Regular Governing Body Meeting - Last Wednesday Wed, Jul 30, 2025 · Governing Body https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/274 == Executive Summary == The City Council meeting began with a solemn remembrance for Maria Sanchez, wife of Councilor Lindell, setting a reflective tone. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to a proposed charter amendment that would require City Council consent for the Mayor to remove a City Manager, City Attorney, or City Clerk, except during the first 180 days of a new mayoral term. This proposal sparked extensive debate among councilors regarding the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, the process for charter amendments, and the need for a comprehensive Charter Review Commission. Ultimately, the resolution to place this amendment on the ballot passed with a 7-1 vote, meaning voters will decide on the change. Another major theme was the ongoing frustration of city employees, particularly union members, regarding stalled contract negotiations, stagnant wages, and perceived disrespect from management. Numerous employees from various departments, including Parks, Water, and Libraries, spoke during public comment, highlighting staffing shortages, the inability to afford living in Santa Fe, and the critical need for fair compensation and benefits. The council also addressed several operational contracts, including a contentious one for wastewater operators, which was ultimately postponed to gather more information. The meeting concluded with a lengthy discussion and eventual denial of an appeal for a non-conforming fence in a historic district, underscoring the city's commitment to its zoning and historic preservation codes. == Key Decisions == - Amended agenda approved unanimously. - Amended consent agenda approved 7-0 (one councilor briefly absent). - Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Santa Fe County for 2025 local election and public campaign financing approved 6-0 (one councilor recused, one briefly absent). - Resolution to place a charter amendment on the November 2025 ballot (requiring six councilors to suspend or remove the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk) passed 7-1. - Motion to remove City Attorney and City Manager (but not City Clerk) from council oversight passed. - Motion to table General Services Agreement with Southwest Waterworks LLC passed unanimously. - Professional Services Agreement with HI Inc. for telecommunications approved 7-0. - Amendment to contract with Santa Fe Animal Shelter and Humane Society, Inc. approved unanimously. - Professional Services Contract with FII National DBA UpTogether for Guaranteed Income Cash Assistance Program approved unanimously. - Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Cyber Pathway, Inc. approved unanimously (9-0). - Disposal of three police vehicles to Milan and Truth or Consequences Police Departments approved unanimously (9-0). - Purchase of 20 new police vehicles approved unanimously (9-0). - Motion to remove Item 10A (Wastewater Contractor) from the table passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to postpone Item 10A (Wastewater Contractor) to the next council meeting (August 13th) passed unanimously (7-0). - Motion to enter Executive Session passed unanimously (7-0). - Motion to return to Regular Session passed unanimously (9-0). - Reappointments of Angela Bordigary and Ben Pingilly to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee approved. - Motion to deny the appeal for the non-conforming fence at 614 Paseo de Peralta passed 8-1. == Motions & Votes == - Agenda Approval — Passed unanimously - Consent Agenda Approval — Passed 7-0 - MOA with Santa Fe County — Passed 6-0 - Motion to 'Call the Question' (End Debate) on a previous motion — Passed 7-1 - Vote on a previous motion (to approve a resolution, likely related to charter amendments) — Failed 4-5 - Motion to Call the Question (end debate and proceed to a vote) on Charter Amendment Resolution — Passed 8-0 - Resolution to place the charter amendment on the ballot (requiring six councilors to suspend or remove City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk) — Passed 7-1 - Motion to remove City Attorney and City Manager (but not City Clerk) from council oversight — Passed - Motion to table General Services Agreement with Southwest Waterworks LLC — Passed unanimously - Motion to approve Professional Services Agreement with HI Inc. (Item 10B) — Passed 7-0 - Motion to approve Amendment Number One to contract with Santa Fe Animal Shelter and Humane Society, Inc. (Item 10C) — Passed unanimously - Motion to approve Professional Services Contract with FII National DBA UpTogether (Item 10D) — Passed unanimously - Cyber Pathway, Inc. Amendment — Approved unanimously (9-0) - Disposal of Fleet Vehicles — Approved unanimously (9-0) - Purchase of New Police Vehicles — Approved unanimously (9-0) - Motion to remove Item 10A (Wastewater Contractor) from the table — Approved unanimously (8-0) - Motion to table the discussion and vote on the contract for specialized staff (Wastewater Contractor) — Passed 8-0 - Motion to Amend Agenda to move public petitions from the floor earlier — Passed 8-0 - Motion to Extend Public Comment Time from two minutes to four minutes per person — Failed 3-6 - Motion to Remove Item 10A from the Table — Passed unanimously (7-0) - Motion to Postpone Item 10A to the Next Council Meeting (August 13th) — Passed unanimously (7-0) - Motion to Enter Executive Session — Passed unanimously (7-0) - Motion to Return to Regular Session — Passed unanimously (9-0) - Motion to suspend rules to continue past 11:30 PM to complete the hearing (fence appeal) — Passed 5-1 - Motion to approve the reappointments of Angela Bordigary and Ben Pingilly to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee — Passed - Motion to deny the appeal for the non-conforming fence at 614 Paseo de Peralta — Passed 8-1 == Public Comment == The public comment period was extensive and emotionally charged. Many city employees, particularly union members from AFSCME Local 3999, expressed deep frustration over stalled contract negotiations (ongoing for five years), stagnant wages, and a perceived lack of respect from city management. They highlighted issues like inadequate uniform allowances, the city's attempt to eliminate the union-managed sick leave bank, and the failure to implement a class and compensation study. Employees from Parks, Water, and Libraries spoke about staffing shortages, the inability to afford living in Santa Fe, and the critical risk to essential services due to uncompetitive salaries. Several residents also spoke on other issues. Some advocated for updating and enforcing the short-term rental ordinance to address housing availability and affordability, citing negative impacts on neighborhoods. Others, primarily from the Los Alamos Study Group, urged the city to reaffirm its opposition to plutonium pit production at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), expressing concerns about nuclear weapons and LANL's proposed expansion in Santa Fe. There were also strong condemnations of US foreign policy and Israeli actions in Gaza, with speakers calling for a vision of peace. == Topics == - Fence Appeal Denial - Mayoral Power Amendment - Loss and Grieving - Agenda Approval - Consent Agenda Approval - Meeting Opening Procedures - Roll Call and Quorum - Public Campaign Financing MOA - Councilor Recusal - Historic District Code == Full Transcript == All right. Thank you, everybody. Thanks also for pitching in with our guest from Suyama. That's really good stuff. Let me call the meeting to order. It's 5:10 on my clock. This is a regular meeting of the governing body. We'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilor Cassutt, the salute to the New Mexico flag led by Councilor Lindell, and then invocation and remembrances that Councilor Romero-Wirth will lead us in. Please rise if you would. Good evening, everyone. I want to focus tonight on loss and grieving. I want to honor Councilor Lindell and the significant loss that she experienced in recent days. And I have a couple of readings. One by Robert Frost called "Nothing Gold Can Stay." Nature's first green is gold, Her hardest hue to hold. Her early leaf's a flower; But only so an hour. Then leaf subsides to leaf. So Eden sank to grief, So dawn goes down to day. Nothing gold can stay. On a lighter note, because it is Councilor Lindell that I'm honoring, acknowledging, she's always quick with a quip. And so I looked up this little ditty: "Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened." And that, I guess, is often attributed to Dr. Seuss. Turns out that isn't a Dr. Seuss. It's a German poet named Ludwig Jacobowski, something like that. I'll leave that to others to help correct me. But I do want to remember Maria Sanchez, Sig's wife of 28 years. She was born to Maximiliano and Helen Ellis Sanchez on November 18th, 1943. She graduated from St. Vincent's Academy in Albuquerque and completed a BA from the University of Nebraska. She attended the University of New Mexico as a stewardess for TWA based in San Francisco. She traveled the world as a high school teacher. She devoted herself to helping her students build a better life. As a model, she turned heads. And as a top-notch realtor, she helped families build a future. Maria also was active in the community and served on many nonprofit boards. She was survived by Councilor Lindell, siblings Max Sanchez and Karen Sanchez, and Kathy Pierce, daughter Anne Nikken, I hope I pronounced that right, her husband Scott, a son, Dante, and two grandchildren. I just want to acknowledge your loss, Councilor Lindell. I always enjoyed Maria whenever we would meet. You guys were quite the pair. And I'm really sorry, and I think it's really unbelievable that you're here tonight, and I want to give you all the support in the world. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Other comments? I certainly want to share my thoughts about Maria and Sig. I had the great honor of presiding at their wedding, which was a real honor. And I think it's a reminder that when one of us is hurting, all of us are hurting. And we also share in that sentiment that it's not the keeping, it's having had that makes all the difference in the world, and the strength of the memories and the love that you and Maria bring and brought to all of us, and you still do because you're indomitable. I was talking to Sig a day or so ago, and she was reflecting on a photo of the two of them, and her own take on it was Maria looked like she had just walked off the French Riviera, and Sig looked like she was about to work the second shift at a dive bar. And you can't do much better than that as a couple in terms of spanning the life we live here in Santa Fe and New Mexico, and the joy you brought to all of us and do still. And Maria will live with all of us forever. She's not really gone. She's here in our hearts and in our memories, and apparently even still in your house. So, know that you're loved. Know that she was loved, and that you are surrounded by people who care about you and who cared about Maria and want you to know that we're with you every step of the way. Councilor Lindell: So, I want to thank everyone. I felt incredibly supported, and I had the pleasure of keeping the fun jar topped up for 28 years with Maria. And I would wish for anyone the way that I felt. I will just say that Maria still took my breath away. Thanks. Mayor: Let's take a minute, not only for Maria, but for all those in our community who are dealing with loss, dealing with hardship, dealing with hard times. And whether it's a matter of health or simple well-being across any number of possible ways to be struggling, know that this community has a heart and we care. So let's take a minute, think about that theme of loss and grieving and how we do it together as a community, and it makes us stronger as a community. Thanks, everybody. Madam Clerk, can I call upon you to call the roll? Clerk: Certainly. Mayor, Councilor Cassutt? Councilor Cassutt: Here. Clerk: Castro? Councilor Castro: Presente. Clerk: Councilor Chavez. Councilor Faulkner? Councilor Faulkner: Here. Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia? Councilor Lee Garcia: Here. Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia? Councilor Michael Garcia: Present. Clerk: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Lindell: Here. Clerk: Councilor Romero-Wirth? Councilor Romero-Wirth: Present. Clerk: Mayor Weber? Mayor Weber: Present. Clerk: Mayor, you have a quorum. Mayor: Thank you. Are there any changes to the agenda, Madam Clerk? Clerk: Yes, Mayor. There are. Item 21B is going to be removed by staff. Mayor: Okay. Councilor: Move to approve as amended. Councilor: Second. Mayor: There's a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Is there any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Councilors: Aye. Mayor: Opposed. That motion carries. Madam Clerk, what has transpired with the consent agenda? Clerk: Okay, Mayor. Item 9Q was removed by Councilors Castro and Cassutt, and item 9R was removed by Councilor Castro. Mayor: Okay. Councilor: Mr. Mayor? Mayor: Yes, sir. Councilor: And I'd like to remove item N just for a simple matter of recusal. So staff is not needed for that one. Mayor: N as in Norman or M as in Michael? Councilor: N as in Norman. Mayor: Thank you, sir. So can we get a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended? Councilor: Moved. Councilor: Second. Mayor: Very good. Please call the roll on that. Clerk: Certainly. Mayor, Councilor Cassutt? Councilor Cassutt: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Castro? Councilor Castro: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Chavez. Councilor Faulkner? Councilor Faulkner: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia? Clerk: He briefly stepped out. Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia? Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Lindell: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Romero-Wirth? Councilor Romero-Wirth: Yes. Clerk: Mayor Weber? Mayor Weber: Yes. Clerk: Motion passed. Mayor: Thank you. Madam Clerk, we have no presentations. So take us to the next item on the agenda if you would. Clerk: That would be 9. It's a request for approval of a memorandum of agreement with Santa Fe County outlining the city and county's responsibilities for the November 4th, 2025 regular local election as it relates to municipal candidates seeking public campaign financing. Mayor: Councilor Garcia, you wanted to take that on? Councilor Garcia: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to recuse myself from this item as I am a mayoral candidate that is seeking public campaign financing. So I'd like to recuse myself of this matter. Mayor: Good. We'll let you step out and then we'll come find you. While Councilor steps out, can I? Councilor: Move to approve. Mayor: There's a motion. And there's a second. Is there any discussion on this item regarding the memorandum of agreement? I see no hands. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll, recognizing that one councilor is recused and the other has not yet stepped back? Clerk: Sir. Mayor, Councilor Castro? Councilor Castro: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Chavez. Councilor Faulkner? Councilor Faulkner: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Lindell: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Romero-Wirth? Councilor Romero-Wirth: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Cassutt? Councilor Cassutt: Yes. Clerk: Mayor Weber? Mayor Weber: Yes. Clerk: Motion passed. Mayor: Councilor Garcia, can you indicate to your colleague that he can come back in anytime? And while we do that, Madam Clerk, you could read the next item on the agenda that's been taken off of consent. Clerk: That would be 9Q, consideration of a resolution sponsored by Councilor Pilar Faulkner, Councilor Lee Garcia, and Councilor Amanda Chavez. It's a resolution proposing a ballot question to be submitted to the city of Santa Fe voters during the November 4th, 2025 regular local election regarding amending the city's charter to require governing body's consent before a mayor can remove a city manager, city attorney, or city clerk, except during the first 180 days of a mayor's term. Mayor: Very good. Is there a motion on this item? Councilor: Motion to approve. Councilor: Second. Mayor: There's a motion to approve and there is a second. I think I don't know. I know this has gone through the committee process. I don't know if we want to take turns, if there's more to be said. Whether we want to go down the list and have everybody have an opportunity to have a 10-minute speech or question period. I'm open to that. Councilor: Start with the sponsors. Mayor: Very good. Okay. Councilor Faulkner, you are listed first on the agenda on the list of sponsors. Councilor Faulkner: Again, like we've said in committee, I think that when we contemplated a strong mayor, we didn't exactly look at how the council would balance a strong mayor. And this isn't about individuals. This is about striking a balance between the legislative and what is forming up to be the executive. And so what it really is, is just like putting some things in balance so that these positions, which do serve the council and the mayor, are so the council has a little bit of checks and balances until we can do a more thorough review of the relationship between the council and a strong mayor. Mayor: Next sponsor on the list is Councilor Lee Garcia. Councilor Lee Garcia: Thank you, Mayor. My colleague pretty much summed it up appropriately. I think that it's really important to understand that what we are trying to achieve here is giving a recommendation to the voters and ultimately let the voters decide come November. And so as long as we keep that in mind, that's really what I have to say about item. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor: Thank you. And Councilor Chavez. Councilor Chavez: Thank you, Mayor. I think both Councilor Faulkner and Councilor Lee Garcia summed it up. I think at this point there's been a lot of discussion. There's been amendments. I feel like, you know, I'm hoping that we could take it so that it becomes the voice of the voters who decide the next step. So that's what I hope we end with tonight. Mayor: Thank you. And Councilor Michael Garcia, sir, you're also listed as a sponsor. Give you a chance if you want. Councilor Michael Garcia: That was an error, Mr. Mayor. That was an... Mayor: It's the amendment part. Got it. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, those are the sponsors. I think Councilor Romero-Wirth, you want the floor? And I think we should keep a clock and make sure we keep within the bounds of time so that we don't end up simply dragging this out. I think there's been a lot of committee work done already. Councilor Romero-Wirth: Thank you, Mayor. And I don't I doubt I'll need 10 minutes. I just wanted to speak to this briefly. I don't support this because I think when you're talking about balance of power issues, while there's nothing wrong with councilors bringing forth charter amendments, I don't think this type of amendment should be brought forward as a one-off. And I think the last time we convened the Charter Review Commission, we actually asked them to look at this topic, and I think they came back telling us they didn't have enough time. They had some ideas. They weren't completely thought through, and some of that was because they said they didn't have enough time. And so I think as a result, there were changes made that, you know, give them more time, give them more resources to really dive into these kinds of issues. And I think these are important enough. This is our constitution for the city, and I think we should take the time to look at these in context and holistically, and not adopt them as one-offs. Anything, in my opinion, we put in front of the voter should be well vetted by the community members that make up the commission, the Charter Review Commission. They should be well-researched. There should be time for public engagement. We haven't had any. I'm not even sure the public knows what we're doing here, even though this has spent time in committee and we have had amendments, and we certainly have had debate about it. But I don't think it has benefited from the full scope of the process that we have laid out for this type of thing, and I think it's important enough that it be given that kind of time. So, rather than talk about the merits or demerits, I would like to focus on the fact that I think this needed to be in front of a Charter Review Commission and given a full going over, and I think it needed to be looked at in terms of the whole governance system. So, that's nothing new to any of the councilors. I've said that at every stop where I've had that opportunity, but I say it again tonight. And so, I don't support this. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor: Thank you. While we're just looking to my left, Councilor Cassid, did you want to speak to this? And Councilor Castro, you were one of the people who took it off of consent, so I'll come to you next. Councilor Cassid: Yes, thank you, Mayor. So, again, there's been a lot of robust discussion around this and the next one that we will discuss in committee. I do agree that a larger process to look at the balance of powers needs to occur. Councilor Faulkner and I will be working on that resolution to discuss bringing forward a Charter Review Commission to really look at the balance of powers and take that time and that energy. We do have a unique form of government, and there have been some changes that have been made. Ultimately, I came down split on these two. I am not in support of this one. And for me, what it really comes down to is that I may disagree with a mayor. I may really hate a mayor, but ultimately, at the end of the day, I want the city to work. And so, when I look at this team, understanding that this often is the mayor's team that are charged with carrying out the agenda that the community elected them to carry out, I want to make sure that they do have people that they are working well with, that they can collaborate with, that have the same values and goals. And if a mayor is not feeling that that is occurring, I would not want to see them continue to be forced to work with that team. I think that could be detrimental to the city as a whole, but also the everyday operations of the city. We know how crucial that city manager is. And that was my thinking there, that when I'm really coming down to it, my goal is that Santa Fe is a city that works both internally as an organization and then as a wider community. And for me, I did not feel that this would always be conducive to that. That being said, we'll get to the next one, and I can we can have that conversation there. But yeah, that's simply why I pulled is that I am not in agreement with this proposal. I think it would be interesting if there was a larger conversation about this one. I found this one to be a more complex idea in my brain than the one that we'll be following. So that was all. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you. And Councilor Castro, you were one of the people who took it off of consent. So, why don't you take the floor and use as much of a 10-minute time limit as you'd like. Councilor Castro: Thank you so much, Mayor. Thank you for the robust discussion here and also in committee. I want to echo a lot of the sentiments that some of the work that we are doing on the charter is very, very important, and although I think it's important also that we have this discussion with our community members, there are several ways that we can reach what I'm hearing is the intent of some of these amendments, which is the separation of powers. And we'll have an even more robust discussion later in the agenda on my idea of how we can separate those powers, and how voting on the governing body actually is one of those major powers. But in particular, I am looking at the Charter Review Commission from 2023, and some of those recommendations specifically are around the City Council. I don't see a lot of discussion around those three positions that we're discussing in these changes. And I am also thinking about, as someone who has worked around constructive firings, that in particular this amendment could put somebody in a position where they are working with a boss that is fairly hostile towards them, and we might be putting them in a position where they have to resign, and that was one of my hesitations. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you. Councilor Lindell, did you want to speak on this at all? No. I don't want to belabor the point. I think this has worked its way through the process, and folks know pretty well how they feel. I do want to go on the record as saying that I really don't believe that this is a process in terms of an amendment to our charter and in effect our city constitution that really represents the best of policy development and good government. I take the charter and its standing very seriously. I've become more and more familiar with it as issues have arisen that send us back to the charter to see what we actually say in our local constitution. And I don't believe we ought to amend it simply by a simple resolution without going through the proper process of developing good policy. That's why there is a Charter Commission. That's why when we're taking a hard look at hard problems, we ask for research to be done. I can't tell based on what I've been given to read whether there are other cities that have this same provision in their charter, whether there are cities that have versions of it that have been amended and made better, whether there is a body of work that demonstrates that this approach is successful, or whether it only works when it's coupled with other measures that address additional issues that bolster this proposal. We hear a lot about transparency and community engagement. I don't see any town hall meetings around this ballot measure as proposed. I have gotten exactly zero emails on it or against it, which tells me that it's currently more or less flying under the radar screen as far as the public is concerned. I don't know that there have been neighborhood meetings or meetings with different groups that involve themselves with good government, such as the League of Women Voters. There ought to be if this is a serious attempt to really re-evaluate the city's charter. So, it may be a really meaningful and substantive and valid proposal, but I don't think the process stands up to what good government requires. And I would hope that with this ballot measure and the other one on the agenda that we would take it under advisement and make it part of a larger scope of work to be done by a Charter Commission. We recently added to the ways in which a Charter Commission would do its work in the future with more resources and more time, and a chance to be really deeply involved in evaluating how to make sure that the City Council members are represented in the charter in a way that gives their responsibilities and their role the significance and the weight and the responsibilities that they deserve. But I share Councilor Marroworth's concern that one-off measures, no matter how well-intentioned, really don't represent the best way to develop public policy. So, I will not be able to support this measure on the basis of a process that I think doesn't really provide transparency, community engagement, deep research, and a substantive development that erases all questions as to what it will do to bring a better city government to Santa Fe. Councilor Garcia, we have our sponsor and an amender. Go ahead, Councilor. You haven't spoken. Councilor Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I find it quite ironic that we're now talking about process when we look back to the Charter Review recommendations back in 2023. And you know, I was the sole sponsor of a litany of recommendations. For those that might remember, we had to have the meeting in the Convention Center. I attended remotely, and it was a well-attended meeting, and the process was very similar to what we're undergoing right now. And so, I'm going to refer back to the report just so we can put the foundation of not only these two amendments or proposed amendments, but the third one that's going to be introduced later, because we have to remember when the Charter Review Commission convened us as a governing body, provided them with a whole list of topics that they were supposed to review. And part of it was whether the mayor should have a purely executive role rather than executive roles, and if so, what are the new rights and limitations, etc., and whether the roles of the mayor's counselor, city manager should be better defined and if how so. They did begin to look at this, and the recommendation that came forward, and I'm going to read from the report, says, "Provide for a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches as a city government." It was clear as day. I mean, it was clear to us as a governing body when we adopted that initial resolution that guided the Charter Review Commission in regards to what they should begin to explore, because I think we've heard loud and clear from our constituents that the current process is not working. That's not. And so, we needed to explore how we began to separate the powers between the executive and the legislative. And for folks that are tuning in that might not be aware, the mayor currently sits as an executive and a legislative, which means in different terms, I'll put it in the federal context, they sit as the president and as a senator and a House of Representatives member. Look at the state of New Mexico. I sit as the governor and as a member of the legislature. That's not good government, and I don't think, and I'm again, this is my opinion, that that is the ultimate intentions of when the voters voted to restructure the government. And so now our constituents are asking for that separation of power and accountability. And I think this particular measure in front of us speaks to that accountability measure where right now the mayor has the sole authority to hire and fire a city manager. The governing body as a whole, that's the council and the mayor, approves on consent the city manager. But if the City Council wants to remove the city manager, it takes six city councilors. It's a pretty tough lift. And so what happens then is you can have political interference come into play where a mayor can put political leverage on a city manager to solely follow the mayor's agenda. Now, that's not the role of the city manager. The city manager is to support the city as a whole. Yes, the city manager's supervisor is the mayor, but their job is to ensure that city government as a whole is operating effectively, efficiently, and ultimately supporting the residents. Now what happens in the instance, and this is why this proposal is coming forward, where the city manager begins to work more effectively with the City Council versus the city manager, I mean the city, the mayor, well the mayor could immediately remove that city manager without any type of intervention from the City Council. Now is that in the best interest of residents? I would say no. That might be in the best interest of the mayor but not the residents. And so what this proposal does is it allows for some protections to ensure that that critical role, the city manager role, is the, if not the most critical role in city government, given that they are the ultimate boss of everybody. I see a lot of folks here. I want to reiterate this time and time again. I hear from folks saying, "The mayor is my boss." The only people that get to say the mayor is my boss are the city manager, city clerk, and city attorney. All other city employees have a hierarchy that ends with the city manager as the ultimate boss. Now, what I don't want to see happen is where a city manager is heavily influenced politically by a mayor who can say, "Well, if you don't follow my agenda, I'm going to fire you." What this proposal does is it allows some protections to be in place where the mayor tries to have that leverage over a city manager. Then the City Council can intervene and override that recommendation or that proposal from the mayor. Now, with an amendment, we allowed for a transition to happen. And that's ultimately why I'm supporting this, because you have to ensure that there's a transition of power whenever there's a mayoral transition. That allows for six months for an incoming mayor to determine if the previous city manager is still on board, if they want to keep them, etc., or bring on somebody else. That's the right of the mayor that was duly elected by the people. So what this does is it actually, in my opinion, is a form of good government. It allows for a balance of powers, which the recommendations from the Charter Review Commission in 2023 stated. And I'll reiterate their recommendation again: provide for a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of city government. I yield the floor. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. And Councilor Chavez, you had your hand up, and Councilor Castro, you're next. Councilor Chavez: Thank you, Mayor. I agree with a lot of what Councilor Garcia just said. I also wanted to repeat what I said on Wednesday at Quality of Life, which is there are two things that are very disheartening that I hear. One is when I hear community members say that politics drives our city. The second thing that's disheartening is the fact that we are holding a relationship of two individuals, possibly four, right? City manager to mayor, city attorney to mayor, city clerk to mayor, over root cause analysis and data. Why should relationships be a priority over data? If we see our cities functioning a certain way, there should be an extra, or successfully, there should be a layer of accountability that could catch that and say, "No, this removal cannot occur because our employees are happy and we have excess as it is." It's very confusing to me that we keep discussing the importance of these two individuals. We keep using the example of city manager and mayor getting along in order for the city to run successfully. I have to disagree and say if two individuals getting along dictates the success of our city, that is a concern. Because in reality, if they are leaders and if they are leaders that are qualified to be in the role that they are in, what should be driving the success of the city is them using the needs, the data, the root cause of why we have the issues we have, and they should be focused on that alone to resolve them. So I think it shouldn't be about who gets along or who knows who, like we often discuss in Santa Fe, right? It's about who you know. But it should be about true numbers, true data, true progress that should drive the decisions and the positions of leaders that are in the city. That is what should drive it. If we have an extra layer of accountability, which in this would be the governing body, we have the opportunity to request that information to actually look deeper into numbers and it to not be a decision that's made by one individual. I had a hard time at Quality of Life, and I did get a little passionate about it because I am a leader. Leadership is what I'm very passionate about. And when you are able to look at the needs, the true number of the needs of the individuals you are serving, and you build a team around those needs, and the expectation to meet those needs is very, very clear, who gets along, relationships, and who you know are completely irrelevant. They just are. So I think this is absolutely necessary when the perception of our community is it is a politically driven system. When we are having these discussions at these committees that are really, there's a lot of emphasis, sorry, a lot of emphasis on people getting along or people having positive relationships in leadership positions. I have an issue with that because that should not dictate the direction of who's in the place that they're in. What should dictate that is the success they're having with the people that are doing the work. And if they're having success with the people doing the work, and if they're meeting the needs, and if progress is being made, that truly should only dictate whether someone stays in a position or not. So, I just wanted to stress that and be that voice to try to get us to what we should be focused on: are people in the positions they're in because they're doing the job and making progress? It really should have nothing to do with who they get along with. That should be the focus. And I think that having the extra level of accountability will allow us to ask for that measurement and make sure that we are making data-driven decisions and looking at the whole, which includes a lot of city staff and a lot of community members in this city, rather than it just being a decision of one. So, I think this is absolutely necessary and a positive thing that could potentially occur here in the city. Mayor: Thank you. Actually, Councilor Castro has asked for the floor. Councilor Castro: Thank you. Really quickly, I just want to refocus on at least my concerns with some of these amendments, in particular having to do with that 2023 Charter Commission report and also some of the best practices. So I am concerned a little bit about this being overarching. I am looking at G of that report under the powers under the mayor, and what it's, there are some simple changes that the report does suggest without council approval could have been stricken. I know that it's looking specifically at city manager and city attorney to the point that we're looking at personalities. I've heard some comments from this dais, in particular around things like personalities, individuals not being trusted. So even though we are doing things in a very systematic way, I feel like we do need to look at this a little deeper. We need to look at the recommendations that were driven by this commission, and yes, we need to take it to the voters when we are 100% sure that we are doing this the appropriate way and we're not going to have to come back and re-amend this charter later. And I know that we went through a process of amendments to change language so that we could try to have that foresight and try to anticipate some of these changes. Unfortunately, I just don't think that we're there quite yet. But I do strongly support the separation of power and allowing for city manager and city attorney to work more closely with the governing body. Under L in that same report, we are looking at taking the policies to City Council as opposed to programs and policies to City Council as opposed to the governing body. That would give us a lot more support. Striking O and recognizing the mayor as the head of the city government. There's a whole bunch of recommendations in here that could get us to that balance of powers. I think we owe it to our constituents and to our city to really look at this document deeply and to include them in the conversation. Thank you, Councilor. Any other comments? Oh, Councilor Garcia. Councilor Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to reiterate that should this pass, the next step would be that it goes before the voters of Santa Fe. And I've got full faith and confidence that the voters of Santa Fe will decide on a measure that they want their government to look like. We can propose anything we want, but at the end of the day, it's the residents that get to decide what their government looks like. So whether this passes doesn't mean it's going to take effect as law. I just want to reiterate that because there was some insinuation that if this passes, then it didn't get enough vetting, etc., etc. Well, the ultimate vetting is when voters go to the ballot box and ultimately vote such proposals like this up or down. Similar to the way that they voted a strong mayor. Similar to the way that they voted to say, "Yes, we need to give more time for a Charter Review Commission." Similar to the way they said, "We want to lower the threshold for initiative and referendum." I have full faith and confidence that if the voters like this, they'll support it. If they don't, they'll shoot it down because at the end of the day, this is their government. We're just placeholders here trying to do our best to act on behalf of our constituency. At the end of the day, the voters get to say what their government looks like. I'll yield the floor. Mayor: Thank you. Councilor Faulkner, come back to you now, and then Councilor Cassid will start. So, a lot of what I would want to say has already been said. I do feel like these measures aren't extraordinary in that they're not completely addressing the issue, but we do need time to address the issue, much like Councilor Cassid and I are trying to do in the next coming months. The part that's complicated for me is that we have a very strong mayor, right? And we're constantly talking about how do we protect the position of the mayor, but we're not really talking about the council and how the council weighs in on this discussion. Every conversation we've had, at least how I am hearing things, is like, "Well, no, you can't do that because of the power of the mayor." And to me, I'm thinking like there are eight councilors. We are actually more representative of the city in totality, and more intimately reflective of the city because we represent our districts first and then the city second. And there's no way any mayor could possibly have an intimate relationship with every single district. And so to me, it seems off that we would grant so much power to one person in the face of eight other people who represent the people of Santa Fe. And I can assure you, what's happening now, although there is good reason for what was trying to be created, the mistake we made as a city is that we did not contemplate if we gave so much power to one branch of the government, what other powers would we give to other branches to make a balance. There is no balance right now. And part of the reason that I sponsored this legislation and brought this forward was because the number one thing I hear from my constituents and constituents from other districts is there is an imbalance of power at the city right now. And again, it doesn't go to a person, it goes to a position. And what's fascinating to me is that we are constantly talking about how to protect the executive, but we're not really talking about how and where and when does the legislative branch of the city have the power to then make sure there's a balance. Like we look at our budget, the City Council doesn't see anything that I would call a budget, and we're working on it finally, but we don't see a budget. We see five items that are broad and non-descriptive, and there are no details. How can the council possibly have any kind of say in what the budget should or shouldn't be, approve it, shouldn't approve it, if we don't see what's happening in the budget? There are many places in the city where the executive is too strong and the council does not have any kind of checks and balances. And again, I want to reiterate, this is not about the people in these positions. It's about the power that's been given to these positions that is actually destructive to high-functioning democracy. And so that's kind of where I'm coming from. It just fascinates me. We represent our districts, and we say we care about a balance of powers, but then when it comes to making two decisions that are not huge decisions, we are saying no to those, and we want to take more time and more time and more time. And as a new councilor, one of the things that