're a city councilor. I think on the resident boards and committees and task forces, it should be the community and only the community.

Our district has a large immigrant population, and Councilor Garcia and I have been supporting them extensively. I talked to the chair of this board, and I'm working with him to get them training from the City Clerk's office. To me, it's more important that we empower our residents to be these board members than that we become members of the board and then try to guide the board. If we truly want something from the community, we want to be community-driven, then we as elected officials need to step back, give them all the resources they need to make the best decisions they can make. They're the experts at the table, and there is no reason that any of us can't go to these board meetings and listen and talk to the membership.

I also think that when a committee or a board, when asked if a city councilor should be in that body, says yes, but no vote and no chairmanship, my experience in dealing with committees my entire career is that that is a committee sending a clear message: "We don't want this to be a political committee." So I'm basing my amendment on the conversations I've had with the chair and then just my experience with committees. If they want you there, they give you a right to vote. Although the committee's advising, their recommendation was to have a councilor with no vote and no chairmanship. The original offer was chairmanship and voting. I perceive that as a clear message: this committee wants to be left alone, and they don't want it to be politicized. This issue is so political right now that I can only imagine that these members are like, "It couldn't, it has to be more political." I don't think it's wise to have elected officials on these resident-driven boards.

**Councilor Garcia:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As somebody who sits and chairs the Resident Advisory Committee at BPAC, I could not disagree more with my colleague's comments. That committee, BPAC, that committee is guided by the members. I sit back and let them do their work. To ascertain that a councilor sitting on a committee is going to drive and lead a committee on a specific agenda, I'm quite astonished that that assertion would even be made. That's minimizing at first opportunity the work that these members bring to the table. It was mentioned by another colleague that we have an opportunity to listen to them. We absolutely do. We have an opportunity to not only listen to them but listen and take action on the recommendation that they provided to us. If we're not going to take action on their recommendation from the onset, we're not building any trust with this committee. That committee had the opportunity to say, "Thanks for this proposal, but thumbs down. We don't want you here." What they said was, "We want you engaged, but we don't want you to have a vote."

Having councilors on citizen-led committees is not a new idea. We have many, many committees that have councilors that sit on them, have been highly successful, or special task forces. We get to the Health and Safety Task Force. We didn't have the mayor having a problem having two councilors lead that committee. There was no concern around councilors leading the agenda on very critical topics at a very critical time, not only in our community but in our nation's history. To think that by having a councilor sit on the committee, the councilor is going to overpower the committee members and lead them down a different path than they would have, I'm quite shocked. I have more faith and trust in our committee members that sit on this committee and every other resident advisory committee.

I think what's been exposed here is that there is a lack of trust with the public that if we don't have a councilor on them, they're going to go this way or that way. I think what we're missing here is ensuring that there is clear and constant communication. As somebody who sits on the most committees as a councilor, I am appointed to the most committees out of any member on this dais. I do not have the capacity to go sit in another committee. This is where I would, it is true, I sit on six committees. I sit on the most committees here. I would expect that whomever councilor is sitting on this committee would help to be that flow of communication to the governing body. I want to ensure that this committee is set up for success by having a council member sit on this committee. If it doesn't need to be a council member, then we had the mayor speaking, "Well, I'll bring the initiative forward." Well, then let's change it to be a mayor or the sits as the representative for this. But we need to ensure that there's quick action taken when this committee takes action because things are moving very quickly in this day and age. Very quickly. Things happen not by the day, they happen by the minute. We have residents in this community that are so fearful that folks are going into hiding. We need to ensure that we are doing everything within our power as elected officials to empower these individuals who are sitting on this committee that are going to be providing their recommendations to us and ensure that we are going to protect them and allow for their voice to be heard. This is why I strongly, if the committee said thumbs down, this amendment wouldn't be here. The committee embraced having a councilor on there, and to have any other reference assuming what their thoughts were is false because they had pure opportunity. You heard it from the chair himself tonight. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

**Mayor:** Thank you, Councilor. I'm going to go to Councilor Castro and then to Councilor Cassidy.

**Councilor Castro:** Sure. I think I just want to clarify really quickly sort of my process as well. So this initial resolution, and the reason that the council was put on as chair, is that it was modeled after BPAC. I wanted to be consistent with subcommittees that we already had, and that's also the reason that I worked with committee members to suggest a non-voting member because I currently sit on my and it would have been a similar construction. So this isn't something that we're pulling out of the air. These are already precedents that we have set on subcommittees we already have. As I do sit on my as a non-voting member, I will tell you nothing happens without the consent of that committee. 100% they are the ones that take the vote and move things forward. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't control what happened there. I am there to listen and to learn. That's exactly the intent of having any elected official on this body.

As we've mentioned, these meetings are open. They are publicly announced. One of them was in these chambers. That actually isn't best practices when it comes to keeping community members safe. So I'm working with the county committee, which is not publicly announced and is much more protective of those personal, in particular, information, right? Names, addresses, things like that. We don't function that way in this committee. We are publicly announced. People's names are public, their information is public, and we vote on those recommendations. So they work in tandem, but they are not the same.

I want to give an example. One of the folks that I got to meet with yesterday was the chair of the Immigration Committee in New York, and Chair Chavez is successfully beating back attempts to bring ICE back into Rikers by her current mayor. One of the biggest concerns that this committee had is, yes, as you've mentioned, Mayor, we've had really friendly administrations over time. We don't know that that's always going to be the case. So we need to assure that now that we have support for putting more teeth into committees, more support, more resources. We have a 20-minute video that we also filmed that I'm going to send to all the councilors where members of this committee ask specifically for financial resources because that's really what we need to do in terms of emergency funds for rapid response, for example. It is not a small conversation of what does one councilor bring, but what does it mean for us to appoint one member of this body as our representative to that committee to not only validate but support the work that they're doing?

**Councilor Cassidy:** Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple of other thoughts. One thing that I was thinking about, if we are currently talking about the option of a non-voting, non-chair member, there is nothing that is stopping us from delaying this resolution for a couple of months and having somebody go. I mean, again, I've mentioned Veterans Advisory Board, same conversation, they requested that I be put on there. We had this conversation about changing the resolution. I go because they requested it. I treat it like my own committee assignment. That's wonderful.

So we could, and I think that this, maybe is part of the sandboxing of our resident advisory committees, we could very well make, because I actually, I love the changes to the purpose of the committee. That part I absolutely want to make sure that passes. But we could also, we could have somebody go for the next couple of months, see if that works for the committee, see if we feel that there needs to be more or less of that, and then we could have that conversation at that time because I don't think there's a single one of us on here that needs a resolution to tell us to do our job. So that was one of my thoughts.

My thought, though, now what I am curious about, Councilor Castro, you mentioning not publishing these meetings. We have issues with the Open Meetings Act if it's a government committee that...

**Mayor:** Sorry to clarify, Councilor, the county committee is not publicly announced. Ours is.

**Councilor Cassidy:** How is that allowed?

**Mayor:** Advisory committees aren't required to follow the Open Meetings Act under the state statute. The city has required its advisory committee to follow the Open Meetings Act.

**Councilor Cassidy:** Okay, there we go. Thank you. That makes more sense. Okay. So that's again another one of our resident advisory committee pieces that we need to look at. But anyway, I think at this point maybe that might be my proposal because I will say I'm torn on this one. I'm torn as to whether or not I think, do we just go ahead and put a liaison on there right now because of the importance, because I can see the benefit there? Or I see, I don't know. I'm seeing benefits on both sides of the board, and there's nothing that stops us from changing the purpose of this committee and then having this be a sandbox without putting it into a resolution that then we'd have to change if we decide we don't like this. So that's my current thought at the moment. Thank you.

**Mayor:** Thank you. Councilor Lindell has her hand up.

**Councilor Lindell:** Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. I can't come up with really how is this harmful to do this? What, I mean, I've been hanging around here for a while, and I've never really gotten reports or information from this committee. It would be helpful to me to know more of how to be helpful if someone from this governing body came back and had conversations with us.

I'm missing something here. What is it that we would be harming to go ahead and formalize having a member of the governing body—not a voting member, not the chair—but assigned to this committee? I'm missing something as to where the harm is. So I'd like to be better informed about the committee. I've never really had any information from the committee. And if by having a member of the governing body on that committee would allow me to be more helpful, that would be a good thing. Thank you.

Faulkner, you had your hand up.

So this is what I love about policy. I know this feels tense, and people are, there's tension in the discussion, but this is at the heart of policy. We should not agree; we should disagree so we have active dialogue. We consider collateral damage and unintended consequences. If we all agreed, we would never catch those two things.

So to explain it to you, Council Wendell, right now we have one politically elected person leading the country, and it's all well and good to say that as human beings here on the dais, we all have good intentions, but we're not going to be here forever. Elected officials can be tyrants, clearly. And so to me, I always feel like you want to protect the community and their ability to make decisions. You want to empower them, but you do not want to have undue influence on any processes that they're going to work through. They need to be able to speak freely. They need to know that there isn't an elected official that can skew how the council feels about a certain thing.

We are all influencers. That's part of being an elected official, is that we are by design trying to negotiate with one another to influence each other to do things. There's a lot of power in being a city councilor. There's a lot of power in being a county commissioner. And I have been a lobbyist for 25 years, and I assure you, there will be a time on this council, if it is not happening right now, there will be a time where you will get someone who is a tyrant. And I don't want these committees to be at the will of a tyrant. And it's not about how we perceive the committees. I think these are smart people. I've been on boards like this. I think they're incredible human beings, but it's how we're perceived and how our position is perceived as a position of power, and once that's, and way more power than the citizens have in some cases. And so to me, don't set a dynamic up where the power dynamic is heavily in the favor of an elected official, whether that elected official believes that about themselves or perceives it about themselves. No matter how awesome we can be as transformative leaders, we are still elected officials with power, and I am never going to be comfortable with any elected official having that much influence over a resident's board.

Lee Garc, thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I'm kind of torn with this one as well because I, just like Councilor Casset, I want to take a look at the purpose. And I think in the resolution, it alludes to the purpose of the Immigration Committee is to advise the city about policies and actions that would preserve and promote humane treatment and equal protection for immigrants and immigrant populations in Santa Fe, consistent with the city's charter section 2.02.02, Human and Civil Rights. So that specific purpose, I mean, I'm trying to figure out on the one hand, if somebody on this governing body is on that committee, how is that going to either add or subtract from that purpose? Maybe you can allude to that.

Yeah, so in the conversation, of course, thank you, Councilor. And in the conversation that I had with committee members in particular, there are three things. So this is in collaboration with us working on getting staff. So this is about building capacity. This is also about reporting back to the governing body and being able to be a champion for any issue or legislation or effort this committee wants. It also, so for example, there could be a resolution that the committee wants to pass, and then that resolution could come to the governing body through that councilor as a sponsor with all the information. Not saying that that's limited only to the sponsor being the person that's on the committee. It really is informative. Again, you're there for the conversations. You're there to hear the research. You're here to hear the process. That's why I think it would be really important for this to be a councilor that isn't as well-versed. But anyone, and I think Councilor Garcia has some thoughts as well.

So think of it this way, Councilor. We're up here sitting as members of this body in the current capacity of this body. We saw it tonight. A resident raised their hand who wanted to give input to this body and speak at the meeting. That's not the way meetings are operated. We need to, the having a member on the body allows for a councilor to, as Councilor Castro said, participate in the process and have the right to participate in the process and allow for that communication, the flow. And it can happen in many different ways. And I'm going to speak from my experience as the chair of BPAC. Committee members don't always understand the intricacies of bureaucracy. They don't understand the red tape, the legislative process, the what actually is the temperature of the governing body. And having a councilor sit on that body allows for that real-time communication to happen because what would happen in an instance where Councilor Castro and the Mayor at the meeting, somebody can call him out and say, "Hey, you don't have a right to speak during in this meeting because they're not a member." That could actually happen. And what we want to ensure is that by allowing for a member of the council, and again, I'm open to even having the Mayor. Mayor's attended these meetings. As long as there's somebody from the governing body that is able to participate in the process with that committee and help to be somewhat of a support system for the committee, it's only going to strengthen the work that they're doing.