frustrates me is how much time do we have to take to make some of these decisions? Your gut instinct, if you're a common sense person, will tell you that what's happening now is not working for the people of Santa Fe. Councilor Cassie: Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I want to clarify something. Saying that people get along is not, "Oh, do they want to go get a beer together after committee?" I mean, it really has to do with, do they work well together? And people don't always work well together. Now, this is challenging because we do talk about wanting to take the politics out of positions. The fact of the matter is, this is a political body, and that's a tough balance to strike. It is a very hard balance to strike. And in fact, if the goal is that somebody should be able to come in and work with anybody that is qualified, then that 180 days should go because a new mayor, if they have a qualified attorney, manager, clerk, and position, they should be able to walk right in and be able to work with them. But the fact of the matter is that the voters vote for an agenda. And that clerk, that attorney, that manager, they may not agree with that agenda. There are individuals that will choose to leave the city based on the mayoral election because they do not agree with the new mayor's agenda. Now, that's just the reality of government, and it's a hard reality because it is one that we are constantly trying to deal with. How do we deal with the fact that we get voted in, we get voted in on a platform, we get voted in on an agenda, and then we have to manage how to make this work? I think we can all say that there's still a lot of room for how we adjust this. We have a very weird system with a mayor who is both an executive and on the legislative branch. That's a challenge. We currently have two councilors per district, so we can't just pull the mayor off because then we have an even number. We have a challenge there. Our city has grown since we set up this system. There are a lot of issues here, but I don't think that we can, I think it is not realistic to state that when a leader is elected, that their ability to work with the individuals who are in office, or who are there, and who are going to be able to help them move forward the agenda and the platform that they were elected on, that that is important. Now, here's the problem. Part of this is that I see this as a two-part question. And the next part's coming. And the next part for me is why I did want to vote in favor of the other one, which is I do think there should be a check. I do think that if there is one of these three positions that is not working, that and the majority of the governing body or the City Council is saying this is a problem, they should be able to come in and exert that power and say, "You know what, this isn't working for the city, and it's not working for the people." And so that, so we are, I mean, I do think that there is a conversation about the council, it just happens to be 9R instead of 9Q. So we'll get there, and you know, as you know, I have some thoughts there, but I think this is really complex, and I do think this question is a very challenging one. I think at this moment, there are some discrepancies between the logic and what is currently being passed with there being this, you know, a new mayor being able to come in, because again, you may have a very, very, very talented city manager who is highly qualified, as I would argue that we do right now, who a new mayor may want to get rid of simply because they're not theirs, and that could be very detrimental. So, I mean, if that's the philosophy that we're going for, then I think that 180-day grace period should be struck. But the reason I voted in favor of that one is because of this idea that a mayor will be elected, and the people will say, "We want you to take on this task. You gave us a certain agenda that we said we want you to fulfill." And I think that they should have the team in place to be able to do that and to make the city function. And then I do think that the City Council should be able to step in and say, "Actually, no, this isn't working. You're not doing your job. You're not making the city work for us." You're not making the city work for, and by us, I mean the community of Santa Fe. You're not making the city work for the employees. A change needs to be made. I do think this needs to be a bigger conversation. Again, I find this one is more complex. I think that there's a lot more scenarios and kind of different ideas and concepts and scenarios coming in than the next one coming up. But I just wanted to really clarify that point that it's not like, "Oh, do you want to go hang out and have a beer with this person?" Of course, that's not how people should be elected. That's ridiculous. But is this person going to help you get to the place that the voters said we want you to get to? That, I think that's a really important question, and that's one that does need to be respected and honored. So, thank you. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor Lee Garcia. Councilor Lee Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll just address that one comment that I think, you know, I think that with this amendment, it provides for a new mayor to come in and bring in their team. It really does. And so, you know, I don't think we have to belabor it so much because we've already talked about it over and over in committee. But the bottom line from my perspective is that these are items that not only to Councilor Michael Garcia's point is brought forward by a Charter Commission review, but what we hear day in and day out from constituents. And so, how do we bring this forward? And here it is for us tonight. Yes or no? Basically, what it comes down to, do we have five members of this governing body that want to push this through and trust the voters to take a look at it and say, "Hey, this makes sense." And so, you know, addressing the process, addressing the more time, man, we belabor things here sometimes for years and don't make a decision. And so, I think it's time for us to make a decision on this and the next one. If it's in the negative, well, then that's what it is. But I do really feel that taking it forward to the voters, and it really does address a lot of the concerns of those that have their concerns up here. And ultimately, it will be the voters that have the final say on it. Thank you. Mayor: Leave it at that. Let me just have one brief comment. I am absolutely convinced that a Charter Commission needs to take a hard look at reviewing the powers, authorities, and role of the City Council. I think the job that was done, not with the last commission, but the prior one, focused almost exclusively on the mayor and the mayor's office and really didn't address the City Council members as they should have, nor did the next one. And so I fully support the idea of a full-fledged effort that would be undertaken with a Charter Commission that would delve deeply into the powers, authorities, roles, and responsibilities and even potentially the structure of the City Council. What I have a harder time with is the process that brought us these two proposals tonight. Did anybody interview the current city manager and get his input? Did anybody interview other city managers in other communities? I haven't seen community input on any of these items. I haven't seen a town hall meeting. I haven't seen the kind of things that we've done extensively when we know we're taking on a very complicated issue that at its heart is very fundamental to how the city functions. And it doesn't do it justice to simply have, although I've enjoyed the conversation tonight, and I think the points are really well made. I don't think this meeting is the place to have that debate. I think the debate needs to happen in a public setting like a Charter Commission. And so I fully support a Charter Commission effort that would really look hard at how the City Council members' roles, responsibilities, the geography of the council, the dual membership. All of those ought to be examined in order to make sure that when our City Council members are elected, they have a really clear mandate for their job, and they can effectively do it. But neither of these two proposals does that. There's nothing in these proposals about the budget and budget responsibility. It's simply about firing and oversight of the positions that are currently held by very key players. So I think a comprehensive look is the right way to go, not a one-off effort that I don't believe the process does justice to the seriousness of the issue. Mayor: So I sat on the City Charter Review Commission that recommended the changes to the mayor. So I feel a little bit like I need to take us back to that moment and what that commission was doing. At that time, city government was swinging around wherever there were five votes. And there was nobody at the helm. Nobody. There was no mayor who, the mayor didn't vote, didn't was part-time, didn't was ceremonial, kissed babies, shook hands, didn't have day-to-day responsibility for the management of city government. And I think it's a lot of the reason why this city has the problems it does. The things that we have that are problems today are legacy problems. They're not because of this council, because of this mayor. They are things that have been building for years and years and years because we never did the hard work because there wasn't somebody captaining, is that a word? Captain running the ship and setting the course, navigating the way, deciding that this is how, this is the direction we're going. And so that commission was concerned about that. And actually, there were two councilors at the time who brought the idea to the commission and said, "You ought to, you ought to look at this. You ought to really weigh this issue that we're seeing as councilors." And so that's what we did. And yeah, I agree. I'm in full support of a Charter Commission being reconvened and looking at what we have now learned. And I think that would be a very important thing to have happen. Because we do know more now. We've, but we've only had one mayor under this system. So I also think there's some things that, you know, we still need to, we still need time with. But there are also some things that we've all experienced, and I think there's, there's definitely room for improvement. The budget was mentioned. We had a wonderful presentation about a new budget process based in performance-based budgeting, and that was at finance this week, and I think we are doing some things to help address what we all have been feeling. But again, these one-off things, I, you know, yes, there were some things that the last Charter Commission recommended that weren't completely thought through, and I think, and they even by their own terms said they needed more time. And so more time for the next one will be given, more resources will be given, and I think this, this is, this would be a great thing to have them focus on. So, I just want to give some context about where we were, why the changes were made, and we need to keep looking at this, and we need to do it through our process. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor Lindell. You haven't spoken. Councilor Lindell: Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to call the question, please. Councilor: Second. Mayor: There's a motion and a second to call the question. Could you call the roll on that motion? Councilor Chavez? Councilor Chavez: Yes. Mayor: Councilor Falner? Councilor Falner: Yes. Mayor: Councilor Lee Garcia? Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Mayor: Councilor Michael Garcia? Councilor Michael Garcia: No. Mayor: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Rometo Worth? Councilor Rometo Worth: Yes. Mayor: Councilor Cassett? Councilor Cassett: Yes. Mayor: Councilor Castro? Councilor Castro: Yes. Mayor: Mayor Weber? Mayor Weber: Yes. Mayor: Motion passed. Very good. So, we proceed now to the vote on the motion that is before us. The motion was made to approve this resolution. Madame Clerk, if you can call the roll. Clerk: Councilor Falner? Councilor Falner: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia? Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia? Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Lindell: No. Clerk: Councilor Romeworth? Councilor Romeworth: No. Clerk: Councilor Cassett? Councilor Cassett: No. Clerk: Councilor Castro? Councilor Castro: No. Clerk: Councilor Chavez? Councilor Chavez: Yes. Clerk: Mayor Weber? Mayor Weber: No. Clerk: Motion does not pass. Mayor: Take us to the next item, please, Madam Clerk. Clerk: That is 9R, consideration of a resolution sponsored by Councilor Pilad Falner, Councilor Amanda Chavez, and Councilor Lee Garcia. It's a resolution proposing a ballot question to be submitted to the City of Santa Fe's voters during the November 4th, 2025 regular local election regarding amending Articles 6, Section 62, and 7, Section 804 of the city's municipal charter to allow five councilors to suspend or remove the city manager, city attorney, and city clerk at a regularly scheduled meeting. Mayor: And I would entertain a motion. Councilor: Motion to approve. Councilor: Second. Mayor: There's a motion to approve and there is a second. I'll go back to the process we used before so that the sponsors can have a chance to frame the issue, and then we'll take comments from other members of the governing body. Councilor Falner, do you want to introduce this? Councilor Falner: I think it's very similar to the discussion we've been having. Mayor: I know it is, but not everybody. Councilor Falner: It's a balance of powers. I think that it's really hard, in my opinion. I have to thank Councilor Garcia because we're talking about if we're not happy with the job someone's doing, then we should have more power. But the same question, which we already voted against it, what if we're happy with the job someone is doing, but we're not there anymore? That passed, but it does contradict the whole thing, but it's all similar. It's a balance of powers. It's the levels of accountability. It's assessing needs being met through more than just one perspective. And so it's very similar to the discussion we just had, but we will have it again. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Other sponsors wish to speak on this now? Councilor Lee Garcia, sir. Councilor Lee Garcia: Thank you, Mayor. So, again, going back to what the initial discussion over this was, is taking a look at who works for not only the mayor but the governing body, who works for the people, who works for and is the leader of the team of the city. And that relies on three very important individuals in the city: the city manager, the city attorney, and the city clerk. And so when you're thinking about those items, I've heard it time and time again, when we're having some sort of an issue with any one of these positions, how do we as a governing body take action? Currently, it's only the city manager. It has been stated that we are policymakers. Well, that's what we're doing here is we're pushing forth a recommendation for policy because I feel that we do need to have those checks and balances. I will go back to where a lot of discussion over the process of the Charter Review Commission, Councilor Michael Garcia's point earlier, that there were a lot of recommendations that the Charter Review Commission brought forward. I will start off with saying there were recommendations from this governing body through resolution to ask those members to take a look at. We were asked as a governing body to provide members from each district. And in conversation with some of the people that we put forth from District 3, it seemed through conversation that there was a specific direction that the Charter Review Commission took upon themselves to push forward. Now, through that document that was provided by them and the recommendations, it was up to us as a governing body to put that and bring forth resolutions, which again, to Councilor Michael Garcia's point, many of them were brought forward by him. And I'm just putting a timeline together because, yes, there wasn't a lot of time for the Charter Review Commission from resolution to inception or to when they started to do their work. But I'll recall many of those recommendations that were brought forth by individuals. We had a special meeting. During that meeting, there was an agenda put forth. That agenda placed items appropriately or inappropriately, depending on your perspective, to have a full final discussion. And I'll just take an example as one of the resolutions that was brought forth was an Inspector General's office was placed at the end of the agenda. There was one that was a very hot topic, which is 3% tax on high-end homes. And so it seemed like that's what that meeting was about. Everything else kind of just got pushed to the wayside. And so when we're talking about process and we're talking about time, there are a lot of things that three individuals that we are discussing here from the perspective of the governing body, who we are also, well, one right now, which is the city manager, but the city clerk and the city attorney, I believe we should have some powers over. And so I believe that's why this is very important. I believe that it is still something that goes in line with what the Charter Review Commission brought forth in their recommendations of what we should be looking at. And, you know, if we wait for more time, we're looking at two more years. I do believe that we need to have a Charter Review Commission begin soon to prepare for the next election, which is in two years from November. And so I think that's why this is very important. And not only does the fact that if it passes here, it goes to the voters. Let the voters decide. And I'll yield the floor. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Cassett, you had said you want to. Councilor Cassett: Also the sponsor. Mayor: Okay. Councilor Cassett: I didn't mean to cut anybody off, so. Councilor: I just yielded to my other spot. Mayor: I know you did. I'm being asked to recognize you again. Councilor Cassett: Thank you. I will just say, much like in the last discussion we had about this, I have heard consistently from the majority of my constituents throughout the city that the balance between the council and the mayor is not in balance. And one thing that frustrates me with government is there's a common sense Goldilocks moment, which is like, we could pay for a study. We could do a litany of things that will take another three years, or just listening to your constituents and them telling you what they're frustrated with can then, it is a process by which the public is involved. And we did not take this on lightly. We actually did talk to the city manager. We actually, I actually did research about other cities. I have vetted this. I'm also an organizational development person, and I do that as a consultant. And what's happening right now is not healthy for the mayor's office. It's not healthy for the city council. It's not healthy for the people of Santa Fe. It is setting up a dynamic where the council and the mayor will constantly be in conflict because there isn't a balance of power. And it's frustrating to me because we can't have an honest conversation about this. We're going to soft-foot around this dialogue because we actually are human beings, and I think we all like each other on the council. Personally, I like everybody on the council. But what I will say is that there are things that happen because the mayor's office is too powerful in the face of what the council can and cannot do to balance that power. And you will never have a healthy organization if there's not a balance of power. And so this was not an off-the-cuff decision. This is something that I personally, while I was running for office, before I was running for office, one of the reasons I ran for office was I was vetting this idea that there is an imbalance at the city. And common sense would tell you that this is absolutely an imbalance. And again, this isn't a criticism of anybody who worked on developing the mayor's office in the way that it's been developed. This is more like, okay, we have vetted it for eight years. It is not working. And I would say I understand if you have the luxury of time and the luxury of long-term strategic planning that one term or two terms doesn't seem that long, but to the average Santa Fean, it's eight years of things not exactly working 100%. And in government, it never does. But there was also no space for the city council to say, we don't agree with this. We would like to see this other thing happen. And so what frustrates me is like, we, eight years is a long time for the average person. For families who have both parents working or single moms or single dads, the families in districts, in my district, they don't have the luxury of saying like, well, let's just vet this for 16 years. 16 years is an entire, it's like a child has already been born and is basically an adult in 16 years. We don't have the time in some of our districts to vet these long-term strategies in a philosophical way. We have to say this isn't working, and we have to change it now. It has to change. Councilor: I think I was the one that pulled this off consent. Mayor: I think so too. Councilor: Sorry. Okay. So, I just want to make a clarification that I think we're all in agreement on this council that there is a problem with the powers between the mayor's office and the city council, and the governing body is not balanced. I will, what I alluded to earlier and what is on the calendar for today, is my version or my opinion of how we can do that, which is to not allow for the mayor to vote on the governing body the way that we did in 2020. And we're going to have a full-length discussion about the process and how we do that and how we get input. But I think the one thing that needs to be utterly clear is that we have a disagreement on how to write out a charter amendment on a ballot, not what we're actually trying to get at, which is a balance of power in this government. And I see the floor. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. And Councilor Cassett, you had your hand up earlier. Councilor Cassett: Thank you, Mayor. So, as I stated before, I actually, this is where I came split on these. And I do think that to the point of where there are checks and balances, I think that the city council being able to say we do not believe that these key positions are performing the duties that they need to perform in order for the city to function. I think that that's important. I will say the caption as is does not actually reflect the current version of the legislation. This was amended in finance for it to be six city councilors as opposed to five. So that, that is in the packet. I would point of order. Mayor: Look to the city attorney for that. City Attorney: Yeah. Mayor: Is that the caption is incorrect given the amendment that was made? What impact does that have, councilors? I thought I had seen a version with it correct, but I will look at what posted. The one that's in front of us, as read by the clerk, stipulates that it would allow five councilors to suspend or remove the city manager, city attorney, and city clerk. And same with the resolution that I'm seeing within the packet. Now, we do have Amendment A in there, and Amendment A in context does show the change, which was approved by the Finance Committee on Monday. And it does say, "Finance Committee approved as amended." So, I want to make sure that this has been properly noticed, captioned, presented, councilors. It doesn't look like it's noticed with six. No, it's noticed as five. Correct. And so this would go to Finance and was amended at that time. So, what is the process that we need to be looking at at this moment in time? Mayor, councilors, Jerlin's saying in my ear that that was Monday. So, this agenda was posted before it was amended. So, we could have added to the agenda more information, which would probably be a way to address that issue. It doesn't look like we have. It does, when in the committee review schedule, it does say "approved as amended" in bold. So, is that the information that is added? Is that sufficient, or should we table this while we figure this out, is my question, or discuss it and then table it? Councilors, I think it's a matter of discussion. I think it's whether or not you believe it's been given, whether the public has been given reasonable notice. This is not a bill, which would have had to have been published in the newspaper. It is a resolution. It is a special type of resolution that calls for something to be placed on a ballot. So, you might give that special consideration, that it is this type of resolution that can change the law and actually your charter ultimately potentially. So, I would consider it different than other resolutions that often just govern yourselves, because they're often just procedural or statements publicly. So, I think it's just whether or not you believe the current version of the caption provides adequate, is five adequate notice to the public if now you're going to require six, which is more. Correct. Right. So, is that enough notice to give notice about five, which is a bigger change than six, right? Six is the current standard for the city manager. Five would be a more significant change than six. Although, if I recall, five would be a more significant change than six because currently this five would be a lower standard because six is a supermajority and five is just a simple majority. I think you've given notice of a more extreme change. I'm thinking through this as I'm talking. But so, you've given notice of a more significant change than what is being contemplated with the amendment. So, that is helpful. Although, a clarification again, and I apologize, I keep forgetting this. In the current charter, is it six governing body members or six councilors? Because that does make a difference. I believe it's six governing body members, which would be five councilors plus a mayor in this scenario. And Mayor, councilors, I think the thought around that, if we can double-check the language, is that if the mayor had wanted to remove the city manager, the mayor could do that currently. Okay. So, I will just, to be discussed, but I will just state for the record for the public that there was an amendment that I did sponsor at Finance that took this from five councilors to six councilors. My logic behind that, actually coming from something that was mentioned at Quality of Life in the discussion, that changes in leadership are a really big deal. They were actually stated in support of the other proposal, which was the council wanting to provide that balance if that leadership is important and wanting to keep that consistency if they felt it was working. But I also took it to, I do feel that if six councilors, if it's a supermajority of the council, although those numbers get a little wonky with us, but if six out of eight councilors are saying this is a really big problem, then I would feel confident that there's a really big problem there. I know that there can be factions that happen, political factions that happen. Again, how are we looking at this from a place of the government functioning as it should and hoping that we are making the best decisions in terms of personnel for the community? And so that was where that proposal came from, and it was passed at Finance. So, currently the resolution that we are considering considers six, not five, councilors needing for a vote of those three positions. Mayor, Councilor Cassett, it is actually specific to councilors currently in 8.04. Okay. So, it is consistent with what we currently have for the city manager and then just expanding it to the city attorney and the city clerk. So, it takes the powers that are already within the hands of the council and expanding it to the two other appointed positions. Okay. So, your procedural question, I think, Madam City Attorney, what are our choices at the moment? Mayor, councilors, I think you could decide that it's adequately noticed because the noticed version is a more extreme version than what you're considering now with the amendment. Or you could postpone it to a date certain, and I think there's still time to adopt at the next meeting. What, how do people feel about the difference between five and six? Go ahead, Councilor Faulkner. Passed the Finance Committee, and that was on the public record. So, to me, I feel like it's out there that this is what we're doing. I also feel like we've been pretty explicit. If anybody is unaware, it is six, not five. Further discussion of the item in front of us is Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to say, as a policy wonk, I'm pretty excited that we're really wanting to now dive into updating our charter and looking at amending it, because back when these recommendations were made in 2023, I was the one carrying the ball. I mean, Marcy and I, I mean, sheesh, I apologize, Marcy, for putting you through all that work. And so, I'll extend an offer of support to Councilor Faulkner and Cassett because we have done a lot of work on this topic. And, you know, we can begin with the recommendations put forth through that 2023 report. And I do want to correct the statement that was made earlier by the mayor saying that the Charter Review Commission should look at the council. Well, they actually did in 2023. There were several items on that lengthy list, whether it was the appropriate number of city councilors per district, the city, whether the city should have an at-large council member, whether this council should be full-time, whether what are the roles of the mayor, council, and city manager, and should they be better defined? So, they did look at this. I don't want to dismiss the work that they did because they did. They dug in, given the short amount of time that they had, which was not to their fault. And I want to make that crystal clear. It was not to the fault of the Charter Review Commission that they had a short period of time. It was the administration that gave them a short period of time to take this task on, and they did the best they could. And that's why one of those recommendations that came forward from them was to give them more time, give them resources and opportunity to have these type of public hearings because they did have public hearings, but people didn't come to them. And what they really wanted to do was be able to go out to talk to the people where they're at. And that is why we ultimately adopted, not we as a governing body, we as a community adopted an update to the charter that allows for more time, or not allows, it requires more time, and it allows for the Charter Review Commission to go to the public and really have that engagement that we want to see. So, I just want to correct that for the record because I was getting somewhat of a sense that this commission, while they didn't have much time to do much work and it wasn't enough, they did. They rolled up their sleeves, given their short amount of time, and got to work. Not only was I, I'm counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 tasks that they looked up, but they also added additional topics such as looking at the budget process, which they provided recommendations on. And I'm thankful we're beginning to really have an appetite, because this is something that, have an appetite to adopt new process for budget, because this is something for some of us on the council have been asking for five, six years. Nobody's wanted to change this. I'm glad it's now happening at the end of an administration. Better late than never, as they say. But we'll get stuff done. I, I, I guarantee that when we, not only as a governing body, but when we engage the public, when we come together, we will ultimately develop a government, as the founders of our country said, a government that is by the people and for the people. And that's what we're tasked with is creating a government that is ultimately going to work for them and not work against them. And what we've currently seen, because I am not of the mindset that while we have not had enough time with this trial period, quote unquote, with for a full-time mayor, we've had sufficient time. It's not working. It does not work. End of story. Needs to be fixed. And that's why at least some of us are trying to get some fixes to the to this charter that is ultimately going to build a stronger government that is going to be working for the residents of Santa Fe, that's not going to create a process that is ultimately working against the residents and working against the council because that's what's happening right now. So, with that, I am in full support of this proposal, which would allow for the governing body to have the authority to remove the city manager, city clerk, and city attorney. The city council already has the authority to remove the city manager. What this proposal in front of us is asking is, should the council now have the authority to remove the city attorney and city clerk? That's up to us as the body. If we believe we're in favor of that, then it moves to the voters, and the voters will ultimately decide if that's the government they want. With that, I yield the floor. Thank you, Councilor. Yes, Councilor Castro, you have the floor. Unless anyone else has comments, I was going to call a question. Second. There's a motion to call a question. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll? Sorry. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Yes. Councilor Romero Wirth. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Travis. Yes. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Explain my vote. Mayor Weber. This is on calling the. Oh, okay. Sorry. Yes. No, I don't. Mayor Weber. I'm voting yes on calling the question. Motion passed. Very good. So, that takes us to the vote on the motion that's in front of us, which would be to, yeah, this is R on our agenda, and it is the a motion to put onto the ballot a vote on allowing what is by amendment six councilors to suspend or remove city manager, city attorney, and city clerk at a regularly scheduled meeting. So, a yes vote sends it to the voters. A no vote does not. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romeworth. No. Councilor Casset. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. And I would like to explain my vote. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Falner. Yes. Explain my vote. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Oh, I'm sorry, Mayor Weber. No. Motion passed. Thank you. We have a number of counselors who asked to explain their vote. I, in no particular order, start to my right. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you to my co-counselors for a wonderful discussion. This was a difficult one for me because I do hesitate with some of these intricacies, and I hope that we can be clear and talk to our constituents about what this is doing. It is under the Charter Review recommendations that we do allow for the council with six members, which is why I voted yes to remove the City Attorney and the, I apologize, the City Attorney and the City Manager, but not the City Clerk. And so I do want to make it clear that there was some hesitation from that Charter Review Commission on the City Clerk, and we may need to revisit that. Thank you. Who else asked to explain their vote? Was it you, Councilor Faulkner? I just, I want to thank my fellow counselors. We have had a pretty beefy discussion about this, and I think that I've learned a lot from the discussion. And again, I sponsored this and support this because until we do the greater review of the charter and the balance of power, we need just one or two things in place to give the council a little more checks and balances. Thank you. Who else asked? Was it you, Councilor Garcia? No others. That's it. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Madame Clerk. Could you take us to the next item on the agenda, please? Yes, Mayor. The next item is 10A. This is an action item on the discussion agenda. It's a request for approval of a General Services Agreement with Southwest Waterworks LLC for operation and maintenance services in the total amount of $432,750 for a term of one year. And we have Leroy Alvarado, Operations Supervisor, or Michael Doer from the Wastewater Division Director. Move to approve. There's a motion and there's a second. Is either one of those gentlemen here to step up to the podium for us? Not seeing that happen, Madame Clerk. Without them, I think it's hard to get an overview of the proposal unless someone knows the details of this. Are there questions from the governing body on this item? Councilor Garcia, go ahead, sir. Well, I mean, it's tough without the... Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And maybe I mean, I'll pose my question, and I don't know if the Deputy City Manager can answer, but my question is, why only one year? Usually contracts are much lengthier, and what's going on that we're seeing the one-year contract moving forward? So that's my question. I don't know if you have that information at your fingertips. I don't, but we can certainly try to, if you want to table this, we could try to get one of those gentlemen online and... Let's move to table. Second. There's a motion to table this while we try to get either Mr. Alvarado or Mr. Doer on the line. Can you call the roll on the motion to table, please? Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romeworth. Yes. Councilor Casset. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion passed. Thank you. Let's move to the next item and see if one of those individuals can zoom in for us, please. Next item is a request for approval of a Professional Services Agreement with HI Inc. to provide on-call telecommunications and network engineering services in the total amount of $649,125 for a four-year term. And then we have Fred Herbrandt, Engineer Supervisor. Why don't you add... Move to table. Wait one sec. Why don't you add B1 to the... We'll take them both. Okay. I don't think you can do that retroactively. Move to table. Right. We don't have the guy here, right? Well, let's... I withdraw the motion. Yeah. Let's first, can we get a motion on B1? Yes, that's what we're... That's the action item, right? We don't have staff. Are there questions? Move to approve. Second. There's a motion. There's a second to approve it. Are there questions about this item? It is a four-year term, as Councilor Garcia made note of. The previous one was not a four-year term. Are there questions on this one? There's a motion to approve. Can you call the roll? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Romeworth. Yes. Councilor Casset. Yes. Councilor Castro. Councilor Chavez. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion passed. Okay. And did we do both B and B1, or we have to do another motion on B1? We just approved, Mayor, we just approved B1. 10B. We just approved. We did it all as one. Okay. Could you then take us to C? Yes, Mayor. 10C is a request for approval of Amendment Number One to Item 25-0011 with Santa Fe Animal Shelter and Humane Society, Inc. to increase the compensation by $150,000 for a new total contract amount of $278,000 and to extend the term for an additional six months for animal shelter services. Deputy Chief of Police Ben Valdez. Move to approve. Second. There's a motion and there's a second. Chief, good to see you. Thank you for being here. Really appreciate your time and your attention to this. For people who are tuning in for the first time, could you give us an overview of what this item achieves? Yes, Mayor, and members of the governing body. So, this is going to allow us to extend the emergency contract we have with the Santa Fe Animal Shelter, continue our services to be able to house and care for animals that are located within our jurisdiction that may either be strays or other animals that may be surrendered to the shelter. This has a direct impact on our public health and safety for our community. This is needed as we work through an RFP that is currently ongoing. I can't go into too many details on that. If details are needed, I'm happy to share that during an executive session, but we're hoping to be able to get this into a realm where it is a permanent contract, multi-year, but we're working towards that. Thanks, Chief. That's a great explanation. Are there questions on this item? Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, DC Valdez, for the information, it says this contract expired July 14th. Have we seen any challenges these last two weeks where there's technically not been a contract in place? Has the shelter been able to take in animals for us? Mr. Mayor, Councilor Garcia, we provided this information to staff, and if this is approved, it's going to cover us during that time period. So, currently, we are still getting services. So, there's not been a lapse in services. But we need them to continue to the RFP as results. Gotcha. So they're... That was the question, lapse in services. The answer is no. And we anticipate the RFP process to go no longer than the six months. Am I understanding that correctly? Is that why it's such a short time frame? Councilor Garcia, yes, we're trying to get it resolved as soon as possible. Right now, we're in negotiations with the Santa Fe Animal Shelter, and we're working through that process right now, but we want to get a permanent solution, well, actually, multi-year solution in place soon, and we'll be coming back to the council for that request for consideration approval once we do have a proposed grant. And that's within six months. That is our hope, sir, but again, we have to get through the process. Okay. Thank you, DC Valdez. Thank you, Councilor. Other questions? Madame Clerk, you want to call the roll, please? And the Mayor, Councilor Casset. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Falter. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Yes. Councilor Romeworth. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion passed. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. Great to see you. Appreciate you. We really don't, we don't, part of our policies here, we don't applaud, we don't boo. It's okay if you want to wave your hands as a sign of support, but try to keep it quiet as a respect. There you go. Good, good, good hand show. Could you take us to the next item, Madame Clerk? Yes, Mayor. Item 10D is a request for approval of a Professional Services Contract with FII National DBA UpTogether to disperse funds to eligible individuals as part of the City of Santa Fe's Mayors for a Guaranteed Income Cash Assistance Program in the total amount of $999,000 through June 30th, 2027. And we have Henry here to present. Sorry. Move to approve. Second. There's a motion and there's a second. Yes, sir. Director Hammond Paul and team, do you want to give us an overview of this item, please? Mr. Mayor, City Counselors, I'm joined here by Youth and Family Services Division Program Manager, Christa Hernandez, who among a million other great things she does is manage our Connect program. That is not what this is about. This is about the Guaranteed Income Pilot Leap that we ran in partnership with the Santa Fe Community College. And in a nutshell, and I'll look to the governing body to tell me if you want more information on this now or if a presentation at a later date to talk about the previous results is preferred. But effectively, we have another tranche of funding that was approved during the one-time funding in February, and we are looking to approve this contract so that we can run this program for one to two more years. So I want to spare, I know there's a packed agenda. I want to spare on some of the details unless members of the governing body have specific questions or want to hear about some of the results from the pilot. Thank you. Are there questions about the Guaranteed Income Program results or the record so far? Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, the part of the caption, and I'm, I've tried to find it in the documentation, but I'll just ask you, Director, it's carryover from last fiscal year. Where was the funding coming from that it was gone or it's gone unspent that we're having the ability to carry it forward to this year? What was the, what was the initial money allocated for previously? Mr. Mayor, Councilor Michael Garcia, thank you for the question. So this money that is for the entire sum of the first pilot was expended. This had a second tranche of funding that was approved by the governing body in, I believe February, when the one-time funding happened. And so the program is designed to run the duration of the academic year, so late August through the end of the academic year for students enrolled in community college. So that funding had to be carried forward that was approved in February so that we could run it from August through June, May. Okay. So it's the one-time funding that was appropriated in February of this year. Yes, sir. And we had money to cover us from February to current. I'm just wondering if we allocated the money in February, why is it gone unexpended? Because the program cycle is from August through May. So, it was allocated, not touched, because the program wasn't going to launch again until August. Gotcha. So, it didn't touch any of that February through May time frame. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it. No other questions, Mayor. Great. Thank you. Other questions on this? I appreciate you being here. I, as you know, find this program to be something that everybody in Santa Fe ought to be very proud of. This has proven to interrupt the cycle of intergenerational poverty that afflicts so many people, not just in Santa Fe, but in New Mexico and around the country. It's already been copied by the county outside Wayne County in the Detroit area because they found it to be so effective. They wanted to take our system and just absolutely use it for theirs. And I think it's phenomenal that we've got the team to continue to bring this program to the people of Santa Fe and give them a chance to go to the community college, complete a program, not have it be interrupted by some kind of an unanticipated financial emergency that requires them to leave the community college and perhaps never go back. This will complete their education and get them job-ready, and we more than get our money's worth out of this project. So, thanks for being here. Other questions on this item? Madam Clerk, do you want to call the roll, please? Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Yes. Councilor Romero. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion passed. Thank you both. Could you take us to the next item, Madam Clerk? Yes, Mayor. The next item is a request for approval of Amendment Number Three to Professional Services Agreement Item 22-0266 with Cyber Pathway, Inc. to increase the compensation by $1,771,968 for a new total amount of $6,078,116.40 and to extend the termination date to June 13, 2026, for IT professional services. We have IT Department Director Eric Kandelari here. Move to approve. Second. There's a motion and a second. Director Kandelari, do you want to provide an overview of this item so that people listening or watching could understand what we will be voting on? Yes, Mayor, members of the governing body. So, this contract renewal or amendment is to extend the current Cyber Pathways contract that we have for support services for our ERP system as well as our Kronos timekeeping system. This contract will allow us the support that we need and the services that we need for ongoing upgrades, current system maintenance, as well as future upgrades to more additional software as we need them. Thank you. Questions for the director? I see no hands. Madam Clerk, we have a motion. Could you call the roll? Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Yes. Councilor Romero. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion passed. Thank you very much. Thanks for being here, sir. Could you take us to the next item, please? Yes, Mayor. The next item is 10F. It's a request for the approval to dispose of three fleet vehicles to the Milan Police Department and Truth or Consequences Police Department. And I can, if we could get Deputy Chief Ben Valdez back. He's there. To approve. There's a motion and a second. Chief, we've had this kind of an item before in front of us. Do you want to describe to the public this good neighbor policy we have with other departments? Yes, Mr. Mayor. Thank you and members of the council. We received a request from the Truth or Consequences Police Department and also from the Milan Police Department to check in and see if we had any vehicles we were disposing of. As we replace vehicles, these vehicles have been identified as being eligible to dispose of. So we dispose of them in one of two manners. Usually they go to auction, and when it goes to public auction, they're made available for members of the community to purchase them. The other method that we do is if we do have a request that someone makes, and we bring that request before the governing body for consideration. These vehicles in particular, one of them is being made by the Chief of Milan Police Department. They are trying to start a K9 program. They are getting training for that, and they're in need of a vehicle. So, we have a K9 vehicle that meets the criteria for disposal, and we're going to make a request to see if we can dispose of it to the Milan Police Department to help them with that endeavor. The Milan Police Department is just west of Grants, New Mexico. They're on the corridor for I-40. So, we're hoping that that can maybe upstream for us, help us out because they are right there on one of the high drug trafficking routes in that area. So, that would serve them well. The City of T or C is also facing some challenges with equipment. They made a request to see if we can assist them with two vehicles. We have two vehicles that have police equipment they can make use of, and that is also a request that we're making to the governing body for consideration. With this request, again, our community is very fortunate in the way that we train and equip our police officers. Last time we brought some requests forward, I know the agencies that received those vehicles are very gracious. One of them was the City of Anthony Chief, and Anthony shared with us that their officers had some vehicles that they were provided through the legislative process. The legislators were able to give them some new vehicles, but when they saw our vehicles, although for us they met the eligibility to be disposed of based on the equipment, they found them to be far superior than the cars they were getting brand new through those purchases. So, by way of seniority, their officers actually preferred and asked if they can receive the vehicles that we dispose of to them instead of getting the newer vehicles based on the way that we take care of our vehicles and the equipment features that they did have. Again, for us, this is a good way for us to be a good steward to help those that may not have the benefits that our city does have. And for me, again, it's a great recruitment tool to share with folks if things ever change. Again, we like to support our police officers and help them in the field get the equipment they need to serve our community. So, this has given us that reach in other jurisdictions, otherwise we wouldn't be able to put a recruiting sign there or anything like that. So, it gives us a little bit of visibility in those areas as well. So, Thank you. It works for both. Yes, sir. Are there questions for the Chief? Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, DC Valdez. Folks tuning in might have this question, so I'm going to pose it to you. If these vehicles are good enough to transfer externally outside of the city, why can they not be utilized by staff in other ways, in other means? I mean, I know I've seen some of the aging fleet vehicles we have that are probably from 2005, 20 years old. I mean, so, and this is not directed to you. This is more of like a fleet question. Do we not have a use for these vehicles internally? And I completely understand and want to support partnering agencies, but my job is to look after the city's best interests and make sure our city employees are well-equipped. And so, have we talked with our fleet team to see if any of the departments could have utilized these vehicles? Yes, Councilor. Thank you for the question. Before we brought this proposal forward, we collaborated with our fleet department, and we put out a request to folks first internally within the City of Santa Fe. We have gone through that process. We have already transferred those vehicles to other departments within the City of Santa Fe for them to utilize. They were able to get the first pick of the vehicles that we had available for disposal. So those transfers have already been completed. These vehicles are part of our next group of vehicles, and those vehicles are either being requested to be transferred or to be disposed of via auction. There's going to be requests made later by the finance department through their process to bring all those vehicles which will be going to auction later this year in October. So for the City of Santa Fe, yes, we did offer the vehicles to our partners through other departments first based on their needs. And again, if we have vehicles that we see that may fit their needs, we'll even reach out to them and say, "Hey, look, this one's going to become up for disposal for the City of Santa Fe Police Department. It's not able to continue in service for us, but it may be a good asset for you." And we've transferred many vehicles to other departments, and we do the very best to take care of them. But for us, if it's going to cost more money to either put in newer technology like our camera system, a modem, at that point, it's really cost-prohibitive for us to maintain it, and it's best for us to transfer it to another city department first or to dispose of it via auctions. And we did fulfill that. I can follow up with an email following this discussion and let you know which vehicles and what departments they went to, but they've gone to parks, they've gone to streets, airports. We've sent them to a number of departments. Okay. And just to confirm, these three vehicles, 2020 Ford Explorer, 2019 Ford Expedition, 2016 Chevrolet Tahoe, those have been offered to departments for use and they declined. And that's why we're going this route for a transfer. Yes, sir. That's correct. Okay, perfect. Thank you, DC Valdez. No other questions, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councilor. Other questions? If there are no other questions, Madam Clerk, can you call the roll? Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Romero. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion passed. Thank you. Don't leave. We have one more item for you, sir. Madam Clerk, can you read that item out? It is 10G. Request for approval of the purchase of 20 police vehicles, including equipment and labor costs associated with each vehicle in the total amount of $1,892,661.80 from Chalmers Ford MHQ and Code 3 Service. Motion to approve. We have a motion and a second to approve this item. Are there questions from the council? Seeing none, can we take the roll, please? Certainly. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Romero. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Motion passed. Oh, Councilor Faulkner, I'm sorry. Yes. Motion passed. Okay. I believe that is the end of our discussion items, and it is just past 7:00. So, I'm wondering if we want to move to petitions from the floor, but I see hands up from the city. If we want to go back to 10A, we do have staff online. Okay. Let's do that. A motion to remove 10A from the table. Second. We have a motion and a second to remove Item 10A from the table. Can we get a roll call? Yes. Okay. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Romero. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion passed. So, Mayor, we're on Item 10A. We do have staff here now to speak to the questions, to speak to the wastewater contractor. **Councilor:** Wait, do we need to make a motion to take it off the table? **Mayor:** We just did that. So, I'd say move to approve. That's where we are. **Councilor:** Motion to approve. **Councilor:** Second. **Councilor:** You already did. Did we have multiple motions to approve? **Mayor:** So, we have somebody who is zooming in. **Staff:** Yes, Mr. Mayor. Jesse Roach, who is our interim utilities director, is online and we'll go ahead and promote him now so that he can answer those questions. **Mayor:** Thank you for joining us, Director Roach. Can you hear me? **Director Roach:** I can hear you. I apologize for not being there in person. **Mayor:** Well, thank you for zooming in. I think Councilor Garcia had a specific question he'd like to raise with you. **Councilor Garcia:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Director Roach. So, this contract is to bring on a Level 4 certified operator that oversees the shift's activities. And this is one of those required roles from the state that we need to have somebody in this position. How many people do we currently have in this role with the City of Santa Fe? **Director Roach:** Wastewater operator Level 4s working at the plant, I don't have that answer off the top of my head, and I'm hoping that, well, I apologize. I'm not prepared to answer the specifics of that question. I just know that we don't have enough to maintain coverage for the 24/7 operations. **Councilor Garcia:** I mean, I'll admit, Director Roach, I'm kind of at a loss because this is a high-dollar contract, nearly half a million dollars. And I guess, can you tell me how many folks we're getting for half a million dollars? What is it? We're guaranteed to have one person in this position that might, I mean, can you not only help me but help the general public understand what we're getting for $432,750, given that it seems like we're trying to fulfill a requirement to have a Level 4 certified operator? So, can you help me understand what we're getting? Is it one person, a group of people? What is it ultimately we're getting? **Director Roach:** I don't think that I am prepared to answer the specifics of some of your questions, and I apologize. It's essentially, my understanding of it is, it's temporary staffing services for highly qualified operators to cover when we don't have staff on shift that have that certification. **Councilor Garcia:** Okay. And I hope you can understand why now I want to know what our current staffing level looks like because, in the instance we don't have these positions, that means we would essentially be breaking state law. Correct? **Director Roach:** We make sure that there's somebody who can cover, but yes, the purpose of this is to backfill that, and it is a vacancy of permanent positions with Level 4s that is the problem here. And we're working on ways to address that, but this is the stopgap measure to make sure that we have coverage. **Councilor Garcia:** Now, what's the plan to bring folks on board? **Director Roach:** Well, there are two different things that we're working through with HR right now. One is a level-based incentive, a retention incentive, that would essentially give a retention incentive to folks with these certifications that are valuable to us to essentially stay, take a bonus, and stay for a year. And then there's also an attempt to create a job description that can help us staff across the department with more competitive salaries and cross-pollination between water and wastewater to get to address what is definitely a need of ours, which is the vacancy rate amongst operators. **Councilor Garcia:** How long have we had low vacancy rates for this position? **Director Roach:** Well, I wasn't paying too close attention to it until within the last six months, but as far as I know, this is a chronic problem. And we've had water operators with dual certifications who've been helping to cover. So, for as long as I've been tracking it, and I've been at the city for six years, it's been something that we've been trying to figure out how to solve. **Councilor Garcia:** Director Roach, I hope you can understand my frustration because this is, again, as you mentioned, and it's clearly stated, this is a critical position for the city. Now, I understand we need, this is, we're very much put between a rock and a hard place right now because we need that wastewater treatment plant up and operating. We cannot have a lack of city staff and have to shut down the plant. Now, that coming at a cost of over $400,000, what is, and I apologize, Director Roach, because you might not have this off the top of your head, but what is the average rate of a Level 4 operator? What I'm trying to get at is how many Level 4 operators could we pay for in a year with $432,000 if they were hired full-time city staff? **Director Roach:** Well, I can speak to the water department a little more knowledgeably. We try and have at least four Level 4s on staff for each treatment plant. And so, I'm going to say that I believe my understanding is that we would also like to have four Level 4 operators at PO Royale. Each one of those operators is making somewhere in the $40 an hour range. So, close to $100,000 a year with benefits is $200,000 a year. So, it's probably $800,000 a year that we'd be trying to spend on these positions internally. And those are rough numbers, and I understand your frustration, and I apologize that I'm not prepared to answer the specifics of these reasonable questions. **Councilor:** Mayor, I think the answer might be on page two of the contract in the packet. It gives a compensation schedule. Councilor, I don't know if you've had a chance to look at that. It says Level 1 and 2 operators, regular hours, they get paid $75 an hour. After hours, $100. Level 3 and 4 operators, regular hours, $140. After hours, $200. It doesn't break down how many hours each of those positions would have and what the differential is between regular and after, but that is outlined in the contract as what this money will be going to. **Councilor Garcia:** Thank you, Councilor. And I think that kind of drives to where I was going in regards to what city staff makes versus what a contractor makes. And so, that's extremely problematic. We wonder why we can't hire folks permanently. I mean, this is, we've now turned so much of our services that the city provides to contracts, whether it's a Level 4 operator or our parks or even getting our audit done. Contract after contract after contract, which has historically been done by city staff. So, my concern is that if we've got, according to Director Roach, or folks that should typically be in this role, and I think this is where I would need to understand what we have on board right now, because if we've got three Level 4 operators, we're basically paying $400,000 for one person. I don't think that's fair to the taxpayers. Now, if we have one and we need to cover the work of three, it's a little more manageable there for me. Director Roach, how quickly might you be able to get me that number? Because as it stands, if it's one of those things where I understand this is a critical position, but I don't want to be putting ourselves in a position where we have to get into a contract because we don't have the staff. So, Director Roach, I mean, might you be able to within some time this evening, or I mean, I'm at a loss truly, Mr. Mayor. I don't know how to move forward given Director Doure is not here. I don't want to put Director Roach on the hot seat, so to speak, because this was not his item. But that is a critical question. How many, what does the staff capacity look like right now? And I don't have that answer. So with that, I'll go ahead and yield the floor. **Mayor:** Thank you, Councilor. I think Councilor Faulkner has some questions and maybe others as well. So let's just take it one at a time. **Councilor Faulkner:** Hey, Acting Director, how much do the compensation packages cost for the people who work for the City of Santa Fe? Because I know I've worked for several organizations, and contractors often get paid more salary, but it's because we're not paying for healthcare. We're not paying for pensions. We're not paying for a litany of things that add to the cost of having an employee of the City of Santa Fe. Do you have any of that information? I would really like to know if it's balanced. So, if we're paying these contractors more, is it to make up for the fact that we're not providing pension? We're not providing healthcare? I mean, we have a Cadillac healthcare system as a city, anyone on P.A.R.S. And so, I'm just, I'm wondering what the balance is. Are the contractors really getting paid a lot more, or what's the balance? **Director Roach:** Mayor Weber, Councilor Faulkner, I can only speak in real broad generalizations to that question. I mean, I heard Council Romero Worth speak to the rates that these folks are getting, and it was, I would expect those rates to be double if it was comparable because we're paying at least double in benefits, but it sounded to me like they're more like three or four times. We're paying a premium, and we do want to solve this problem by staffing up internally, and I would agree with everyone that that's the direction we need to go. We are also stuck between a rock and a hard place in terms of not having a different option because we haven't figured out how to fill these positions and keep them filled. We have some ideas and some strategies that we're moving forward, and I hope to see those yield some fruit. That's all I have here. **Mayor:** Councilor, we've got a whole list of people who have hands up. Councilor Lee Garcia, did you want to go first? And then we'll come back to Councilor Mayworth and Councilor Casset. And I look to my right as well. **Councilor Lee Garcia:** Thank you, Mayor. You know, I appreciate Councilor Michael Garcia's questioning on this, but I do have issue with the fact that we don't have the data that we need. I know that this was not your item to be supporting, Director Roach, but it does seem to me that it's quite a bit of money for we don't know what we're getting. I don't really know how many people we actually have working in staff. Obviously, it's a 24/7 operation, so you do need additional people. But, yeah, without those answers and without that person here, I'm having some issues with this one as well. **Mayor:** Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Casset and then Councilor Mayworth. **Councilor Casset:** Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Interim Director Roach, for being here. I think that interim is important. For those of you who are wondering why in the last six months he's paid closer attention to this, is that the interim piece is important. He has stepped into the role of interim Public Utilities Director. I do have a question that is important, and we have this conversation a lot. Are these positions frozen for the contract, or is this contract being utilized as a stopgap while, as you mentioned, there are some strategies that you're looking at in order to fill these positions with full-time staff? So, is the money from the positions being used in such a way to pay for the contract that we will not be able to hire staff for these positions if we are able to recruit and retain qualified individuals? **Director Roach:** Mayor Weber, Councilor Casset, no. If we're able to staff up, we will stop paying for temps. It's a backstop. I believe there are about six operator vacancies. I don't know how many of those are Level 4. I also appreciate everyone's understanding. This is my fault for not being prepared for something that was under discussion. It snuck past me, and I take responsibility for this. This is the department that I'm overseeing now. Mayor: Okay. Thank you, Director Roach. This is, and again, with all of our contracts, this is not a guarantee of amount, but only what is being utilized will be paid. Correct? So they don't—maybe this is a City Attorney question, but this is in all of our contracts, that this is not a guarantee of payment, that they will be paid for what is used, assuming that money is allocated by the governing body. Correct? Councilor: And they can only invoice services that they've produced, and we would only pay for services that are rendered. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. And then, again, I do think some of this information is important in terms of total compensation that Councilor Faulkner was getting at. In terms of what is listed as a salary is not the total compensation when you look at it. It's complex, and these are a lot of those conversations that people have around healthcare and what they would like to be seeing with the healthcare plan. These are much larger structural issues that are beyond the powers that we have at this moment in time. But I also know with contracts that there's usually a company breakdown as well. So the amount that is being listed at the bottom, the amount that is being listed, does not go directly to the individual. The company does charge, and the individual has a certain amount that they receive. That information, I think, is important because again, it goes to this conversation around what are we paying, what is our total compensation, how does that compare with the other organizations that we have really struggled with in a number of areas? This is not the only one, but especially some of these more specialized positions. We've seen it with traffic engineers, we've seen it with engineers across the board. And I know a lot of these really technical areas in water and wastewater. So that's a bigger conversation that we do need to be having. But yeah, I think the information and this data is important, but the most important thing that I just wanted to make sure is that approving this contract does not stop us from recruiting and putting forward measures to try to fill these positions with permanent city staff. And I'm correct in that. Just going to have you reiterate that again for me, Director Roach. Director Roach: You are correct in that. And we are pushing forward on many fronts to try and address. I just looked back at some emails, and I believe there are seven operator vacancies at the wastewater treatment plant. I don't know how many are Level 4. Mayor: Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Mayor: Other questions? Councilor: Mayor, I have— Mayor: Oh, Councilor Romero-Wirth. Councilor Romero-Wirth: So a couple of things, Director Roach. This looks like it's being done on a statewide price agreement. Are you familiar enough with the contract? You may not have it in front of you. So we're using a statewide price agreement for these companies for these positions, is what the packet looks like. Director Roach: That's my understanding, but I don't have it in front of me, and I'm having trouble on my phone really making sense of anything. Councilor Romero-Wirth: Okay. All right. I mean, that's what I'm looking at. It does say General Services Department Price Purchasing Division Statewide Price Agreement. It outlines one, two, three, four, five, six companies and a number of different positions, and also breaks them out based on the project cost that they're being applied to. I would also just note that it says the scope of work outlines the responsibilities of contract support staff in assisting the City of Santa Fe with the operations and maintenance of facilities, equipment, and systems. The work includes supporting daily operations, conducting routine inspections, assisting with preventative maintenance, and making recommendations for corrective action and system improvements. Staff will also help ensure safety compliance, maintain records, and support documentation efforts while coordinating closely with city personnel to ensure smooth and efficient compliant operations. So I think that's an important piece. I guess the other question is, is this contract—I guess, time is of the essence, I'm guessing. Is that correct? That would be my understanding, to make sure that we can continue to pay these staff. And I don't understand, honestly, and I am embarrassed to say I don't understand why this was on discussion, but that would suggest to me that it was time of the essence. And again, I apologize to the council for not catching this item and being prepared. Mayor: Yeah, I think it was at Finance, but I don't think it—it must have been on consent at Finance, because we didn't discuss it. So it's interesting. All right, that's all I have. Mayor, thank you. Councilor Chavez: Thank you, Mayor. I was just going to suggest it sounds like a lot of people need a lot of information, and we keep asking questions that may need some time to collect information on data. So I would say we maybe discuss postponing this until August 13th, next governing body meeting, and have a discussion about that. Councilor: Second. Mayor: There's a motion to move this item to the 13th. Is there a discussion? Councilor Cassutt. Councilor Cassutt: My only question is what does that do to wastewater operations, because that is one thing that we do not want operations to go awry. Mayor: I wish I had an answer for you. I feel like we need to have the information for this governing body to move forward. So I can't criticize the decision, but I am also worried about what it means in terms of the two weeks delay. Councilor: And is there a possibility to get an answer tonight? Is there a way to get a hold of Director Doer or somebody else who may have this information? And if not, I mean, at this point, we may need a special meeting if we need the information, because I'm not sure waiting two weeks is a wise decision given the nature of the operation that we're discussing. Mayor: If we could check if Director Doer has joined the Zoom. He was saying that he had poor reception but expected to be within signal in 20 minutes, and I feel like that was at least 15 minutes ago. So let's watch for him. He may be available, and I'm sorry to not have better answers. Councilor: Let's re-table this. Councilor: Somebody want to make such— Councilor: Move to table. Councilor: Second. Mayor: Yeah, there's a motion to table this with the expectation that Director Doer will be able to answer more of these very specific questions. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll on the motion to table? Clerk: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Councilor Cassutt? Councilor Cassutt: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Castro? Councilor Castro: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Chavez? Councilor Chavez: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Faulkner? Councilor Faulkner: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia? Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia? Councilor Lindell? Councilor Lindell: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Romero-Wirth? Councilor Romero-Wirth: Yes. Clerk: Mayor Weber? Mayor Weber: Yes. Clerk: Motion passed. Mayor: Councilor Castro, you had a point. Councilor Castro: I would like to make a motion to amend our agenda so that we can have public comment, saying it's set. Mayor: You're getting ahead of me. Just hold on. So that motion carried. So we'll—that's tabled, and we will bring it back up. Assuming we get Director Doer. If we don't, maybe Director Roach, you can do some quick calculations about what a delay until that first meeting in August would actually suggest for the safe and efficient operation of the facility. With that, I would entertain a motion to amend our agenda to move now to petitions from the floor. Councilor: So moved. Councilor: Second. Mayor: Is there any discussion? Madam Clerk, we have a motion to now amend the agenda so we go to petitions to the from the floor and then go back to our regular order. Could you call the roll? Clerk: Currently. Councilor Castro? Councilor Castro: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Chavez? Councilor Chavez: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Faulkner? Councilor Faulkner: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia? Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia? Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romero-Wirth? Councilor Romero-Wirth: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Cassutt? Councilor Cassutt: Yes. Clerk: Mayor Weber? Mayor Weber: Yes. Clerk: Motion passed. Very good. Councilor: I would like to make another motion. I'm so sorry. Could we suspend our rules and allow for four minutes for each person? Mayor: How many people? You can make a motion. Councilor: Sure. I might not have a second. Councilor: Okay. Councilor: So we're second. Mayor: Motion is that we will now not have two minutes, but a four-minute per person time limit. Is there discussion about that? Councilor Faulkner? Councilor Faulkner: I would just say we consistently hold to the two-minute rule, and I don't think it's fair to people in the past or people in the future. It's nothing about the people who are presenting tonight, who are going to testify tonight. It's more about having consistency in what time frame we give the public to speak. Clerk: Could you call the roll on the motion? Councilor Chavez: No. Clerk: Councilor Faulkner? Councilor Faulkner: No. Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia? Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia? Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Lindell: No. Clerk: Councilor Romero-Wirth? Councilor Romero-Wirth: No. Clerk: Councilor Cassutt? Councilor Cassutt: No. Clerk: Councilor Castro? Councilor Castro: Yes. Clerk: Mayor Weber? Mayor Weber: No. Clerk: Motion did not pass. Mayor: Thank you. So here's the order of business. We've got two minutes per person. If it's on—there is a land use case later. There are public testimony there. Don't speak to the land use case now. But if there are other things on your mind that you want to bring to the attention of the governing body at this time, we'll just take you as you line up and give everybody an equal amount of time. Please do refrain from applause or booing or signs of support. Everybody gets the same respect. Everybody gets the same opportunity to speak their peace, and we will be listening to each of you respectfully. Please extend that same respect to the other speakers. Please do stay within the time limit so that everyone gets the same amount of treatment and opportunity. So with that, if you'd step up to the microphone, give us your name, make sure that you get close to the mic so we can hear you. We'll begin the petitions from the floor. And if you can please keep it quiet in the audience, in the meeting room, while we listen to people speak. It's a lot easier for all of us up here to give them our undivided attention. Yes, please go ahead. No, the mic's not on. There's a button right at the base of the— Speaker: You hear me now? Mayor: Yes. Speaker: Yay. Thank you. Mayor Weber, City Councilors, my name is Mary Ann Stickler. I'm a retired real estate developer, retired home builder, retired ski instructor. And I'm here to ask you to update the short-term rental ordinance in order to protect our housing supply and our residential neighborhoods. Simply by updating our ordinance and enforcing the law, we could restore hundreds of homes to our housing supply. These are existing homes on existing infrastructure near existing schools and parks. The citizens of Santa Fe have elected you to represent their interest with vision and with leadership, but well-connected investors have convinced you that short-term rentals are good for the community. In fact, short-term rentals negatively impact our housing supply and communities. And all over the world, cities have been restricting short-term rentals by either requiring a proof of primary residence or outright bans. Here's a list of about 200 professions that are practiced by residents of Santa Fe. Our residents show up for these jobs every day, and they service our city government, our construction industry, the arts, education, our hospital, and they deserve housing that is both desirable and fairly priced for people who live and work in Santa Fe and spend their paychecks in Santa Fe. On the other hand, we have a short-term rental industry lobby, and some of these well-connected investors have convinced the tourism department and the City Council that these short-term rentals benefit our community. I'm asking that you prioritize the stability of our housing supply over the commercialization of our neighborhoods. This costs nothing: no studies, no consultants, no grants, no subsidies, no new infrastructure, no expense to the taxpayer to recover hundreds of existing homes for our residents to live in. All this required is action. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Yes, you have the floor. If I must die, you must live. Tell my story. Sell my things. To buy a piece of cloth and some strings. We need your name, sir. My name is Lazarus Kheim Kaufman. Thank you. My middle name means life in Hebrew. I'm going to start over because you interrupted me. Thank you. If I must die, you must live. To tell my story. To sell my things. To buy a piece of cloth and some strings. Make it white with a long tail so that a child somewhere in Gaza, while looking heaven in the eye, awaiting his dad who left in a blaze and bid no one farewell, not even to his flesh, not even to himself, sees a kite, my kite, you made flying up above and thinks for a moment an angel is there bringing back love. If I must die, let it bring hope. Let it be a tale. This is a poem by the late Professor Rifat Alir, who was killed via airstrike by the Israeli military November 1st, 2023, along with his brother, his brother's son, his sister, and her three children. Rifat shared countless narratives about the horrors of the Israeli occupation and system of apartheid that existed long before October 7th. What was his crime that condemned him to the death penalty? Where is the courthouse that delivered that sentence? Who was the judge? Where is the justice for the murder of him and his family? Why don't any of you care about the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have already been killed in this Holocaust, the genocide that our tax dollars have been funding since October 7th? And if you do care, what have you done to stop this genocide? Anything? Normally, I'd wait for a response, but my Palestinian relatives in Bethlehem in the West Bank, and especially my dear friends in Gaza, don't have that luxury. As we're now going on almost two years of genocide, I don't care what your response is, even if you have one. I'm not here for any of you. I don't think this speech will change your hearts. I don't think my protest will change our government. So, why bother? Why am I here? You might wonder. I'm here so that this so-called government won't change me and my heart. I'm here for all the people who will watch this video clip online and witness your silent complicity and your deep-seated corruption and know that this apple is rotten all the way through to the core. The people of this world, those who still have a soul, are rising up like never before. We're waking up en masse now, taking our power back more and more every day now with every breath we draw. It won't be much longer now. Your privileged colonial fascist way of life is coming to an end. I imagine you can feel it. This world as we know it, with its brutal inequality and the enslavement of indigenous people all across the global south, Thank you, sir. will never be considered socially acceptable ever again. And there will be justice. Free Palestine. Thank you, sir. I, I double-check the mic, please. I'm not sure it's working. Is the light, is it lit? Okay, go ahead. Mayor, Council, my name is Greg Melo. I'm the director of the Los Alamos Study Group. I would like to identify with the speeches of the last two speakers entirely in both cases. In 1610, this city was named for the Holy Faith of St. Francis. That name has meant something important. More than 400 years later, it still does. It is a large part of why the City Different is different in a good way, rather than a Southwestern Disneyland, a nuclear weapons annex. I urge you to consider how the city might consciously and formally deepen its identity and vision of peace, not war. Doing so would greatly enhance the city's reputation, quality of life, economy, and social contract. Like rain, such an identity would nourish every growing thing in this city, from our schools and young people to local businesses. If you ask, we will ask our hundreds of members and supporting businesses for ideas to help you flesh out such a vision. This would require rejection of LANL's gigantic new mission to build a factory for plutonium warhead cores, pits. LANL anticipates building out this factory through at least 2034, even as another factory, newer, larger, safer, is under construction in South Carolina. Several city resolutions have unequivocally, not just conditionally, opposed pit production at LANL, as well as nuclear weapons in general. We urge the governing body to again unequivocally oppose this mission, as the Santa Fe County Commission has done. Now, work with us, please. Last year, LANL was in communication with the Mayor's team to possibly construct 12 to 15 buildings totaling up to 1 million square feet within approximately 60-acre Santa Fe campus. We want to know more about this horrific proposal. LANL's work is almost entirely nuclear weapons, as is this proposal. Weapons welfare won't help Santa Fe. It will hurt. So, help Santa Fe families, please. Stand for peace, not war. Thank you. Wait one second, and you have the floor. Okay. My name is Gene Nichols. I'm from Yano, New Mexico, by Pasco, and I'm in support of the last two speakers. And yes, I would like you to be able to adopt an enduring resolution against pit production at LANL. This push for a new ramped-up Cold War will be a disaster for New Mexico and for the world. In the 50s, Eisenhower warned us against the rise of the military-industrial complex. Can you make the mic come down a little? Thank you. Go ahead. You're fine. We listened with one half an ear and continued with our lives. Money won out over morals. The arms race ramped up. This won't stop until we destroy the Earth's capacity to support life, unless we find the moral courage to say no to all the things we must say no to and do all the things that must support life-affirming projects such as housing for residents and for the homeless, food for everybody, renewable energy, music and arts in schools. Anything but plutonium pits for mass destruction. And the plutonium pits they're making are for a new generation of nuclear weapons. We have plenty already for our deterrent stockpile. This is not about making it reliable. You may argue that this is economic development and we are creating jobs. Studies have never shown that the surrounding counties benefit from the money on the hill. And lab jobs often lead to cancers and early deaths. What you do here in these chambers is your choice. But your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren at some point will want to ask what side you are on: for war or for peace. Please look deep in your hearts and decide from a place of conscience. And please honor the namesake of this holy