Again, the ideology that one person is going to lead a committee astray, I, that's not going to happen. If that's the case, then legislation should be introduced to remove every single councilor from every resident advisory committee. You're talking BPAC, you're talking EDAC, you're talking MAB, you're talking the River Commission. What's the point of having those members on there? I can only speak from my perspective. I've helped to be somewhat more of a facilitator to the committee to ensure that the work that they're doing can actually have an impact at the citywide level. I'd be willing to listen to other chairs, other governing body members that are chairs, and see how their roles have shaped, guided, not guided, et cetera, these citizen advisory committee members because again, it will only help.

Thank you, Councilor, for that input. And I, you know, I can see arguments on both sides. I could see the committee being very effective propagating their own recommendations without the influence of any one person, especially if you have a very strong committee. You know, they could quite possibly bring their own policy, written policy, to the board, and as long as one of the councilors here attaches to it and wants to champion it, I think that that can be very positive. And I again, I can see it both ways. I do see how there are many advisory committees that do not have a governing body member in attendance there guiding and possibly influencing a certain direction. And so, I think it's just, you know, in this case, in regards to a topic that's very, very important in our community, especially Councilor Faulkner's and our district, you know, I want to listen to what they have to say. And yeah, that's what's tearing, you know, giving me the back and forth on this one because on the one hand, I can see where a councilor can be very effective in helping the committee grow and gain strength. On the other hand, I can see where without a councilor, they can come up with their very strong ideologies that is not influenced by again, a councilor with a lot more power than not. So I'll leave it at that. Those are my thoughts at this point in time. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Chavez, you had your hand up. Did you take it back down?

Yeah, I just, because I keep hearing it, and I have to just remind us because listening, it could appear this way. This committee is not BPAC or MAB or Public Safety. This, this is a very, the topics and the issues that they're going to be facing and the discussion they're going to be having is at a vulnerable level that should be respected with almost a sense of complete freedom of needs, of fear, of challenges, of how we as a city have let them down because I am sure multiple municipalities have let this population down. And so the fact that we keep talking about other advisory committees, I'm sorry, as a comparison, I, and I, those advisory committees are very important. I've been part of them, but this is a very different thing. And I just, I feel like that's a huge portion that I haven't heard much spoken about yet this evening. Like we keep comparing, like, well, this happens, you know, on my committee. I've never misguided. I've never, and that, like, I could say that about the committee, like Public Safety, like I've always been supportive. I've listened to them. There's a lot of things that we're working out, and that's why I'm trying to do a lot of work because it hasn't been as effective as it could be. But I can absolutely positively say that I am not experiencing what the people that directly work with individuals facing what they're facing as a nation right now are going through. And I could not be in a place where I can say that I know more or can point them in a direction or can even say what they're saying is right or wrong because I don't think as a government we're doing enough for them in the first place for me to be able to say that. And so I have an issue with us comparing with advisories. So I think a huge issue or a huge piece that we all need to reflect on right now is this is not like any other advisory committee.

Mr. Mayor, are you done, Councilor Chavez, or not? You could wrap up, finish your thought.

No, I just wanted to be clear that that's a big portion. Like, yes, there's success with other advisory committees. Yes, they run with the way they're running, or like I say, mine has a lot of work to do. So we're working on it, but this is beyond how other advisory committees are functioning, and I want to acknowledge that. Thank you.

Point of inquiry. Just because I need to correct for the record, the Health and Safety Task Force, which was a specific committee set up by Mayor Weber in a very challenging time, similar to what we are in now, focused on public health and safety. Can I confirm the number of councilors that chaired that committee?

Yeah, there were, we, the way that was constructed, there were two council members who were appointed to be chairs, and when the report was completed, they completed their business.

Okay, thank you for that. I just want to reiterate a very specific committee. You had two councilors. Task force, there is a difference. And I think a good question.

Sorry, can we just, it's getting tense a little. Let's, let's, let's remember we're human beings. We're trying to solve a problem.

Well, let's also observe the process of being called on before you speak. We're debating the amendment at the moment.

I wanted to just add a couple thoughts, and I'm happy to take a vote and we'll abide by that. I went through the committee book that the City Clerk keeps upstairs so we know who to appoint and how we're doing. Every single one of these yellow stickies is a very important committee that does not have a city council member sitting in it. It is far and away the more likely structure because of the exact point that Councilor Garcia made. You can't be everywhere on all these committees all at once. So we have significant committees that have major responsibilities, and we've entrusted those to the residents to manage their work themselves.

Secondly, the two meetings that I attended, and I saw Councilor Castro, the chair went way out of his way to make sure that not only could the committee members have a chance to speak, but all residents who attended were called upon several times to share their thoughts. So it's a very inclusive and open process that they're operating on. I think that's inherent in the nature of the committee. They do believe in grassroots engagement and grassroots leadership. That's their whole mission.

The third thing is, to Councilor Lindell's point, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. This committee, over the course of its existence, has brought forward significant policy legislation, economic relief for immigrant families, citywide language access assessment, joining the Cities for Citizenship. All of these originated in this committee, and they weren't languishing for ideas or access to the governing body. They were self-motivated and self-starting, and they didn't wait for the City Council to come to them and say, "What are you working on?" They were driven because of their passion for the subject, because of the people who are on that committee. On the basis of the way the resolution is structured, they speak very, very strongly and very powerfully for the interests of the community they seek to stand up for.

So I guess the question is, what problem are we trying to solve with this approach? I'm not entirely sure. I think there is, as we've all heard tonight and historically, a deep commitment to helping this committee. The idea of funding for it has already been proved in the one-time allocation that was made. They have funds to do the various things that their subcommittees have already identified as their work program. So they've gotten support, they've gotten an agenda, they've identified, they've self-identified, self-created, they've got a subcommittee structure, they've self-created, they're off and running. And I'm not entirely sure what problem we're solving because historically this committee and others that are in this book that are not with a council representative formally appointed do amazing work for the city. There are some that have council members, and we haven't, to the earlier points made by my colleagues to my left, we haven't really rationalized it as to why some committees have a council member and some don't. I think that's a real, I think that's a real structural issue. This is a committee that's really working well on its own power, and I'm not entirely sure what problem we're solving if we formally appoint a mayor, a council member. I intend to continue to go to every single one of those meetings as long as I'm in office because I think it's that important. And I will continue to be able to say that committee is made up of strong and independent-minded individuals who are charting a path that conforms to the policies of this city government that we've adopted over the years. And they have the budget, and they have the staff, and they have the wherewithal to pursue their own subcommittee structure and agenda that will be for the good of our whole city. So I'm confident they're launched and on their way. To Councilor Cass's point, why not let them run and see what they come up with?

If there's no further discussion, there is further discussion. I'm sorry. Oh, no, I'm sorry. I just thought that the question was what we were solving for. So I can...

Well, I pose that as a rhetorical question.

Right. I can address it if you'd like. That's okay. Is there a motion to... Is there a... There's a motion on the floor. We've debated it. This is the amendment. It's 10:00. We have more work to do. Madam Clerk, do you want to call the roll on the amendment? This is an amendment as proposed to A. It's Amendment A. It's designed to change the appointment of the council member to a non-voting liaison rather than chair and voting member.

Just to clarify, Mr. Mayor, it would not be a non-voting liaison. It'd be a non-member, non-voting member of the body. Big difference.

Okay. The language that was used by the chair of the committee was liaison when he spoke earlier tonight. So I was quoting him. Do you have a reinterpretation of what he said?

I can read the language for you.

No, I'm asking you what the chair said. He called it a liaison. He would, they would act in a liaison capacity to help a conveyor of information, but the formal role would be a member of the body. So it's a non-voting member as a city councilor.

So can I just ask a clarifying question then? So what is the difference between a liaison and a member? We currently don't have really great definitions for that. So it basically is the same thing except the name is different. So it's basically the same thing.

Well, technically the staff is the liaison for the committee. Section six, staff liaison. The city manager shall designate one or more city staff members as appropriate to be liaison to the committee. That's part of this legislation. But this would act as a liaison to the city, but it, but in practice...

Mayor, can I just ask the question? We are going down a rabbit hole, and I know we're all super tired. I don't think it's necessary to have a discussion over whether it's a liaison or a member. I think we need to get to the heart of the matter.

Very good. Let's proceed with the vote then because we do have work to do, and this is, there, this, we haven't yet gotten to the main motion. Councilor Chavez, no. Councilor Faulkner. Councilor Lee Garcia. No. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Marworth, no. Councilor Cassett, no. Councilor Castro, yes. Mayor Weber, no. I'd like to explain my vote on amendment. The motion fails. Councilor Faulkner wishes to explain her vote.

I voted yes because if my amendment were to fail, at least there'd be some guardrails around the power dynamic. So now I'd like to introduce my Amendment B. Amendment B is on the floor. Is there a second?

Second.

There's a motion to amend the main motion by adopting Amendment B, and it's in your packet. Is there, we've discussed it. Councilor, do you want to just summarize it or do you want to just take a vote quickly?

Everything else in the resolution I'm in favor of. I love the direction and the power and support it gives to the community members who are on this board. I just, as I stated before, cannot support a councilor being on boards like this.

Okay. I think we've hashed it out pretty thoroughly. There's a motion and a second to move Amendment B. Would you call the roll?

Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia, yes. Councilor Michael Garcia, no. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero, yes. Councilor Cassett, yes. And I'd like to explain my vote. Councilor Castro, no. Councilor Chavez, yes. Councilor, I'm sorry, Mayor Weber, yes.

That motion is approved. Now we have a main motion as amended, but first Councilor Cassett wishes to explain her vote.

I'll be speedy. Again, I do think that this is, I really like the way that this is changing policy direction. I think that this gives us a bit more time to one, experiment a little bit without anything being locked in into resolution, as well as, I would actually be really interested in some of these policy meetings that the committee says they want to have with us of better understanding what they really need to get the best support from us. And maybe this is it, in which case I, you know, we'll be happy to reconsider this at a later time. But I think this, this allows us to make some very positive changes and gives us some time to experiment so we can really figure this out. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor. We now have a main motion as amended. Is there discussion of the main motion as amended? Madam Clerk, could you call the roll?

Councilor Lee Garcia, yes. Councilor Michael Garcia, yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Marworth, yes. Councilor Cassett, yes. Councilor Castro, no. Councilor Chavez, yes. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Explain my vote quickly. Mayor Weber, yes.

Motion is approved. Thank you. We'll go to Councilor Faulkner to explain her vote.

I wanted to support the legislation, not in total, but I would like to thank everyone for the robust debate. I know it's frustrating sometimes, but it's better for the people that we debate these things. Thank you.

Councilor Lindell will be joining us on Zoom as soon as she's able to, but she needs to excuse herself for the moment. Madam Clerk, could you take us to the next item, please?

There's a motion. Yeah. I'm wondering if we can go to the land use cases. I would entertain a motion to get and do the executive session later.

Okay. I mean, as much as I'd love dinner, maybe I'll just wait till breakfast. Okay. There's a motion to put the land use cases ahead of the executive session, which I think makes tons of sense. Is there, there, there was a motion. Did I hear a second?

There is a second.

Could you call the roll, Madam Clerk?

Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Oops. Romero Worth. Yes. Councilor Cassett, yes. Councilor Castro, yes. Councilor Chavez, yes. Councilor Faulkner, yes. Councilor Lee Garcia, yes. Mayor Weber, yes.

Motion is approved. Very good. Let's then at 10:15 move as rapidly as we can to the first land use case. If you could read that, and then we'll get prepared to go through the process.

Item 21A, consideration of Bill Number 2025-8, adoption of Ordinance Number 2025-TBD, a bill starting a bill rezoning an approximately 2.5-acre tract of land located at 214 Camino de los Marquez from R21 PUD Residential 21 dwellings per acre planned unit development to R29 Residential 29 dwellings per acre, Case Number 2024-8898.

Very good. Before we begin, let me quickly go through the process that we'll be using tonight so there's no doubt about how we're going to run the meeting. We'll start out by asking any members of the governing body who wants to acknowledge pre-hearing communications regarding the merits of this application or if it is so severe they would require themselves to recuse because they cannot be fair and impartial. We'll begin with a staff report, hopefully in the neighborhood of about 10 minutes. We'll go to the applicant, who will be able to make an opening statement of up to 15 minutes. We'll then go to sworn public comment, and we'll try to keep that to a reasonable amount of time while people make their points. We know it's important to get your arguments out. The governing body will then be in a position to ask questions of staff, parties, witnesses, the public. Anyone testifying to facts must be sworn. We'll then close the hearing once the council members, the governing body, have completed their questions, and we will go to discussion among the members of the governing body leading to a motion and then a vote that will complete the work on this case. So with that, Mr. Esabel, why don't you begin with the staff report and turn the microphone over to you, sir.

Mayor, members of the governing body, I have cut this presentation down to about five minutes. I think this is a case that was reviewed by Janice Bulletnikov. She's not present, so I am presenting her case for her. She has a pretty robust report, so I think that just hitting the highlights will probably do okay.

This is case 214 Camino de los Marquez. It's a request to rezone a 2.5-acre property from R21 PUD to R29 and dissolve the existing PUD on the property. The property is located west of Galisteo Street, and that's the 2-acre parcel just highlighted in blue. The property is also located in two archaeological review districts: the Suburban Archaeological Review District and the River and Trails Archaeological Review District. The property is legal on record and it's part of a development plan that supports 50 apartment units, currently called the Accent Apartment Complex.

In 1971, zoning was R5, and per Ordinance 1971-16, it was amended, and that's what established the RM1 PUD zoning, which is a multifamily planned unit development. The PUD was on two sides of Camino de los Marquez, and what we're concentrating on is the lower half of that PUD. The adjacent zoning is C1, C2, R5, and R3, and that's what surrounds the existing R21 PUD for the project. The general plan does support the change from R21 to R29. It's a designation for high-density residential between 12 and 29 dwelling units per acre, so the increase does fit within the general plan. This is also an infill development with two general plan sections that support the project in growth management and growth management methods. Janice went out and took a picture of the site so that she could get a look at what it looks like when it was a little cold.

The rezoning is a 2.5-acre property that is being zoned R21 to R29, and there is no development plan attached with this particular project. It's strictly a rezoning, and we've had this before in other rezonings where a conceptual plan was presented in order to help explain what a future project may be. But since the conceptual plan is not a development plan, it's also not on the agenda. It is not an actionable item and cannot be used in order to establish the zoning parameters or the criteria set for the code. However, this did go through the process and it was approved by the Planning Commission, as you'll see later on.

So, the area that we're looking at removing from the PUD is just that southern portion. If you look at that green area at the bottom, that's the area that we're going to remove from the PUD. The rest of the PUD will remain intact. It's interesting about the PUD because the PUD actually has no development standards. It's just an overlay with no requirements. So, removing it will not present any changes to what's already there because there's nothing there. It's just an old ordinance. I guess when they did it, they just put the overlay on.

This did go through an EN on July 30th. There was a good, healthy discussion. Some of the concerns that came out were traffic, parking availability, noise, possible future architectural character views from future development if heights are maximized. Again, this particular project will not incorporate any of the development plan requirements. The differences between what is being asked on the PUD side and what a just a plain development plan will entail is a PUD would require them to come in with a preliminary development plan to the governing body with the final development plan going into the Planning Commission. By eliminating the PUD, the full development plan will be handled by the Planning Commission when they submit an application.

The Planning Commission heard this case on December 5th, 2024. The commission found that the requested rezoning was consistent with the general plan and that all rezoning approval criteria per 1435C1 has been met. The commission voted to recommend that the governing body approve the proposal. On January 16th, the commission adopted the findings of facts and conclusions of law. So the Planning Commission is recommending that the governing body approve Case 20248898, 214 Camino de los Marquez rezoning, including the dissolution of the existing PUD on that tract.

One motion is required for this case: move to approve or deny Case 20248898, adopting Bill 2025-8, changing the official zoning map designation from R21 PUD Residential 21 dwelling units per acre Planned Unit Development to R29 Residential 29 dwelling units per acre and removing the PUD from the property located at 214 Camino de los Marquez, located near the intersection of Camino de los Marquez and Galisteo Street. That will conclude my presentation. Thank you, and I'll answer questions if you like.

We'll take that after we go through the rest of the first part of the process. But thank you very much. We'll now hear from the applicant or the applicant's agent with an opening statement, and again, you have the floor to try to keep it within 15 minutes if possible.

May be able to do better than that. We'll do our best.

Good evening. I'm Jennifer Jenkins with Jenkins Gavin, joined by Colleen Gavin as well, and we are ready to be sworn.

Get real close to the mic because we weren't picking you up very well.

Okay. Sorry. Jennifer Jenkins with Jenkins Gavin, and I have a few colleagues that will just swear in time.

Please stand. Raise your right hand. State your name.

I, Jennifer Jenkins, residing at Grant Avenue, solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony I 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.

Good evening, Mayor, counselors. I'm Jennifer Jenkins with Jenkins Gavin, here this evening on behalf of the Santa Fe Opera, and we are here in request to rezone the property at 214 Camino de los Marquez from its current zoning of R21 to requested zoning of R29. I have a brief presentation. We're going to be efficient with our time. We know it's been a long night already. So if I, I'm plugged into the HDMI, but if I could have the screen. Thank you. Thank you. Difficulties. My apologies. I'm not quite sure. Is there a workaround or a way to? I'm going to email the presentation. That's what I'm thinking. If you email it to somebody who can more easily access our platform.

So, I'm going to share some information while we get the presentation.

Maybe in the absence of the deck, you could.

Yes, I've got things to share with you.

I have a feeling you've done this. You're going to provide a little background and context. I think we all know where the property is located. This is an existing 50-unit apartment community that the Santa Fe Opera purchased in 2001. The purpose of that was to provide housing for their technical apprentices, and the opera has an incredibly robust apprentice program for technical as well as singing apprentices, and housing those apprentices during the season is paramount to the success of that program. Unfortunately, they do not have the space to also house their singing apprentices. So, they have a housing department at the opera that is charged with finding housing for the singing apprentices within the community, renting rooms, renting casitas, whatever it may be. Since COVID, that has become increasingly challenging. We know we have a housing shortage in Santa Fe, and we know that housing has become incredibly expensive. So, in addition to cost, there is a supply issue.

So, with this really important asset that the opera holds, there's an opportunity to redevelop this property from a 50-unit community to an 83-unit community where the opera can be self-sufficient. It's very important they can be self-sufficient and house every single one of their apprentices. That means the Santa Fe Opera is not in the market competing for housing with local members of our community. They are self-sustaining, and they are self-sufficient in terms of housing their apprentices. So that is why we are here this evening. As Mr. Esel mentioned, the Planning Commission on December 5th recommended approval of the rezoning, noting that the request complies with multiple, numerous elements of the City of Santa Fe General Plan. The city staff has also recommended approval of the application, noting the... Okay, you're back in business. Oh my gosh. Thank you for your patience.

So, that is really the why of why we're here this evening. Everything I just shared with you is important context and important information, but is actually not the reason city staff recommended approval, and it is actually not the reason the Planning Commission also recommended approval. So we have the future land use map. The property shown in orange is designated high-density residential. Requested zoning is in compliance with the City of Santa Fe land use map. This is the existing zoning. What you see there in brown is the R21 PUD that was established back in the 70s. That included the property across the street as well as a portion of the property next door. So, when we talk about rezonings, the most critical element of that assessment is determining if this request complies with the city's general plan. So, I'm just going to touch on a few high points of that compliance.

Again, we already talked about the future land use map. We also have general plan themes of mixed use. There is more than one place in the general plan that talks about we should have a mix of uses, mix of use types in all neighborhoods, not just some neighborhoods, but in all neighborhoods. Talk about sustainable growth. We talk about infill. We're talking about sustainability. We're talking about walkability, access to transit. Those are all sustainable practices. We also have an aging facility that does not meet any green building code metrics. So it is time to retire the existing property and build a modern, energy-efficient community. Urban form building within our urban core with access to infrastructure, access to services, access to transit, and then of course, transportation alternatives.

We have guiding policies, some of which state: concentrate population of greater densities within centrally located neighborhood centers to encourage pedestrian-scale development, reduce auto dependence, and provide central transit nodes. Promote a compact urban form. Identify specific infill sites that should develop at densities greater than existing zoning allows. And this site is identified in the general plan as an infill site. Within the land use framework of the general plan, it references compact urban form yet again. Also states there should be a mix of housing types in all neighborhoods, all neighborhoods, and transit-supportive development developing at greater densities with access to transit. So with respect to growth management and increased densities, it states that in both infill and future growth areas, the city must encourage higher densities of residential and commercial development than existing zoning often allows. It was already stated the property is designated as an infill area. The request supports the plan's emphasis on higher densities and compact urban form. Maximizes land use and infrastructure efficiency in an urban setting. Supports walkability and transit-oriented development and reduces urban sprawl. So this neighborhood is pretty dynamic and very diverse. We have a variety. We have single-family housing kind of more on the east side of the neighborhood, and then as you move west, you get into some different housing types.

Multifamily housing. There is great commercial access. There is employment. All of this is within walking distance of this site. You can walk to Trader Joe's, you can walk to CVS, you could walk to Maria's and have dinner. There are parks, and the blue and purple lines and the pink lines you see are City of Santa Fe bus routes with easy access to this site. So, this is really what I see as the poster child for walkable, transit-oriented infill development.

As part of the process for a rezone application, you have to demonstrate that there are adequate public facilities and utilities to serve the project. As we were going through that process, it was determined that there is a small segment of sewer within Camino de los Marquez that needs to be replaced. So, this manhole right here and the upstream sewer line need to be replaced. They were constructed in the 1930s, shockingly, and yet it is still there and it is not functioning properly. So, in order to establish that we do have adequate access to appropriate utility infrastructure, Santa Fe Opera wrote a check to the City of Santa Fe for over $73,000, and that money sits in escrow to fund those future sewer improvements as part of the redevelopment of the site. So, that was a condition of us moving forward with the rezone request. So that money is sitting with the City of Santa Fe right now.

So that concludes my presentation. I do have a couple of members of the opera staff that have some brief comments. I would like to introduce Tracy Armagost. She is the director of production and recruitment at the Santa Fe Opera.

I'm much shorter, so I have to lower this down. Hello, my name is Tracy Armagost, and I'm the production and recruiting coordinator of the Santa Fe Opera. I was a technical apprentice in 1988. I began as a properties carpentry apprentice and have worked on the props run crew, the development office, in the housing office, and many other roles. For the last 27 years, I have been in my current role where my main responsibility is facilitating the hiring and the programming for the technical apprentice program, as well as facilitating the hiring for the production staff. I have the honor of working very closely with all of the technical apprentices in their day-to-day training. As you can imagine, the schedule for a five-show repertory festival is very rigorous and involves many hours per week to produce. Each season, we hire between 80 and 85 technical apprentices to work alongside our team of professionals in all areas of production. These professionals are focused and disciplined while carrying out very highly complex and specialized work. They are an integral part of our operations, and we could not produce opera on our stage without them.

In addition to providing the technical apprentices with career-making training, the opera assists them with low-cost housing at the Axton so they can do their best work, maximize their earnings, and enjoy their summers in Santa Fe. Of the 4,100 plus technical apprentices that have been part of the program, many have gone on to contribute to the arts industry at major levels. In fact, former apprentices make up about 60% of our opera's seasonal staff, including a majority of the production department heads. Another facet of the opera's programs is the apprentice program for singers, a group that is equally important to the company members, are very valuable company members that we need to better assist with housing, but we have been unable to accommodate due to Santa Fe's limited housing inventory. Our apprentice singers typically secure their own homes or rooms within the community. This group has greatly struggled with the challenges of finding their own housing, which could be alleviated by increasing the capacity at the Axton Apartments. When I first arrived onto this campus in the summer of 1988, little did I know that I would be spending 37 years here. I know what keeps me going at the Santa Fe Opera are the 80 plus technical apprentices that arrive every year that add spark and light into our company and the community. Thank you.

Lastly, I would like to introduce Robert Mayer, Executive Director of the Santa Fe Opera.

Good evening, Mayor Weber, city councilors, city staff, and fellow community members. I'm Robert Mayer, General Director of the Santa Fe Opera. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about our recent request to rezone the property known as the Axton Apartments. The Santa Fe Opera is much more than an opera company. We are an educational institution, and we have been from the very year of our founding in 1957 when the first apprentice program for singers in the United States was created. A few years later, the program for technical apprentices was created, forming the backbone of our stage crew and production operations. Each year, over 120 apprentices receive career-advancing instruction in their fields. They're also paid and provided housing, which is critical for several reasons. First, they would not be able to afford working here without it, and also because they work late hours and very long days, often six or seven days a week. It's important to us that they have centrally located housing in a safe neighborhood and within a short commute from the opera.

In 1999, I myself was an intern and a beneficiary of the Santa Fe Opera's housing program. As a graduate student studying arts management, I could not have afforded renting my own accommodations at market rate. In fact, it was because of the offer of housing that I accepted the opportunity to work here over other summer festivals. In 2001, the Santa Fe Opera had the foresight to acquire the property, which represents an asset that is critical to the opera's current operations and, more importantly, critical to its future and to its ability to attract the best talent in the industry. Unfortunately, today the 50-unit complex, which was constructed in 1982, is nearing the end of its lifespan. The significant cost of addressing ongoing maintenance can no longer be justified. Buildings are poorly constructed and poorly insulated. The roofs and stucco are in constant need of repair, and the electrical capacity does not support the added load to provide air conditioning, which makes it difficult for our apprentices to get a good night's sleep during the increasingly hot summers. They deserve better.

We also believe that this project aligns nicely with the city's objectives for enhanced density in central locations with access to public transportation and easy access by foot to many commercial centers. This evening, we respectfully request your support in rezoning the property from R21 to R29. This change will allow us to develop the site with newly constructed, more environmentally responsible apartments while doubling our capacity and providing housing for all of our apprentices. We believe that this is the best solution not only for the Santa Fe Opera, but also for the community of Santa Fe. Outside the opera season, the new units will be available for long-term leases, providing housing for nurses, legislators, visiting artists, film industry professionals, and individuals relocating to Santa Fe, to name a few. Both the city staff and the planning commission have recommended approval. Thank you very much.

Thank you. That completes the presentation.

Very good. Thank you. We'll move to sworn public comment. Anyone who wishes to be heard and offer comment, you'll need to be sworn. I think the city clerk will take care of that. And we'll offer everybody an opportunity to speak and provide testimony. If you will, anyone who's wanting to speak, if you'll all line up and raise your right hands.

I state your name, residing at, solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony I have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury. When you come up, if you'll still state your name. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and City Councilors. My name is Michael Robbins. I live in Santa Fe Council District 1, not far from the house where my great-grandparents lived in the same district. I have attended the Santa Fe Opera regularly since I was in grade school, and I have served on the Board of Directors since 2023. The Santa Fe Opera was recognized as the Festival of the Year at the 2022 International Opera Awards. It is world-renowned for its quality of production and is a treasure for our state. The Santa Fe Opera attracts visitors from across New Mexico, the United States, and countries around the world. All told, the opera visitors inject what is estimated to be about $250 million into the state's economy, supporting indirect jobs in tourism and in hospitality, and it generates significant gross receipts tax revenue for the City of Santa Fe. In short, the opera is a vital part of the infrastructure of Santa Fe today. For it to continue to produce celebrated summer festivals, the opera must address its seasonal housing needs. In making this rezoning request, it is doing so in a way that will also help address Santa Fe's chronic housing shortage by providing rentals outside the opera season. The city can therefore leverage the opera's housing needs to produce additional housing at no cost to itself. I urge you to approve this request. Doing so will benefit the opera by allowing it to house technical and singing apprentices during the season, thus reducing competition for housing during that period, and you will benefit the city itself by increasing and diversifying available housing units overall and protecting jobs and GRT revenues that flow directly and indirectly from the Santa Fe Opera. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And you were very prompt. Madame Clerk, if you could run the clock for us and make sure everybody gets an equal amount of time, it'll be super. I know these folks are very, they've waited a long time to testify. We don't want to cut them off, but we also want to make sure everybody gets an equal chance. Also want to be sure you get your breakfast.

Mayor, is it two minutes? Michael, will you put two minutes on the board, please? Please start.

My name is Michael Chabin. I'm here because I'm a next-door neighbor to the project, and I can say the Santa Fe Opera is an exemplary neighbor and also has considerable undergraduate experience with programs like that. The apprenticeship program is outstanding by anybody's standards, and so I will, as I said, be brief. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much. But we really, really support this. Thank you very much.

Thank you for waiting. Yes, please step forward and give us your name and give us your testimony.

Hi, my name is Karen Henderson. I have been a member of the Santa Fe Opera Board for two years. Prior to that, I was active for 15 years with the Santa Fe Opera, a volunteer and engagement organization. The Santa Fe Opera is one of my in the world. I have been a licensed professional engineer since 2001. Currently, my position with Los Alamos County is Senior Engineer for Public Works Department. One of my roles is to review future developments for Los Alamos County Planning Department. My tasks are specific to traffic, grading, and drainage impacts. I also inspect construction activities of development, ensuring the construction is within the design standards of Los Alamos County, the state, and federal. Additionally, my role is to verify that infrastructure has been designed and built correctly prior to Los Alamos County acceptance of the project. The Axton Apartment project is aligned to the City of Santa Fe's general to increase the housing. It was found by the City of Santa Fe staff that the application meets all requirements for rezone 21.

Thank you very much. Please, we all love. Please do get in front of the mic though. Okay, I'll try it again. Hi, my name is Deb Goldstein. We all love the opera, and provision of housing is a fabulous idea, but they're doing it for six months at a time. So, the other six months, they can do short-term leasing as little as 30 days. There's no increase in affordable housing because they've paid the fee to be excluded from that. What they've said in their papers is they will do it at market rate, and that part of South Capitol probably has a pretty high market rate. Just north of the project is all single-family homes or casinos, whatever. And one of them is mine, which was also built in the 30s, and I've also had places them.

But my question is, we're increasing the infill. Where's the water coming from? Electrical? I've had four outages this winter, and I'm three blocks from them. Do we really have enough electrical power to power this? What about microwave towers? How often can you not get a signal? What about the traffic that's going to be there? Roads aren't real good right around. Can we impose, if you pass this, that they look at underground parking instead of having 85 spots on the road? They're underground and have beautiful landscaping around so we can still enjoy our neighbor. Like I say, we all support the opera. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you very much. Yes, please. You have the floor.

My name is Anna Chavez Stro. I live approximately three blocks north of the proposed area, and I really circulated a petition. I think there are about 180 people that signed this. These are people that are residents of the South Capitol area. They're not secondary homes for people. These are their primary homes, and they were really opposed to this. We like our community. We don't want this development. And I live in a house that was built in 1947, and I'm not going to tear it down. I've replaced the sewer systems. I've invested all of my money in keeping this property up and keeping it pristine. So, I would really request that you take into account the people that actually live there and not the people that have secondary homes. And I mean, I'm from New Mexico. I went to my first opera in probably 1963, but I hate what's happening. It's like New Mexico is being sold off, and it's losing its character, and I think we have to think about the people that live here in the community. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Yes, sir.

My name is Hubert Feka. I live in Don Cabro, also not far from the act. The one aspect of this proposal as described is the absence of affordable housing. I think as described, there'll be part-time housing for the apprentices, and the rest of the year, there'll be short-term housing to fill up the rest of the year. So, under the current proposal, we'll have up to, you know, upwards of 150 transients living in our neighborhood. I think the opera has an opportunity, maybe a responsibility, to include affordable housing in this particular project so that at least part of this housing will be occupied by permanent residents rather than temporary transient population. Thank you very much.

Can I swear in the remainder? I think did you miss these folks? I believe so. Can I swear the last three of you in? Is there anyone else who's? Okay. Please state your name, residing at, solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony I 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. And if you'd repeat your name one more time.

My name is Hope Reed. I live directly south of this project, and my backyard faces the backyard of the Axton Apartments, which is fine now. And the Axton Apartments has a nice big courtyard inside, and I hear music, and they have parties, and it's backyard-type noises. And that's, and this is a neighborhood. This is a neighborhood, and you're bringing in this high density. It's going to be like a hotel. It belongs on Serrios Road. It's going to have cars all around it, and I'm not going to have a backyard experience anymore. It's going to be a hotel, and I am opposed to the upzoning because this is a neighborhood, and this is not for transient residential. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Please, you have the floor.

My name is Deborah Vanheka. My husband and I have lived in the Don Cabaro neighborhood for over 30 years, about 35 years. And my main concern, I have no problem with infill. We have to do infill. It's just necessary in order to provide housing. I just want to say that Wood Gormley Elementary School that's in my neighborhood is one of the best-performing schools in Santa Fe. And unfortunately, because housing is so expensive in our neighborhood, families can't afford to live there and put their kids in the neighborhood school. And it just makes me sad that we're losing families in the neighborhood. And it would be wonderful if there would be a way to have some of these units be available to families that don't have a higher income so that we can have a more diverse neighborhood because our neighborhood's not as diverse as it was 35 years ago. And I miss that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Excuse me, Stephanie Benonato. I live around the corner. I too have gone to the opera for a long time, but I am not in support of this project. We already have an R21 zone there. It is really increasing the density by 60% is the proposal. That only benefits the opera. I wonder why the opera can't consider putting up housing on their own property out of town. We talk about, they talked about livability, walkability, and transit lines, but in fact, you don't have a transit. You don't have public transit to the opera. It will greatly increase the traffic, and it already backs up on Don Diego for at least a block and a half at certain times of the day. The idea that they're going to rent out to people. Right now, on questioning from the Planning Commission, there are only four units that have been grandfathered in that are there who are not opera. They have never rented to nurses and other people on a short-term or six-month basis. And so to say that they're going to do that when they haven't done it up to this point is kind of questionable. The idea of replacing the sewer line, that's nice, but that's only one segment of a very old sewer line. And I know that right around the corner connected to that sewer line, the city has worked on that sewer at least four times in the past year because of maintenance problems, infrastructure problems. So, I'm asking that again at an R21 zone that that is high density. There's no reason that it has to be R29. Again, it only benefits the opera, and it's only for six months of the year. And they're not going to be walking. They're not getting other jobs. They have a job at the opera. And I would wish the opera would consider putting housing on its own property outside of town. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Franchesca Bani. You were sworn in. I was sworn in. Yeah. I'm Francesca Banji, 10:30 West Hton. I live three blocks north of this place. Yeah. I don't. Why can't they build some housing on their property near the opera? Because these poor apprentices work what? They must work like 12 hours a day, you know? I mean, doesn't that make more sense and have this property to be longer-term housing? Think about it. It just doesn't make sense to me that they're there for six months or five months or whatever, and then there's another, you know, seven months when you get short-term rentals. But can they really rent it for short-term rentals? I mean, this is a great neighborhood. I live in it. I love my neighborhood. I'd love to have more permanent people there. And they're going to go through a tremendous expense tearing this down and rebuilding it all. They could do it on someplace else near the opera. And I'm not opposed to having opera people in my area. I would really, but I'd like longer-term residents there. I just want to keep it a neighborhood. That's it. Thank you.

Are there, is there anyone in the Zoom room who is waiting to testify? Yes, there are several people. Cheryl Peterman, I'm going to allow you to speak, and I'm going to swear you in before you talk. Cheryl, I state your name.

I, Cheryl Peterman, residing at 318 Delgado Street, solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony I have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under penalties of perjury. Yes, I swear to all that. Thank you.

Thank you. You have the floor.

Thank you. I'm a member of the Santa Fe Opera Board. I'm a licensed architect, and I was the Planning and Zoning Director for the City of Dallas for four years. After my years on that job, I hope to never ever attend another zoning hearing. Yet, here I am tonight speaking in support of this zoning case. I believe that you've already been told the why of why the Apple Watson needs this approval for the zoning case. So, I'd just like to reiterate the reasons why from a planning standpoint, I would urge you to approve this case. Santa Fe is facing a housing shortage. Approval of zoning for this project is a way to achieve additional housing without using taxes or additional fees. This request aligns with the city's general plan themes and policies such as economic diversity, urban form, higher densities, and community-oriented development. The general plan designates the subject property and surrounding areas an infill area where higher densities are encouraged. As an infill site, the new project is efficiently served by existing public transit and utility and roadway infrastructure. The future land use map designates the property as high-density residential, which supports the requested R29 zoning. In summary, this zoning request not only complies with the property's future land use map designation of high-density residential, but it also embodies many of the plan's themes and policies with respect to infill, compact urban form, economic development, and support for the arts. I would urge you to vote in favor of this case tonight. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Who else has a hand up in the Zoom room? David Thompson. I'm allowing you to speak. Okay. Mayor, councilors, one second. I may swear you in. I state your name.

David Thompson, residing at 325 West Cordobble Road, solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony I 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. Councilors. I'm David Thompson. I live on West Cordova Road immediately adjacent to this property, and I don't generally oppose infill and higher densities, including in my own neighborhood, because I believe that can be a way to increase housing for our Santa Fe residents. And so if this development was going to lead to more affordable housing or even more long-term rental housing, I would expect to support it. But this development will not lead to any long-term housing since it will only increase the number of short-term rental units. In fact, it even removes several current long-term rental units. I urge the governing body to oppose this rezoning and not lose yet another opportunity to provide increased affordable housing in our city. Thank you.

Thank you very much for testifying. Anyone else in the Zoom room? One more. Juliet, I am allowing you to speak. Yes. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Can you, I state your name? Well, actually it's Monica Parovski. Okay. I live Don Kubber Avenue, but I am also a co-owner of an addition. Where are you in?

Hold on one second. I solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony I have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and I do this under penalties of perjury. Yes. Okay.

So, I live on Don Cubero Avenue, but my mother and I have co-ownership of the unit adjacent to this property at 300 Camino de los Marquez. So, she and I both are concerned about a number of issues, and we're here to object to the redevelopment. We're concerned about off-street parking, concerned about water drainage problems with the development that would affect neighbors, and also any sewer backup issues.

The traffic is really quite terrible at the stop sign at Don Diego and Marquez when people are trying to go to the Cordova stoplight, and it's only going to get worse because we talk about transit options, but there isn't a bus that goes up to the opera. So all those people who are going to be living there are going to be driving. So there's the traffic problem and there's the parking problem.

I'm also concerned that there isn't any low-income housing, and we should have a diverse community, and that's not going to happen. And then I'm also concerned that if something goes wrong with the construction, who are we going to be talking to? Not the city, but the developer. And are they going to listen to our concerns? Parking, noise, and then the lengthy construction is going to impact the neighbors. It also will impact property value to my property adjacent there while the construction is happening. And again, the apprentices won't be taking a bus to the opera, but they'll be driving.

It doesn't, sorry, my last one is, it doesn't address the permanent housing that we need in our community. It's only temporary housing. Thank you for listening to my comments. And lastly, could the opera rent housing at St. John's College as an option? Just a thought. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in the Zoom room? Madame Clerk, if you would like to speak, please raise your hand. There is no one else in the Zoom room. Okay. I believe we've heard from the public who wanted to testify here or via Zoom. I'm going to turn to the members of the governing body who would like to ask questions of staff or the applicant or any of the witnesses or the public who testified. And Councilor Castro, I'm going to start with you if you don't mind.

Thank you so much. And I think this is going to be for the developer. Thank you so much, Ms. Jenkins. So, to address some of the questions that we've heard so far, how long are folks staying there, what months are they staying, and how long are those terms?

So, the apprentices start moving in in April, and then the opera season is over by the end of August. And so, they're moving out after, you know, end of August, early September.

And so, what does that transition look like? And what are these units available for rent for long-term, short-term? What does that look like?

So, this a six-month lease, which will be available in the off-season, is considered a long-term lease. And the beauty of this is it's a very important type of housing supply in the marketplace because most landlords are not interested in a six-month lease. So, let's say you're relocating to Santa Fe and you're constructing a new home and you just need a place to be for six months, or you're a traveling nurse, or you're a legislator, or whatever it may be. There is a need in the community in any real estate market for that six-month option, which is not readily available currently. So, it is supporting and addressing that particular need.

And is that what they're being used for currently?

So, they have over the years been used in the off-season, but the state of the property and the age of the property, the lack of air conditioning, some of the elements of the built facility is, can be challenging in terms of the general market.

What is an average rent for a unit in one of these apartments?

We have not established what the average rent. I mean, we are years away from the property actually being built and being on the market. So we have, we have not done that analysis. Apologize.

Currently, if somebody were to rent a six-month lease on the off-season, what would they be looking at paying?

You know, I would be happy to confer with my client and see if we can get an answer to that. So, okay. Thank you.

So, in the off-season, the rentals were running around $1,200 to $1,400 a month for one-bedroom. There's one-bedrooms as well as two-bedroom units in the property.

No further questions. Thank you.

Could I have a quick consultation with the city attorney? I just want to make sure we're also clear on the criteria we're voting on. I was very interested in the testimony of our friends from the opera who have life experiences, but we're really not voting on that. What we're voting on, if I understand it correctly, is whether or not the proposed rezoning meets our zoning code. And everything else, while it's interesting, is not really in front of us as a quasi-judicial hearing. We are applying our zoning code to the proposal with or without regard to, God bless you, with or without regard to the cost of a rental apartment. That's not really in front of us at this time. However, councilors, that is correct. I think Dan probably could provide the guidance on the specific criteria that are at issue tonight.

Yeah, there has been, I mean, the project has been presented as being very specific as to what its use is going to be, which is not in front of the governing body at all. So, it's not, so there's been information I think affirmatively presented to you. So, it's not surprising that we're asking questions about those topics because that's how it's been presented. But those really are not the factors about a rezoning.

Yeah, I just, I want to bring us, I mean, I'm happy to hear the considerations that go into the project, but as far as what's in front of us and what we're being asked to evaluate, we have a proposal for a rezoning. We don't have a proposal for a redevelopment. We don't have a plan. What we have is a rezone. And the question, if I understand it correctly, is do the city's criteria and the applicant's proposal line up in such a way that it is either they either do or don't match those criteria.

Mayor, members of the council, a lot of the conversation that has occurred regarding housing, rental, does go off track from the zoning criteria that we're measuring by. If that answers your question, could you just revisit one more time? I know it's in the staff memo. I know we've gone through this in the past. Sometimes you've given us a slide that says, here are the, here are the, here are the elements you're being asked to match the proposal against.

Certainly, let me go back to, I think it's on page two. Yeah. I will have to just get my sharing up a little. I think it's for everybody's benefit to have equal opportunity to see what those criteria are.

So, do you want me to pull it straight from the code or would you like me to pull it from the memo?

Straight from the code, whichever is easier and quicker.

So, within Chapter 14, the zoning criteria, I can get rid of that thing. The zoning criteria has findings that we look at. And these are the approval criteria that both the Planning Commission and the governing body have to measure and weigh this application and how the applicant has addressed these findings. So, the first one is one or more of the following conditions exist: There is a mistake in the original zoning. No. There have been changes in the surrounding area altering the character of the neighborhood to such a degree to justify changing the rezoning. There hasn't been too much in that area for a long time. A different category of use is more advantageous to the community as articulated in the general plan or adopted city plans. B, all the rezoning requirements of Chapter 14 have been met. C, the rezoning is consistent with the applicable policies of the general plan, including the future land use map. D, the amount of land proposed for rezoning and the proposed use for the land is consistent with the city policies regarding the provisions of urban land sufficient to meet the amount, rate, and geographic location of the growth of the city. And E, the existing and proposed infrastructure such as streets systems, sewer and water lines, and public facilities such as fire stations and parks will be able to accommodate the impacts of the proposed development. Number two, unless the proposed change is consistent with the applicable general plan policies, the Planning Commission and the governing body shall not recommend or approve any rezoning, the practical effect of which is to allow uses or a change in character significantly different from or inconsistent with the prevailing use and character of the area. B, affect an area of less than two acres unless adjusting boundaries between districts. C, benefit one or few landowners at the expense of the surrounding landowners or general public. And then there are some additional requirements. If the impact of the proposed development or rezoning cannot accommodate the existing infrastructure and public facilities, the city may require the developer to participate wholly or in part in the cost of construction of the off-site facilities in conformance with the applicable city ordinances regulations. Two, if the proposed rezoning creates a need for additional streets, sidewalks, or curb necessitated by the attributable to the new development, the city may require the developer to contribute to potential fair share of the cost of the exception in addition to impact fees that may be required pursuing to 14814.

Thank you. So, everybody can ask whatever questions they would like, but I think for the benefit of evaluation, we can focus on the extent to which this does or does not match those criteria.

Sure. And let me clarify that I think some of my concerns is in particular around that use and that character of the neighborhood. I've heard a lot of concerns from the neighbors that it doesn't sort of fit the character of the neighborhood, and it doesn't seem to be a long-term use, which is what the rest of the neighborhood looks like. But I apologize, and I see.

No, it's fine. Thank you. You've still got the floor if you want it.

No, no. I think, I mean, my question really was around use, and it was clear that these are different types of rentals. I do understand short-term rentals is a very specific time, and so six months is longer than that. But it is sort of a different use in my opinion. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Chavez. I know you're there.

I have no questions at the time. Thank you.

Councilor Garcia, you, sir.

Mr. Mayor, my question is, Bill, can you help me understand why the development plan is not needed, especially when we're trying to justify density?

Mayor, members of the governing body, Councilor Garcia, a rezoning is a separate application in and of itself. So, if the applicant chooses to support it with a development plan, they would have to submit it. But that development plan would stop at the Planning Commission, and only the rezoning would come forward to this body because this body, during the adoption of Chapter 14, delegated the Planning Commission that authority for development plans.

So if this were to have remained as part of a PUD, then the preliminary development plan would have gone with this request to the governing body to identify that preliminary development plan associated with the PUD. But the applicant is requesting to remove the PUD from the rezoning and just go with the traditional rezoning, with the development plan being applied to the Planning Commission at a later date.

Okay. So, I guess that leaves me with some concerns because if I'm looking at the memo here, on page 10, item one, it states in there, "The proposed R29 zoning would better achieve the general plan's intention for higher density multifamily housing and infill development to be located in this area." I would think that a development plan would be needed to justify that response because we don't—I mean, there are certain criteria that needs to be met to ensure that whatever is being proposed in an R29 can actually fit in the space, right? Because in that instance, somebody can come with a—that in an R5 zone R29, and I mean, by theory and logic, it wouldn't be allowed, but by the application process, somebody would be allowed to proceed with such application. Right? They can, and that to me seems like it can be very problematic, and it doesn't—it doesn't stop development that would never be approved in the first place. And it puts staff in a position where you can be reviewing requests that just have no chance of moving forward. And I think that's where I'm seeing a gap in this process, that a development plan should—when you're trying to upzone, a development plan should be there to justify the upzone. And it helps to justify when you're getting into the questions, as stated earlier, that it's going to meet the character of the neighborhood. It's going to meet the requirements of parking, etc. And without a development plan there, that's problematic for me.

Mayor, Council, Councilor Garcia, I understand. I hear what you're saying. However, with just a rezoning request, what they're asking for is to change the designation of that zone based on the general plan policies. So, the policy itself, the general plan, is the will of the Council. From the will of the Council, those puzzle pieces are put together, which is the zoning on top of those policies, so that we build out the city and zone the city with uses and development in accordance to those policies and themes. So what the applicant is doing is asking to change the existing zoning that is within that policy. So that policy is already—the general plan already identifies this as a high-density residential, going from R12 to R29. So they fit within that general plan. The development plan aspect of this is going to be more detailed, into the weeds, where the zoning aspect of this is looking at the zoning to identify whether or not should we rezone, is our infrastructure, our city infrastructure, able to adopt and accept the new rezoning for whatever goes on there. It could be housing, it could be multifamily, it could be a mix of uses within that zoning designation, but the development plan is going to get further into the weeds once we've established that, yes, city infrastructure can adopt and accept and take into account an increase in density.

So the density here is, if you are looking at what they got now, there are 21, 2.5 acres. You're looking at 50 dwelling units—50, I think it's 52 dwelling units is what that comes out to, but they only have 50 units. So now they're asking for an increase in density to R29. Technically, that multiplies out to 72 dwelling units, but with a bump in affordable housing, that 15% bump gets them to 83, which is a difference of 33 dwelling units. That's not a significant amount of impact to the area based on the review that our DRT team has looked at for the change in zoning from R21 to R29. So when you're looking at the development plan process, you either choose to bring it in with the PUD, edit the PUD, which also incorporates the property on the other side of Camino de los Marcos, or you remove yourself from the PUD and come together with a full-blown development plan that gets reviewed again by the entire city team along with the Planning Commission. But then it stops there. However, if the governing body were to choose to bring a development plan, any development plan, they have within 30 days to bring that up to review it, and it becomes de novo on your case. So, it's not something that you don't or don't have an option of looking at if you choose to bring it up. Otherwise, you leave it in the hands of the Planning Commission in order to assess the impacts of that development for the City of Santa Fe in that specific area.

Gotcha. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, we can require a development plan before we approve this, that that can be taken into consideration as we're moving forward with this request in front of us.

Mayor, Council, Councilor Garcia, not with this application. You would have to deny the PUD, keep it within the PUD, and then they would have to come back to the governing body through the Planning Commission for recommendation for preliminary development plan. That's a lot of work for 33 additional dwelling units. That's a lot of city review. That's a lot of city resources. Because when we look at a development plan, if you think about the impacts of a development plan, it's like throwing a rock into a pond where that rock and that water hit is going to have the greatest amount of turbulence, the greatest impact associated with where that impact is. The city team looks at that immediate impact and tries to mitigate those issues. But we don't just stop there. We have to take a helicopter, go up in the air, and identify those waves that continue outward to the bank, and we have to see where those impacts are going to affect an area outside of that so that we have a global aspect of what's going on with that development within that given area so that we meet all of our demands for every department's needs and all of the city chapters, not just Chapter 14.

Gotcha. Thank you for that. Another question, when the Planning Commission approved this, they approved it on the condition of staff technical corrections were made. Can you help me understand what those staff technical corrections were?

Mayor, Council, because this is only a rezoning, there is a section within the rezoning ordinance that allows us to adopt conditions with the rezoning, but over the course of time and through many administrations, our legal department has advised us against adding conditions to a rezoning ordinance. And the explanation that we're given to us is that everybody should have the rights and privileges associated with the zone that they are getting that is being approved and adopted by this body. So where we would give conditions of approval would be directly at either a master plan or a development plan. So if the applicant is going to get any conditions of approval, they're going to be affected at the development plan. We've already worked with the applicant in one instance with this rezoning because we had issues with the sewer department, and Stan's here to talk about those. But the applicant has agreed to meet, to deal with those issues. So we have been able to move this application forward because the city infrastructure will be able to handle the change from R1 to R29.

Gotcha. R21 to R29. Okay. And then last question, tell me if my math is fuzzy. Given this is 2 1/2 acres, it's R21 currently. This should, given the current zoning, they should be able to qualify to develop at least 60 units for this property, right?

For 21 times 2.5 is, I think it comes out to 52 and change. Let's see. Yes, 52 and a half. So they would be able to, if you calculate that at R29, that's going to kick it up to 72 and change. And where are the extra units coming from? Why are they getting 15% bonus from the affordable housing program? And I believe that they—but they did mention at the Planning Commission they were going to participate in the fee in lieu of, which still gives them that 15% bump, giving them 83 units allowed, 83 units. That doesn't seem like it's a fair offer for the City of Santa Fe and the residents that direly need affordable housing. And so I hope that that's changing as we're moving forward with the general plan. Thank you. That was all the questions I had. Okay, that's all the questions I had. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Dan. I appreciate it. I'm going to have to hit the pause button if we're going to extend beyond 11:30. I regret to say we're going to need a motion to extend our Council meeting beyond the 11:30 time limit. Anybody would like to make such a motion?

Motion to cease the rules and go beyond 11:30.

Second.

Second.

Motion and a second to go beyond our 11:30 time limit. Just go ahead. Quick question. I know we've got one other land use case after this, and I'm not of the mindset of having the second land use case stick around to beyond midnight, if not later, and pushing that hearing into the AM hours. I wish we would have seen this, had this foresight, and said we're going to hear this item the next—

Well, let's vote on this. Let's vote on the extension because we're going to need it just to finish this item.

Gotcha.

Could you call the roll, Madam Clerk, before we hit the 11:30 witching hour and turn into pumpkins?

Yes. Councilor Lindell. She's in the Zoom room. She's in the Zoom room. But I want you to start with people who are—

Yeah. No, we got a no from Councilor Lindell. Correct. Councilor Marroworth.

Reluctant. Yes.

Councilor Cassett, no. Councilor Castro, yes. Councilor Chavez, no. Councilor Faulkner, no. Councilor Lee Garcia, yes. Councilor Michael Garcia, yes. Wait, passing. Okay. Am I—am I at the last vote?

No. Mayor Weber, I'll vote yes. Councilor Michael Garcia.

Yes.

Thank you. Motion is approved. Once we get through this case, we'll see where we are. I'm sorry. What? Heather, you're there. Yes, ma'am. What can we do for you?

My apologies for interrupting, Mayor, but I just wanted to let you know that there was a request that was made by the other land use case applicant or appellant to postpone their case.

So, just to add color, we're very happy to accommodate them and everybody else. And thank you for volunteering. It's—it's we are—we are not done with this case, and we've got more work to do. So, thank you for acknowledging the harsh reality of the evening. We'll get to it, but let's—let's continue while we're on a thread of testing the viability of this issue. Councilor Lindell, if you would like, you have the floor to ask questions.

Thank you, Mayor. I don't have any questions.

Thank you, Councilor. And I will go to Councilor Faulkner. Councilor Faulkner is saying she has no questions. I will go to Councilor Marroworth.

Okay. So let's go back to Dan. The first part of—can you scroll down to the top of the—is what is the first set of criteria, an and or an or?

First set of criteria is a choice. They only have to meet one. So—

So they're going with the third one. A different use. Wait.

That's correct. They're going with the third one.

Can you read it again?

"A different use category is more advantageous to the community as articulated in the general plan or other adopted city plans." And the thinking is—

I can—I can read you their response.

Be great.

So their response to item one was for number three, affordable housing policy 44G7. The rezoning to R29 allows for a higher density of residential units, increasing the unit count from 50 to 83.

The increase can help alleviate some of the housing shortages in Santa Fe by providing housing for opera staff. So those individuals do not compete with others seeking housing in the Santa Fe market. Furthermore, in the offseason, the units will be made available for six-month lease terms, which is an important diverse housing option for visiting professionals, new arrivals, and others with short-term housing needs. Additionally, a fee in lieu of affordable housing will be paid to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to support future affordable housing efforts.

Okay. And there's it's a long, yeah, if we could have not so much conversation in the back of the room. Sorry. Okay. So they meet this. So the staff agrees that they meet this first one, this first section. So then we go down to the next, to the next section, right? Help me out here, Dan.

So I'm just pulling up. Would you like me to? So that was one and now we go to two. Where are we here? This is A. We go to B. If I, yeah, for B. So let's see. The first item they address C. And there's a lot more in item three. They did a very thorough job and yeah, I'm looking at the memo. So then we get to criterion two. All the reasoning requirements of Chapter 14 have been met. Well, those are the requirements necessary to be able to evaluate this project. So, if they've given us all the information necessary to evaluate this project, they've met the criteria needed in order to move it forward. So, it's pretty hard not to meet that requirement unless we're recommending denial because they're not complying with something.

Okay. And all the requirements being the, in Chapter 14, we have to have them submit a packet of material addressing all of the information that we're looking at. Plus, they'll provide us whatever additional information that helps us provide material to the rest of the city team so that they have something to review in order to address the findings that we're looking at now. Okay. So, staff thinks they met one three, staff thinks they met one B, right? Sorry, it's a part three. A part three, one B. Yes. One B. Okay. There we go. One C. Okay. And now we're on to one C, which is what? Help me read that. The reasoning is consistent with the applicable policy of the general plan.

So the applicant provided us many instances of their compliance with the general plan and it was reviewed by Janice and Janice's, so that I, so just for, this is just my opinion and I'll swear to this, but she's, I consider her an expert in her field and I reviewed her memo, our, the assistant director reviewed her memo, the land use director reviewed her memo and then it was provided to the legal department. So all of the findings have been vetted for their compliance to these standards. So it's not just one person's review. It's an entire team of people that look at this before we get to the governing body.

Okay. And then we go to D. The amount of land proposed for rezoning and the proposed use of the land is consistent. Look, I can read with city policies regarding the provisions of urban land sufficient to meet the amount, rate, and geographic location of the growth of the city. All right. So, that's D. And again, staff reviewed this. Yes, ma'am. Determined that this, this item was also met. That is correct. Okay. And then we go, and then it's an and, so we go to E. Correct. That's correct. The existing and proposed infrastructure such as the street systems, sewer and water lines, and public facilities such as fire stations and parks will be able to accommodate the impacts of the proposed development. For this, we did evaluate this. We did have an issue originally with the sewer system and Stan is here if you wish to talk to him, but they have addressed those needs so that that sewer system can accommodate the development once that development plan comes in.

Okay. And but we don't know for sure, they haven't submitted a development plan. So that's correct. We don't, how, how do we know that they meet this one? I think the only issue here was going to be the sewer issue and I would prefer that Stan talk about his sewer system as opposed to me since he's here. Aside from all of the other issues, all the other DRT members that we send this to in order to accommodate water, sewer, fire, all of parks, all of them provided us comments to address the change from R21 to R29. The only issue we had was the sewer. And again, the applicant has accommodated that issue to ameliorate the problem.

Okay. And so that, that's why that was called out in your presentation or somebody's presentation as, as being really important to all of this. Okay. And then, all right. So then we're on to what? C2. Next item is going to be 1435C2. Unless the proposed change is consistent with applicable general plan policies, the Planning Commission and the governing body shall not recommend approval any rezoning the practical effect of which is to allow uses or a change in character significantly different from or inconsistent with the prevailing use and character in the area. So with that, it is R21 now. It's in a high-density residential that allows R21 to R29. 33 dwelling units is not terribly inconsistent with the proposes, the proposal. So it does comply in our, in our estimation. The effect of an area less than 30, than two acres unless adjusting between boundaries. This is a two and a half acre piece of property. So that qualifies the benefit one or fewer landowners at the expense of the surrounding landowners or general public. Well, the general public isn't typically a neighborhood or a neighborhood association. The general public is a city of Santa Fe in a broader sense. So, when you're thinking about those aspects, this applicant did meet those standards, did address the issue, and it was vetted, and we did agree with the applicant's proposal.

Okay. I just, I'm almost at time. I have just one other question about this short-term rental piece. When you were talking about short-term renting, short-term, we weren't really talking about short-term rentals. And of course, we have a cap on the number of short-term rentals in the city, which we are bumping up against. So, the fear that this is going to be short-term rentals in the traditional sense is not accurate. Am I correct in how I'm thinking about that?

Yes, Mayor, Council, Councilor Romero Worth. One of the things that we still have to maintain when we're looking at this, and I know that there's a broader fear out there of what it can or may become. But unfortunately, the reasoning criteria really doesn't take into account that short-term rental ordinance as it's being portrayed. And as long as they maintain a rental capacity of 30 days or more, they're not hitting that short-term capacity. They're hitting a long-term, a long-term affordable housing. They're actually hitting a midterm. If you think about it, because you've got that short-term, you got that midterm, and then you got that long-term. And where they're targeting is for their use in particular, which hits that midterm, which are six months or or maybe less, but greater than 30, 30 days. And then they're targeting some of those transient workers such as your traveling nurses, which we get a lot of in the city of Santa Fe and other types of renters that are that are looking for a place to live while they transition themselves or stay and visit and leave. And typically when those types of people come in, they're going to go out to the community and find whatever they can in order to achieve their goals. But if you're looking for long-term rentals, what they're doing is they're taking them out. They're taking that particular unit out of the picture because they've got it for six months. And when these people come in, there's nothing available. So if they're housing their people and still allowing it for that midterm use, then they're taking it off the market. So those people who are looking for a long-term solution have a better ability to find what they're looking for within the community. And that's why they believe that they meet many of these general plan requirements because it is a type of housing that that that ticks all of the boxes.

Yeah. I think I just think it's really important to clarify the short-term rental, the way the short-term rental was being used in, in some of the conversation that we, that we heard. So, I'm at time. I'll, thank you, Councilor. Mr. Casset, your turn.

Thank you, Mayor. Hey Dan, good to see you. Real fast, I just want to go over a couple things. Thank you, Councilor Maroworth for going through the criteria. As you mentioned, Dan, after this, they go through a development plan with the Planning Commission. And all of that, the work that the DRT does, they, they do that, the design review team specific to the development as they're going through the development plan approval process. Correct, Mayor, Council, Councilor Cassidy. That's correct. So that's streets, that's parks, that's water, that's sewer, that's, there's 21 people or something on that team. Correct. There's quite a few. We just look at it more in detail because we have a lot more detail to look at. Okay. And at that point they would be looking at affordable housing, which is a Chapter 26 actually. So not Chapter 14, but they'll be looking at Chapter 26 and how they comply with the Santa Fe Homes program. Correct. That's when that would be triggered along with any conditions regarding short-term rental. That's when they would want to be come up because those were the conditions, those are conditions that would be hit or implemented during that development plan phase.

Okay. And when it comes to development plan, and I mean, and this is one of the complex things about, about land use is that we have our opinions about things, but you know, what we really are doing is it's, it's kind of cut and dry. What does Chapter 14 allow? Do we, do we have anything in there where people, when we're looking at development plans, does the Planning Commission or us if we were to pull up a development plan, look at the utilization of the property and take that into consideration? So, for example, this kind of medium-term rental versus long-term rental, do, I mean, is that something that gets to be considered when, when looking at consideration of a development plan?

Mayor, Council, it's not within Chapter 14. It's sort of a global policy issue where the Chapter 14 and the general plan both advocate for, for various types of uses or various type of housing types and this is going to fit within those various types of housing types. Okay. They could come in with just numbers and identify how many people they may have at a given time and how many people they would be renting at a given time, but we don't hold them to that because it's, it's going to fluctuate based on that, on the dynamics of what they're doing.

Okay. And that's, and that's all part of the development plan approval process and as you mentioned, so what we do have the option of doing, so development plan will go to Planning Commission. It does not by default come to us. However, the governing body does have the ability to basically yank something up and and hear it de novo.

Mayor, Council, Councilor Cassid, that is correct. I've only had it done to me once. The process was about you have 30 days to vote and the council has to vote to pull up that development plan. If the, if the vote allows for them to pull it up, then we go through a regular notice process for a regular hearing except it goes to the governing body. So we have the 15-day notice requirement, every, it does the same thing.

The only difference is that you have to vote to pull it up in order for us to move it forward. Okay. Great. Thank you. I just wanted to, again, land use gets so fascinating because we're all very passionate about it. Obviously, it's a really important topic, but really understanding what we're voting on, who's voting on what in the future, and what we have potentially the choice to vote on. But tonight, it's really this approval criteria for this reasoning. It covered every concern I had. Whoever is not muted, could you mute? Thanks.

I lost my train of thought. I've been in these council chambers for way too long. Authority, right? Who has authority? What are we, and what do we have authority over tonight? That is all. I don't have the ability to speak anymore. So, thank you. Thank you very much. I thought that was very clear the way you described it.

Councilor Lee Garcia, sir, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor. I think a lot of my questions were discussed under the questioning of my counselors here. I think really the bottom line is that we can, I think this seems to be justified in regards to what is in our purview to do based upon the general plan. I guess really the biggest thing that comes across my mind when we're building on, somebody alluded to a 60% increase. Is that really what it is? 60%? They said 52 is where they're at now. The applicants are identifying that a 60% increase is what they're asking for. Yeah, I guess you won't know until you actually get it done. So, I really don't have any other questions. I think everything that was asked was clarified for me. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor. I think you had another question you wanted to raise.

Yes, sir. I just had a couple, and really it's this frame of general public and benefit, right? I think that there is a little wiggle room, but I appreciate that we're talking about the entire city and not just the neighborhood. I think that there is sort of a give and take here between the immediate concerns of the neighbors and the general public getting a benefit from the program. I think there is also some wiggle room and discussion we should have in a general sense around the general plan and why we chose to sort of talk about density. I think there is sort of an underlying sense that we do have a housing crisis and we want more long-term residential, but there is this sort of gradation and different pockets that we need to fill, and I completely understand. So it is a little bit subjective in terms of some of these specifics, but I do understand that we do have a very specific question in front of us of rezoning, and that currently the use seems similar for the questions. Thank you.

Councilor Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don't know if this would be for you or for the City Attorney, Mr. Rescue Bell, but this is a Planning Commission question. So, we have nine members. There are nine spots on the Planning Commission. According to the minutes of the meeting, there were three members that voted for this and three members that were absent. One would think that you need to constitute a quorum to vote on any matter, which would mean that there would need to be at least five members present to vote on a matter. I mean, I know that in the instance here of the governing body, there's got to be five of us present, and if there's only five of us and one of us walks out of the room, we can't do anything. Our hands are tied. So what are the laws around the Planning Commission quorum requirements and the number of Planning Commission members that are required to vote on a specific issue? Because when you only have 33% of the members present, that's not necessarily the majority of the body, and I then get into the questions of, is a quorum even met?

Mayor: Councilor, I'd have to look to see how many members we actually had because we do have some positions that weren't filled, which means that the majority of who were there, even if we had some that were absent, would still reduce the amount of people in order to make that quorum. So if you have nine members, but you only got seven members because you have several vacancies, then that seven-member, the majority of that seven-member, is only going to be four as opposed to the five needed for a nine-member committee. So we do look at that quorum capacity. We make sure that we have a quorum for every meeting that we have before we proceed forward with any recommendation or vote by the Planning Commission. So in this instance, three members might constitute a quorum.

Well, the chair doesn't vote unless the chair... So I'm the chair, would still, in this particular case...

Mayor Weber: Counselors, I think we might be missing voting votes and quorum. So five, a majority of five would be three, and five is a quorum of nine. So you could have three votes in the affirmative and either two or one against it out of five if the chair didn't vote.

Councilor Garcia: So for clarification, there were three members that voted for this. Zero that voted none. There were only three members in total that partook in this discussion. That's what it says here in the record for Member Thomas T.J. Regent Greenland, Member Gus Bond Morando, and Member Piper Capen. Against none. Not present: Claire Chow, recused Vice Chair Jessica Eaton Lawrence, Member Sasha McGee. And so again, three members present, three members absent. Nobody voted against. So again, I've got some concern around quorum being met, and because again, in the instance, I'm looking at it from the perspective of the governing body. This is where I'm asking for the rules and requirements around this specific body, and I know this pertains to a lot of the committees I'm on. You have to ensure that there is a quorum available to vote on a particular matter. So in the instance, if there were five of us present and one of us had to recuse, you wouldn't have a majority of the body to vote on a matter, and I think that's what I'm getting to here is we need to ensure that there were the legal requirements of quorum met, and does three constitute a quorum being met? 33% of the required membership. It's not the number of members appointed, it's the number of members a part of the whole body. And this has been an issue with several of our boards. You know, for example, the Public Safety Board. There are not enough members present to even constitute a quorum to even meet. And you have to meet that level of quorum just to even meet. And it doesn't matter how many members are appointed. It's a member, how many, it's taken off of the number. It should be taken off the number of slots there are in general because then you're creating a process where there is a very minority that can make major decisions. In this instance, three people are making a major decision. Three out of a potential nine. And I think this is where I want to ensure that everything that went in this particular case is legal regarding the quorum matters.

I think they're doing some rapid research. Councilor, hang on a sec.

And I can defer. That was the only question I had. I just, it struck me as I was reading these minutes from this meeting.

I can just, when I recall the Planning Commission makeup, if you don't have nine members, your quorum is based on how many members you have that are appointed total.

Let's wait, hang on a sec. I think it's interesting that I think what we need is the, while they're looking it up, I think we can debate because I mean, that would, there would be no justification then for a full body to ever be appointed, right? Because then there's nine members, you could appoint two people and your quorum is one person, and I think that is the foundation, is the number of members that are should be filling the body, and you have to have at least 50% plus one to meet quorum unless it's justified. Sometimes there's even more folks that are met, and you have to ensure that that quorum is part of the vote. I mean, if you even look at the Ethics and Campaign Review Board, the quandary they were in because they didn't have enough members that were able to participate in a vote because they continued to not meet quorum because members had to continue to recuse themselves. And I want to make sure again, these decisions that are being made by a very minority are legal.

Okay, let's, Councilor, I know we looked at the numbers on this one because two members did have to recuse themselves in this matter. So I know that that was a question that was looked at at that time, and then it would be, it would depend on the rules of the body how we would determine quorum. So we do have, there's a little bit of variation between different committees and boards. Yes, sir. Have you got any?

Yeah, thanks to our incredible clerk, she was able to look up the YouTube video. We, there were five members present. So that means that the error occurred on the minutes. We probably just overlooked it. So, if I were to go back to the YouTube video, you would see five people voting for this record, for this item, because if I'm, I'm, I'm, two, three recused, Claire Chow, Vice Chair Jessica Eaton Lawrence, Member Sasha McGee, and I'm just going to go back and look at more folks. You know, you've got in the previous vote, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven folks in that vote. Philip, Mr. Peter, Member Peter Smith is not counted in this vote. And even if Mr. Peter Smith was added to this, that's only four of the nine, which would not constitute quorum.

I guess I have a point of order, Mayor. The quorum issue is not really in front of us. I mean, if there's an issue with this, then somebody can challenge it based on the quorum, I would think. I'm not sure that the quorum is relevant to what we're doing. I mean, I understand that it needs an answer and it's an interesting point, but I don't know what it has to do with where we are right now. I guess I'd be interested to hear its relevancy to this from the City Attorney.

Counselors, so they're a recommending body to you. So it is a step contemplated whether or not you could skip it or not. I have not looked into that. I don't know if Rebecca, have you looked at that if that's possible? I mean, hang on a sec. Hang on a sec. But it is not, it's not a question in front of you, but typically you would get a recommendation from a valid body, right? So that is what we would want. But I, so City Clerk was looking at the video that did have five people sitting there. There was Chair Janet Clow, Vice President Jessica Eaton Lawrence. She's looking at, oh no. Okay. Never mind. I'll let her speak.

So the point I think that Councilor Garcia is making is not whether there were five people there, but how you do the math around the number of people who voted among those who were present. And you had something to help us make sense out of that.

I was just going to tell you who the, Mayor, Councilor Garcia, I was going to tell you that there were five members present. I was going to look at the minutes to see which one this was.

I can read those for you, Madame Clerk. Members present: Chair Janet Clow, Member Krushban Morando, Member Peter Smith, Member Thomas T.J. Reland, Member Piper Capen. Excused: Member Sasha McGee, Member Jessica Lawrence.

Right. So, Mayor Weber, Councilor, if the five folks had a vote and three were in favor, that's a valid recommendation in favor. I don't know if that's what happened. I haven't seen the minutes on that part, and I was not there.

But to further clarify, there were only three that heard the item.

There were not five people that voted against or abstained. There were only three that partook in a vote and actually participated in discussion. And the way I look at it is if there were only five governing body members that showed up to the beginning of the meeting, and if two of us walked out, that would cease the meeting at that moment. There would be no further action being able to be taken because quorum was lost. So, Mayor, Counselor, we do need to look at whether or not they... So, did they... I don't know if they started with having nine members or not, and whether or not a majority of the seven. Okay. So, I'm hearing that they did not have nine at that time. So, we would need to look at their rules on that. Yeah. Seems like we need to postpone. We don't have the answers tonight. We're not going to get them. Marble Counselors, I know we looked at this issue at the time, and I can see if I have an email about it, but I don't have the information for me right at this. I think we need to postpone. I'd move to postpone.

Second.

There's a motion on the floor to postpone while we work out this challenge about whether or not the Planning Commission had a quorum at the time the vote was taken. Is there any discussion about postponing this to... postponing it till what, Counselor?

To a date certain. When would you propose we postpone it to? The next... I mean, our next meeting is May 14th. She's... the City Clerk is giving us a headshake. Which direction? Yes or no? Negative direction. Oh, no. Our next meeting is the third. No, today's the 30th. Was the 30th. Today is May 1st. Yes. Happy May Day, everyone. Happy May Day. Okay, let's hold it together. All right.

Mayor, Counselor Romero Worth, the next meeting is May 14th, but that is also the budget resolution meeting. So, we're going to have a lot of work. We may have to... Well, we don't have the information we need tonight, and I don't think we're going to get it at 12:05. So, postpone a special meeting. Dan, what's your thought on this matter?

Well, my question here is we did find that Peter Smith was on Zoom, so it was just an error in the minutes. But if this is to be postponed, would this just be for the vote only in order to help with the budget, or would this be more of a discussion?

Mayor, Counselor, do you need to say whether or not the public hearing is closed or not?

Good point. We were still going around with questions, which is how we got the question raised by Counselor Garcia. We had not yet completed the opportunity for governing body members to raise whatever questions they want. It's at the end of that process is when we close the public hearing and entertain a motion.

Yeah. Counselor Garrison, I know we have the quandary right now of the quorum, but I think we also need to look into the issue of if there was not a quorum, how does that invalidate the proposal in front of us? Because that's major. If there was not a quorum, and if it was not a legal vote, that means there's nothing for us to even consider at the moment. And I think we need to determine that legal route as well while we're postponing and figuring out all this information.

Counselor, I think we're postponing to answer that question.

Well, I think the two are... the two are wrapped together. If the quorum wasn't met, then we have a second issue, which is now... I completely agree, but my colleague, one of my colleagues on the council, was saying that's not what we're deciding tonight. Well, it is because we are deciding the proposal in front of us. So, I just wanted to clarify that. Okay. Yeah. And I got an answer to that. Thank you.

So, we actually are stuck without an answer to that question right now. And I think as much as we'd like to have a definitive answer in front of us, nobody has that. Although Aaron, the City Attorney, is suggesting there was an effort to resolve this prior to bringing it forward, but we don't have the definitive answer. Yes, sir.

Council, my suggestion is we will research that item. If you postpone to a date certain, we will research that item and make sure that the element in question is answered. If it turns out to be that the quorum was deficient, then we will advise the applicant they're going to have to go back to the Planning Commission and redo that vote before they can come back to the governing body. If there was a quorum and the vote was sufficient, then you've already set that date for the governing body to continue this process.

I think that's right. I think that's exactly what we need to do as a process. Madam, did you pick a day? I assume that we're very close to completing the public hearing. I'm not ready to close it because the question that has been raised really means we have to prolong the public hearing to get the answer on the record. So, we won't close the public hearing, and the record should indicate that if we hit the pause button tonight and move it to another date, we have not closed the public hearing. We'll be able to reopen to that point when we resume. But I feel as if we're close to completing the questions that needed to be raised, separate and apart from this question about the quorum and the legitimacy of the vote.

Yes, Mayor. There are two dates, so it could be May 14th or May 28th.

Let's aim for the 14th and hope for the best. Can you please call the roll on the motion to postpone this to this? Did I get a second?

Yes, you did.

Okay. Counselor Romero, yes. Counselor Cassett, yes. Counselor Castro. Counselor Chavez, yes. Counselor Faulkner, yes. Counselor Lee Garcia, yes. Counselor Michael Garcia, yes. Counselor Lindell, yes. Mayor Weber, yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. I'm sorry we hit this snag, but we do have to get our ducks in a row before we vote on something that may not really be a forest manner that meets the procedural requirements. Apologies. Madam Clerk, let's plunge forward.

Item 21B, Appeal Number 2025-9812-APL of Case Number 2024-9478-HDRB. Property owner Miriam Leth Epstein and agent Stephanie Benonato appeal the Historic District's Review Board December 10th, 2024 decision denying a request for exception to exceed a 4-foot 6-inch maximum allowed height by 1 foot and 2 inches for a fence in front of a contributing house in the Downtown and East Side Historic and Business Capital Districts.

Move to postpone to May 28th.

Second.

There's a motion to postpone this appeal to the 28th of May. The Mayor, Counselor Meworth, the request was to postpone to June 11th on that case.

Move to postpone to June 11th.

Second.

There's a motion and a second. Call the roll on that postponement. Counselor Cassett. Yes. Counselor Castro. Counselor Chavez. Yes. Counselor Faulkner. Yes. Yes. Counselor Michael Garcia. Yes. Counselor Lindell, yes. Counselor Romero, yes. Mayor Weber, yes. Motion is approved.

I'd like to suggest we take up the appointments right now and just get them out of the way. We could move the agenda.

Move to make the appointments the next order of business.

Call the roll on that amendment to the agenda, please. Madam Clerk. Counselor Castro. Yes. Counselor Chavez. Yes. Counselor Faulkner. Counselor Lee Garcia. Yes. Counselor Michael Garcia. Yes. Counselor Lindell. Yes. Counselor Maroworth. Yes. Counselor Cassett. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved.

Great. With that, Madam Clerk, can you take us to 22A?

22A. Appointment of Pro Tem Judge David Thomas.

Move to approve.

Second.

Motion has been made to approve the appointment and a second. Is there discussion? Please call the roll. Counselor Chavez, yes. Counselor Faulkner. Counselor Lee Garcia, yes. Counselor Michael Garcia, yes. Counselor Lindell, yes. Counselor Romero Worth, yes. Counselor Cassett, yes. Counselor Castro, yes. Mayor Weber, yes. Motion is approved.

Thank you. And the next item is B. 22B. Arts Commission. Heidi Brandau, appointment filling an unexpired term ending 10/2026. Aaron de D. Rosa, appointment filling an unexpired term ending 10/2026. Hardnan Gomez, appointment term ending 10/2026. Karina Hen, appointment term ending 10/2026. And Myra Ulivad Vi, appointment term ending 10/2026. Move to approve.

Second the motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Please call the roll. Counselor Faulkner. Yes. Counselor Lee Garcia. Yes. Counselor Michael Garcia. Yes. Counselor Lindell. Yes. Counselor Romero Worth. Yes. Counselor Cassett. Yes. Counselor Castro. Yes. Counselor Chavez, yes. Mayor Weber, yes. Motion is approved.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Let's revert to our regular order of business. We are returning to item, I think it's 13, matters from the City Attorney.

Thank you, Mayor Weber. Councilors, just one quick announcement before I make a recommendation to go into executive session, and that is that we had the opportunity to join an amicus brief with over a hundred other local governments challenging the legality of President Trump's executive order called "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." That's the birthright case that's going to the U.S. Supreme Court. We had to file that amicus by yesterday, so we had to join by Monday. I will be sending out that brief, which I just got the filed version of the brief. And so that's the consolidation of three cases seeking a nationwide injunction on that executive order. And then with that, I'd like to recommend that we go into executive session in accordance with Open Meetings Act Section 10-15-1, Subpart H7, for attorney-client privilege discussion of pending and threatened litigation, quarterly litigation update, including but not limited to in the matter of the State of Dorothy Stevens Hill et al. versus City of Santa Fe, Education Retirement Board versus City of Santa Fe, Thrown et al. versus City of Santa Fe, and Amosi and the City and County of San Francisco versus Trump.

I move that we enter into executive session pursuant to the Open Meetings Act 10-15-1H, Subpart 7, for discussion of threatened and pending litigation in which the governing body is or may become a participant.

Second.

There's a motion and a second to go into executive session. Madam Clerk, call the roll. Counselor Lee Garcia, yes. Michael Garcia, yes. Counselor Lindell, yes. Counselor Romero, yes. Counselor Cassett, yes. Counselor Castro, yes. Counselor Chavez, yes. Counselor Faulkner, Mayor Weber, yes. Motion is approved.

Very good. We will move into the council meeting room. Thank you, everybody. Oh, my executive session. How slow I am.