city by adopting St. Francis's words: "Let me be an instrument of your peace." Thank you. Thank you very much. I think our city clerk has stepped out and the clock, oh, it's reset. Thank you. We've got it going on. Sir, you have the floor. Mayor, Councilpersons, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. My name is Eric Kersner, and I live in Taos, New Mexico, and I worked on my first environmental impact statement at the same time as your Mayor did. I don't know if he remembers me, but I remember him. But I'm here to try to replicate what we did in Portland by doing constructive, socially beneficial activities that help people. I'm here because I'm heartened by the fact that the county has unequivocally seemed to have recognized that turning Los Alamos National Laboratory into a weapons factory is a huge mistake. I mean, there have been other economists. I once taught at Pueblo and had academy students. Bill Wida was later the director of the academy's department, and he said the biggest barrier to economic development in Northern New Mexico is misguided loyalty to the bomb. I mean, it's time that we recognize that the bomb had nothing to do with ending the war and saving lives, but it was always, and Leslie Groves has testified to that during the Oppenheimer trials, it was always so that the 4% of the population of the United States could rule the world. Churchill told Truman, "Hang on to the bomb. It's your ticket. The world dominates." And we see where that's gotten us now with what's happened in Gaza, what's happened in Ukraine, what's happened in Iraq. I mean, we're really at the tipping point. We have to make the decision whether we're going to leave an industry and a teaching facility, which is basically what Los Alamos is, that is geared to taking things from people, or whether we're going to do things that are constructively useful. Please rethink that and adopt such a resolution. Thank you. Thank you very much. Right ahead. You have the floor. Thank you, Mayor, City Councilors. I'm Trish Williams Miller with the Los Alamos Study Group. Recently, musician Roger Waters was quoted as follows: "The mask is off. We, the West, behave with unbearable brutality towards oppressed peoples all over the world. However, we, the people, hate it. We hate the brutality of our governments. This is an existential battle for the soul of the human race. We, the West, are a gang of powerful gangsters here, and we are going to steal everything that there is in the world that is worth stealing." In this battle, which is very much an inner battle as well as an outer one, it is precisely the greedy, stupid, and tyrannical nature of the national security state which creates the conditions for its defeat. There is now a real growing hunger in every part of this land for real peace, not more war. For that hunger to be manifest and powerful, we need to see past superficial political divisions and let go of the distractions that have been engineered to steal our lives. That "we" is not somebody else. It's ourselves. We need active participation in the fight against war. Our communities need it, and we need it personally to stop the war culture from stupefying and victimizing us. The war culture doesn't just want your tax dollars. It wants your passive acceptance. It wants your soul. With our active participation against war and against the inherently genocidal weapons, the U.S. needs Northern New Mexico to help make something fresh and new come into being. With our engagement, we and our friends embody immediately a culture of resistance and renewal. From that fresh vantage point, which changes us, the new normal that seemed so frightening a moment ago is suddenly revealed to be rich with unparalleled opportunities. It is certainly unparalleled for us. It is the only moment we have, the only moment in which there could be opportunity, the only moment in which we can be free. The darker the situation, more powerfully even a small light can shine. We, especially in New Mexico, with our uniquely powerful location at the center of the U.S. nuclear warhead complex, can be that light in the fight against nuclear weapons in war. We have the power and the privilege of proximity. Join us to stop more nuclear weapons production and join the call for sanity at stopthebomb.org. Thank you. Thank you very much. Excuse me. Stephanie Beninato, I do appreciate everything that's been said today, especially about affordable housing, and I stand in support of the union who's here to be paid what they have been promised. However, I'm also wanting to speak about the malfeasance involved in my tort claim against the city of Santa Fe and the dishonesty of the lawyer, the outside lawyer, and the newly hired expert. The lawyer, Scott Hatcher, continues to state in his pleadings that these photos taken at 9:03 a.m. on that day were taken at the time of the incident, which is untrue. The incident occurred just before 8:30 a.m. He knows that because of the incident report, and he knows that the city has no photos or cameras concerning the placement of those machines at 8:30, because I asked for it through public records. He also knows there were no setup plans, no inspections, and no contract with the fitness superstore to install them. Now, we've hired a, he's hired a, oh, and he keeps saying I walked down the machine. No, I had to turn sideways and side step, and I didn't hit a sleeve. I hit a steel bar that is 1 and 3/4 inch diameter. Now he's hired an expert from Florida who's paid, he's basically a paid for consultant, who has a PhD in fitness, recreation, and tourism. He says the only standard applicable came from the National Strength and Conditioning Association, which basically teaches and certifies fitness trainers and coaches, has little to do with management of commercial gyms. He says the standard's two to three feet from the base of one machine to the other, and it doesn't count that the weight bar is overhanging the rack by almost 19 inches. However, I looked this up, and the association he's referring to has professional standards and guidelines, and they actually have a standard and a formula that includes the length of the weight bar plus two, three to six feet, depending if you're on the bench or if you're standing between the rack. This is absolute fraud. It's absolute malfeasance on the part of the city. I've asked the city to sit down and discuss it with me. Oh, sometime they will. And Frank Rubel said, "Why should we sit down with you so you can tell us what to do?" I'm simply asking the city to sit down, to look at the evidence, and to be reasonable and logical and settle with me. Thank you. Thank you. All right, just a quick sound check. All right, let me get started. My name is Lewis DLA. Good evening, governing body, everybody in attendance. I'm here to continue what I started back on July 9th. I'm going to continue with it. Three years of guaranteed minimum increases is something we've asked for in our contract. Something a 400-year-old city is more than capable of doing, but this administration has been unable to figure out how to budget for three years for over half of its city workforce. We're trying to increase the amount to fund in uniforms and shoes worn by our employees, to increase a rate that's been flat for over 15 years, while the costs for those uniforms and shoes have only gone up. Those are the things that just asks me, is asking. What did the Weber administration want to take out of our contract? An end to our sick leave bank. A pool of hours we donate to each other during those unfortunate and unavoidable health crises that impact the majority of people over the course of their working lives. I emphasize this because this article in our contract has directly protected the lives of dozens of our members in ways I don't have the luxury of time to tell this group in detail. Weber's administration wants to end the ability of the majority of this room to petition this governing body about anything regarding wages, hours, or working conditions. A blatantly undemocratic attempt by this administration that not only attempts to remove a constitutional right for half the city staff, it reduces transparency of government functions over positions that directly interact with the public. Restricting half the city staff from speaking in this public forum isn't just contempt for labor unions, it's contempt for the general public. After five years at the table, what have we been asking for that's so objectionable? I bring that to Mayor Weber. We present this in front of the governing body, but under the strong mayor system of the past five years, this has been the mayor's budget. It falls on you. And after five years at the table, I can't say what it is that we've proposed in our contract that makes you so interested in, uninterested in funding what we've been asking for. A legacy problem of the strong mayor system. This is the legacy problem of a strong mayor system that we can't get one contract worked out with one of the largest groups of workers in this entire city for an institution that's been here for hundreds of years. I'm going to put this to the rest of my board to elaborate on so I can't go more than seven seconds. Thank you. Thank you. Let's have our next speaker. Wait one sec. We got to get rid of the music and recue the timing. Okay, you have the floor. Great. Hello, governing body. My name is Clinton Peterson. I'm an engineer for the water division, also secretary treasurer and member of the negotiations team for Local 3999. Behind me are my union brothers and sisters. So, thank you all for turning out. I've been involved with the union for about a year and a half now, and I've seen firsthand some of the tactics the city has used to delay pay increases for our membership that have already been budgeted. As you know, non-ASME city employees have already received a class and comp increase, and the city claims it cannot give us class and comp pay increases due to tying those in with our new contract. I'm telling you now that the membership is fed up with these games, and we're here demanding much-needed and past overdue salary increases. Class and comp study is two years old at this point, and inflation is still going up. In those two years, we have only received a quarter of what was proposed in the class and comp study. The other issue here besides pay increases is our union contract, the specifics of which Lewis has already touched on. We've been negotiating for five years now, which is longer than I've been an employee at the city. It's completely unacceptable, especially for a city that prides itself on being one of the oldest and proudest capital cities in the United States. Financially, what we're asking for are very small increases to the city's overall budget. Updated uniforms and boot allowances, small increases in shift differentials and bilingual incentives. These numbers are very small in the grand scheme of things. We're proposing very few changes non-financially to our contract. On the other hand, the city is proposing radical changes, one of which is completely taking away our sick leave bank out of our hands and into the hands of human resources. The union has done a fantastic job self-managing these sick leave hours, and I'm always told of how great this benefit is for our membership, especially to new employees that might not have enough sick leave hours should a health emergency happen. So, for something more positive, I'm happy to say that I like working for the city, and I feel like speaking to my co-workers, the sentiment is shared. I think it's fantastic that I'm putting my engineering background to use for the benefit of my community and the public at large. The work we do here at the city is good and is necessary. Ultimately, what we're asking for is very little in the grand scheme of things. So, please don't leave us out. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good evening, counselors, Mr. Mayor, city manager. He's not here tonight. City staff, guests. My name is Theres Martinez. I work in community services and to community health and safety. I want to speak to you about the bilingual incentive provided through the union contract with the city of Santa Fe. The process is a formal application, approvals, and testing. Namely, that 25% of your work hours must be spent using your Spanish skills. The incentive comes to $40 a month. That comes in after taxes about 12 cents more per hour overall. This rate has not changed in the 17 years that I have been with the city of Santa Fe. Why is this not addressed? Why is a higher value not placed on this service, on this ability, and compensated accordingly? The budget approved for 2025 reads, "Beyond that, this budget makes good on a promise made two years ago to implement our class and comp study. The whole point of that study was to bring our workers' wages to market parity. We've done that through a series of step-by-step increases, and this budget completes that process. With this budget, we can mark paid next to that promise. This budget calls for a 3% across-the-board salary increase for all city employees. We continue to focus on making city government work better. Paying people what they're worth is the first step. Everything starts with people." We want the city of Santa Fe to actually make good on this promise. The budget is not complete. The workers' wages brought to market parity has not been met for over 50% of the workforce. The step-by-step increases have fallen short. The budget process is incomplete. The city cannot mark paid next to their promise. The 3% across-the-board salary increase for all city employees has not taken place. We ask that the city of Santa Fe make good on this promise to all the city employees. And as the budget states, pay them, pay us, the ASME union employees, what we're actually worth. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening, everybody. Hello. My name is Renee. I'm an administrative assistant for the police department and the recording secretary for Local 3999. I have worked with the city for one and a half years. I have seen employees who have dedicated their skills, knowledge, and time to receive meager raises in return. Just within the records division at the police department, a team of eight uphold a high standard of integrity and confidentiality when reading the reports written by 165 officers to serve the community, judicial system, and other law enforcement agencies. By reviewing crash reports and traffic citations in a timely manner, we receive police reports needed for at times dangerous situations, processing background checks for individuals to gain a job or maintain a position in life, and agencies to bring justice to those in need. We review criminal complaints and we forward them to the courts daily to aid in the speedy turnaround of the courts. Behind me, you see some of our ASME brothers and sisters. They do the essential work that make this city function. They make our water flow, collect our trash, keep our streets drivable, make our recreation sites usable, and countless tasks that make Santa Fe function. They are here to remind this body that when I and our board come to speak, we are not speaking as a few people. We are speaking for half the city's workforce. The half that could not fit in this building. The half that works hard every day to make this city a place where the art and culture thrive. The half that is here this evening to remind this governing body of a simple demand: fund our contract. We love working and supporting the city. Yet, as the largest bargaining unit, we are not considered when we ask for support and collaboration. Instead, we are met with delays and excuses. Please, we are asking for our union contract to be funded and for our class and comp to be given to us. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Hello. My name is Robert John. I work for the Senior Citizens Department as a transit driver. Five years ago, I stood in a meeting much like this one, raising the same message: Our employees deserve better. Five years later, and we still don't have a contract. Five years, and yet we are still here carrying on with our work because our city's elders depend on us. Alongside my colleagues, we care for our seniors with dedication and compassion. For many of them, we are more than just drivers. We are like their children, their grandchildren, or sometimes the only link they have to the outside world. We get them to doctor's appointments, take them grocery shopping, and share stories about our lives while listening to theirs. We bring them food. We offer respite to their families and provide moments of comfort and companionship. This work is meaningful, and it deserves respect. Yet, after five years of waiting and fighting for a fair contract, our brothers and sisters continue to be overlooked. When I was younger, working for the city was something to be proud of. My uncle was a garbage man. He took pride in his work, hanging off the back of trucks to keep the city clean. I had cousins that worked in parks, streets, and sanitation, and they encouraged me to become part of the city workforce. But today, the city feels different. It's a place where workers face endless struggles, a place where people wonder why anyone would want to join the public workforce anymore. All we ask is for fair wages that reflect the vital work we do and the benefits that let our families stay and thrive here, not be forced to move away due to the rising cost of living. Santa Fe should be a city where our children grow up, not a city they feel pushed out of because affordability is out of reach. With all due respect to upper management and non-unit employees, they receive raises every year consistently without this prolonged battle. Many of those in management don't directly serve the citizens in the way we do. We are the employees on the ground doing the real work. And yet it is we who are harmed. While upper management salaries climb higher, the people who keep this city running have to fight every year just to get pennies. It's time this changes. We deserve recognition, respect, and fair compensation for the work we do. We serve this community with our hearts and our hands. Thank you, sir. It's only right that we are treated with dignity in return. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Those that have been elected to represent us that live in the city of Santa Fe. It's been called, you know, told out there in the streets, the city, the city. We just need for the record, Patrick, that the city has called the city difficult. I've been working the city 19 years. The last five, at least, years have been to me, to the challenges that we meet daily, is the city difficult. It shouldn't be that way. I'm a native Santa Fean. You're a little passionate because I've been through some things here. The last five years, I've had this, my second FMLA, recovering through right now, looking at that cherished sick leave bank that the HR director and her negotiating team wants to take away from us. That years ago, when I was the interim acting and the authority of the president of this union in 2014, when it got taken over, I was given the authority, and there was four of us here that took on the responsibility. We used to get balances of our sick leave bank from finance woman Teresa Garcia. Since then, it has been crickets. Numerous, what do you call it? Freedom of Information Act, all that stuff, crickets. The last five years, I didn't, I, I, I've got enough on mine and what I've been dealing with that I had to pull away. But over five years ago, a former president took it upon her responsibility to get in negotiations with your HR director who heads your negotiating team by your authority, not putting anybody else involved with this. We had open door policy at HR. We could walk in there and sign off on vacant funded positions. I'm sorry I'm going over, but I will cut it short. And thank you. There's only been two speakers that went over 20 seconds of ours. Thank you. Thank you, Council. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. My name is Matilda Shami. I'm the administrator of Cisnetance over at the Wastewater Department. But I'm here to talk to you guys now because the contract is being held because of our sick leave bank. I am the sick leave bank administrator. I've been the administrator since 2014. We have a folder for everyone that has been on our LMA. We don't violate the contract as I was told that I extend LMA. I do not. But I clearly cannot leave this sick leave bank to anybody else at this point because it also affects me. My husband is very sick and has been very sick. He retired from working for the city of Santa Fe under medical. I have to go home and do dialysis every night just to keep his lifeline going. And for me to leave the sick leave bank to somebody else right now, I can't because these people here depend on me to come and back them up when they need time. And after what Michelle and Bernadette did together on the last contract where they put the two articles together, it hurts the members. It didn't help them. And for her to be holding our contract hostage because she wants the sick leave bank, I don't think so. My brothers and sisters deserve what we are worth. I just cleared 25 years for you guys. I just made it on June 12th of 2025. I completed 25 years. Did I even get a thank you? No, I have not. Not even a phone call. But I tell you one thing, I have to be very thankful for the division director that I do have at Wastewater because he is very good with me as to when I need to take off constantly to take care of my husband. My brothers and sisters deserve to get paid what they need. They deserve for us to have our contract. They deserve us to run it. In 2016, HR called our bank asking us how we ran it. We told them we would help them. We needed our numbers. We never got them. Now they want our bank. Bernadette said it's only been a couple of years. This damn bank has been here since I've been here in 25. But I've only been running it since 2014. And I have a folder for every member that goes, every member that calls me. I walked into this HR a couple of years ago with Monica Savo and with Bernadette. They didn't have any files, but I walked in with my suitcase. Mayor, we need our contract. We need our money. And we need to keep in control of our own. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, you have the floor. Mayor, Councilors, thank you again. For those that know me, I am Mark Montoya. I have been here 23 years. It's 23 years. This is, this is crazy. You know why? Why do me and my brothers have to always fight for this raise? Why, why do you guys get it and we can't get it? Huh? I, I don't understand that. What's so hard about making a contract for us? It's not hard. You guys aren't listening to us. Very simple. I am from the parks. I take care of the graffiti. I've got brothers and sisters out there from the ESD, Water Company, Wastewater, you name it. They're all here. Why? Because we're tired of this. We don't need to go through this, guys. It's really, really simple. Maybe we need you to make that decision, Mayor. You know, I don't know. Are, are you able to tell us, can we get that raise? Can we change the contract? Or you Councilors, you City Manager? I don't know whose job it is. Somewhere, we're feeling somebody's not doing that job. And yeah, hey, I'm, I'm a seasoned worker, 23 years like I said. And no, I'm not very happy anymore. I want to do my two years. I was thinking about doing more, but you know what, under this administration, hey, and, and if we don't get these guys to, you know, like their job, I don't think we're going to have very members to, to work anymore for. And it ain't like I say, it ain't us people are working under. And I know you know what I'm saying. You know, it's like I say, I go every day, do my job. Most of these guys go every day and do their job. I don't hear you calling us and saying that they're complaining about our job. Why can't you give us this raise and get our funded contract? So we ask, and I'm talking on behalf of my brothers and sisters, again, thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Good evening, Mayor and City Councilors. My name is Katherine Shira. I work for the city at the Santa Fe Public Library. This evening, I just have one very brief comment. Reflecting upon what the union is asking of the city in the current negotiations, cost of living increase, implementation of the class comp study, funding of the union contract. The thing that really stands out to me is that these are not radical demands. They simply reflect the hopes of workers across the city. Workers who, in my experience, are dedicated to public service, who routinely go above and beyond to keep our beautiful city running smoothly. They reflect our collective hopes of being valued and respected by our employer, of securing an adequate living, of not falling farther and farther behind amidst the current crisis of unaffordability. Once again, there is nothing unreasonable about what we are asking from the city, and I ask you, Mayor and City Councilors, to please work to bring about a timely, just, and equitable resolution to the matter at hand. Thank you. Thank you very much. Go ahead. Good evening. Hi, my name is Freddy Math. I work for the Santa Fe Streets Department. I don't have much to add that my brothers and sisters haven't already brought up before now. But something did come up during the discussion regarding the discrepancy in pay between the contract workers and city employees. And it was brought up, I'm not going to name names, I don't remember, but it was brought up that the ability to not have to pay contract workers things like healthcare and retirement benefits, that was offered as a counterargument. And I just wanted to highlight how strange that feels that cutting healthcare and retirement is something that the city is trying to cut out of its budget. That just seems like an easy layup for the next election. I don't know. It seems like an easy thing to bring up. Yeah. Anyway, have a nice night. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes. Could we all please remember we're trying to stay within some boundaries here. Just it's fine to wave and I appreciate the signs, but don't cheer and boo. Yeah. I'm sorry. You have the floor. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members. My name is Kathleen Burke of the Los Alamos Study Group and of the humble city of Albuquerque. It is an honor to be with you here in the Royal City of the Holy Faith of San Francisco de Assisi to speak to you about peace, particularly nuclear non-proliferation in Santa Fe. There are three LANL buildings in Santa Fe. Now about 500 LANL employees work in this city of the Holy Faith of San Francisco. According to LANL, 87% of LANL is devoted to nuclear weapons directly, and nearly all the rest of the employees support nuclear weapons indirectly. LANL is a bomb lab that is trying to become a bomb factory. The cost of building and operating the LANL Pit project through its semi-completion in 2032 will be about $25 billion. To give you some reference, that is 20 times what was spent at Los Alamos preparing to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 20 times. We want the city of Santa Fe to reaffirm its existing stated opposition to plutonium pit production at Los Alamos National Laboratories. Will this city's leadership's greed and/or irresponsibility pave the way for more Hiroshimas and Nagasakis? Those of us who work for peace know that it will take a minute or two, and we do not doubt that we will win, as we do not doubt that most of us in this world and the rational people are with us. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, counselors. Thank you. Yes, you have the floor. This is the council. My name is Gary Loenthal. I'm a resident in Santa Fe. I'm here to speak in support of the first speaker, two-minute speaker, about the urgent need for revision of our STR ordinance. We have, like many other cities, but very seriously in Santa Fe, we have a serious problem of housing availability and affordability. We need to look at the issue of non-owner occupied residential properties that are owned by non-residents who, in most cases, are residents of other states, not even New Mexico residents. A year ago, I attended a meeting by accident. I didn't realize what the meeting was for, but there were people who are non-owner occupied, their own owners of residential properties in Santa Fe, who were residents of other states who were opposed to any regulation. Many of, I was surprised, there were two or three hundred persons in that meeting. Many of them owned several properties in Santa Fe, residential zoned properties. Clearly, these are properties that were taken out of the marketplace for persons to rent or buy who are residents of places like Rio Rancho and Albuquerque, who are part of the workforce in Santa Fe. They do not have an opportunity, those people, to buy housing or buy affordable housing because of the serious crisis. My time is up, but I also support the city employees who are underpaid. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hi, my name is Janie Zachin, and I'm a resident of Santa Fe, and I'm just here to support Maryanne Stickler and what the man who just spoke was saying about STRs. I just had a not great experience on my own street, which has nine houses on my side of the street, and two of those houses were turned into non-owner occupied STRs. One of them was owned by my neighbor, who I got to be friends with over the past five years that I've been living here, and it was just, I really love Santa Fe, and we were, we had a, we were, it felt like a community on the street, and I really feel like the STRs are disrupting community here. We would have a welcome gathering for neighbors. One of my neighbors who moved here, both in the medical profession, across the street, and do things like that. And then she tragically died from chemotherapy treatment last year, and her nephew, she had sold the house to her nephew because she couldn't afford the mortgages the last few years, and he decided she had wanted it to be a home for, I mean, to rent to traveling nurses. That would have been what she had wanted, but when it's very profitable to just turn a house into a motel, people have little incentive to rent long-term or to sell. And so he did that, then he cut down the four pine trees that Linda had planted years ago in front of the house, and Santa Fe needs trees, and he didn't listen to anyone about that. I just feel there's how it affects community here. It's just not a good thing to have no limits on it, or to have so many non-owner occupied STRs. I wanted to say, I like the casitas, people renting, people doing Airbnb with their casitas, or a room in their house, or part of their house, and there are other people on my street who do that. But I think that's a fine, I don't have a problem with that. It's just the non-owner occupied STRs that I was talking about. Thank you. Thank you very much for being here. Hello, my name is Lauren Lieb, and I am the president of National Treasury Employees Union 340, which represents Bureau of Land Management Employees here in New Mexico. And I'm here today to stand in solidarity with my union brothers and sisters who are fighting for a fair contract. I just want to say, earlier we heard about concerns about recruitment and retention, and how do we get this level four waste management specialists on board and whatever. You know what you do? You talk to the workers. You listen to their demands. You give them a fair contract because that's what people, when they're looking for a job, they want to see if there's a union contract, and they want to get paid the money that they deserve and that they're owed. The fact that you've been waiting or fighting against these employees for five years when you could have just gotten through it, given them the money that they deserve, it's abhorrent to me as not only a fellow civil servant, but as a taxpayer of this city. The fact, it's nothing more than union busting when you're ready to pay non-union workers raises while denying these workers what's rightfully owed to them. There's nothing else you can call it. And you know what? I've seen this before. I've seen this places before. It's Donald Trump. Donald Trump has done the same thing to us as federal workers that you're doing to city employees. And I will say, if you do not meet their demands, you're not just going to have to face ASMC 3999. You're going to meet, you're going to have to face all of us because we are here standing in solidarity with all of them, and we will not rest until they get what they deserve. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Randy Lopez. I work for the city of Santa Fe Parks Department. I'm a maintenance specialist. I didn't prepare anything tonight. I have over 30 years working with the city, between, and over 35 actually, working with summertime program, full-time, streets department, mechanic shop, parks department now. I'm in charge of decorating the plaza. So a lot of people see that, they come in, they thank me for it. Been doing that for 20 years. My family has served the city of Santa Fe. My dad retired as a fireman. My sister Laura retired from the parking division, who's a supervisor there. My sister retired as a cook from the senior center. So, my family has done a lot for the city. But, you know, the last few years it's been so tough to even call myself a city employee. I have to fight every day just to get a raise. My department handed out raises, as you guys know. I got left out. I was the only one in that department that didn't get talked to. I found out from a different department that my department got raises. She did not want to admit that she made a mistake. I had to turn around and fight all the way through it, jump through hoops just to get what everybody else got handed to them. Here we are again, fighting for what? For a raise that we all deserve. For five years, my family has done justice by this city. I have done justice by this city. I have people from Japan, from all over the world, thanking me for the beauty that I do for this city. But for you guys to sit there and just push us aside, that's horrible. That is horrible. I'm just disgusted by this. My family is disgusted by this. I just don't know what else can we do to change you guys' mind. How can one lady stop everything? That's what I'm wondering. How can she stop all of you guys from doing this? I don't understand. Please make me understand. I've been here long enough. I've served you guys long enough. I've served, I don't know how many mayors, how many counselors, and they've all thanked me for what I've done. But now that we, I need help, I would like to retire with distinction. Not with a slap in the face, not from somebody like this. It's not fair to me. Thank you, sir. Us. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your time. Thank you for being here. Good evening, Mayor, City Councilors. My name is Ply Kunanan. I've lived here in Santa Fe since 1995. I was invited here by a good friend who is a union member. I don't work for the city. I run a small school here in Santa Fe. I hadn't actually planned to speak, but I was truly moved. I think I want to apologize because I thought I kept up with things happening in the world, in my community, but I actually had no idea that this was happening. My eyes are open, and I just really want to say I am grateful. I know what it's like to be in leadership and to be in service of your community. And I'm sure there's, I guess I just want to say in support of these people who run our city, I just the other day when I was at the, a wonderful bus driver who helped my partner who is disabled, like so many times we depend on these people who run our city, and I hope that they get what they deserve. So I just wanted to speak on behalf of someone who doesn't work for the city, but is here speaking as a Santa Fe. Thank you for your service. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Mayor, counselors, thank you for your time. I too am a 24-year veteran of the city. Maxine Sandival, sorry. Again, I've heard here tonight that we have mentioned friendships. We're building relationships. Transparency was mentioned. I failed to see the transparency here, and I don't think I'm the only one. We've been fighting it for five years. There is no transparency here. Talk about budgets. You people have a budget. You want to talk about your flat budget. How many of you people in here are on flat budgets every week, check to check, hoping that we're going to get this increase? Working with HR has been impossible. There is nothing humane about this HR department. We can't even get in there to talk to these people. You get to the kiosk, nobody comes. You call, nobody answers. "We're here for you at the end of the message if you have any questions." That's not the way it's working for us. HR calls us disgruntled employees. We're not disgruntled. We are disheartened and disgusted because every day you people do not wait for us to show up to work. We come gladly to serve our community, to serve you people. We hear about budgets, money. We need money. We need the money. Bear with me just a moment. I know my time is, you know, we talk about ethics. You've got this ethic training here. To me, it's a joke. It's a joke. And the reason I say that is because the ethics we don't get from a training. Guess what? We got that from our parents and our grandparents, and we brought it to this city. And that's why this ASMC team is loved the way they are by members who are not even working for the city. We are applauded by them. We get more recognition off the street than we do our own peers. A small thank you is going to take you a long way. A long way. Thank you for your time. Thank you for being here. Yes, sir, you have the floor. Good evening, Mayor Weber and council members. My name is Gilbert Baka. I'm the president of ASMC 3999. And I just wanted to come here tonight to kind of bring some awareness to the mayor and the council members. We've lost a lot of qualified people at water divisions, at the at Canyon Road, at BDD, the treatment plant. And one of the reasons we've lost those kind of people to the county and to Los Alamos is because they're paying a lot more for those level fours. In water, there's a level one, a two, a three, and a four. And it takes years to become qualified to be get those levels. When you guys, and I'm not saying you guys, but when they built the BDD, Snider, Brian Snyder, and I'm trying to remember, oh, Shannon Jones were recruiting the best people there was out there. They're paying him top dollar because they wanted the best people to run this facility because it was a state-of-the-art facility. I just want to bring the awareness to you guys that we've lost a lot of people from those facilities. We just lost two of them for $10 more an hour to the county. I also want to let you know that my brothers and sisters that are here with me tonight, they're doing multiple jobs with less people. You guys know that. You guys should know. Now, I'm not saying you guys, the council members and you, Mr. But you need to, I just want to bring up the awareness of how many vacancies there are out there because these brothers and sisters of mine are doing double duty. We take pride and dignity to do what we have to do to keep this city running. People have suggested to me, "Oh, we should do a walkout." I don't think so. That would make us look cheap. We need to have dignity and pride and support this city, and we will continue. My brothers and sisters are just asking for what they deserve. Thank you. : Thank you for being here. : Please come on up to the microphone. You have the floor. : Good evening. Thank you for your service. My name is Chris Helvy. I work for the source of supply at the Water Department, and I just wanted to reiterate what my brother here said about compensation and losing people. I have myself, in the last three years, personally seen several people in our department lost to the county, Los Alamos. So, of course, you guys don't want to have to pay $500,000 or $200 an hour to cover the wastewater Level 4 positions that are there. It's not easy to get a Level 4 certification from the state. And when we connect the dots for you there, it's pretty simple. The reason that you're going to have to do that, and you will have to do that, unless you want some pretty terrible stuff to happen, and I think you know what I mean, with wastewater. The reason is that the city is not competitive in those jobs. Plain and simple. You want those jobs, you want those Level 4 jobs, you're going to have to pay for them to fill those positions. We have many, many positions available, and they're always empty. We need them, and we can't get them. But put it together, the reason you can't get them. Thank you. : Thank you for being here. Anyone else who has been waiting their turn and would like to come and speak at the podium? : Mayor, council members, my name is Joshua Romer. I am a BDD charge operator at the Buckman Water Treatment Facility. When that facility was initially made, that is an advanced, as Mr. La was saying, they hired the best operators because of the technology that is there. I mean, you cannot hire any operator off the street to go and run this facility. It takes a minimum of six months to get these people trained and up to speed, make sure we put out potable drinking water for the city of Santa Fe. In the past six months, the Canyon Road Water Treatment Facility has been offline for four months, although we have been solely relying on Buckman. Currently, we have five Level 4 operators. These are two charges, a couple of leads, and a lower class AWT. I have been with the city over 12 years, and this is my career. I'm also a Level 3 wastewater certified operator. I have applied for positions to try to make the water treatment facility better and been turned away. And that's partly because they do not want to pay qualified applicants. They figure they can hire people off of the streets, come and do what we are doing. That's part of that contract that's coming out to the wastewater. We have lost a ton of Level 4 wastewater operators. They have asked us to go and help wastewater, some of us wastewater that are dual certified, and they don't want to pay. I mean, we're working out of class. Last two weeks, I put in 36 hours of overtime. Now, I'm not a cheap operator. I'm sorry. I'm one of the higher paid operators there. So, what is that costing the city? They just called me again to cover again tomorrow. That's another 12 hours. That's time and a half. That's 18 hours. Just kind of think about what that costs compared to not being certified operators. : Thank you. Thanks for being here. : My name is Lydia O'Reilly. I am a librarian at the Public Library. I've worked for the city of Santa Fe for seven years. I have a master's degree. I cannot afford to live in the city that I work for. And that is not an uncommon thing for your employees. It's shameful for you. It's shameful for us. You guys need to do better. I was also not planning to speak, but just listening to everybody else speak made me want to say something. I did bring a letter that I wrote four years ago to City Council, dated February 2021. Nothing has changed. That's embarrassing. Please do something. We can't afford to live in the city that we work for, and we do so much. Positions are being eliminated all the time. When I started at the library, each library had a children's department with at least three employees. Now there is one children's librarian at each branch. I'm doing the jobs of three people. I get paid as one underpaid employee. So please, please do something. Thank you. : Thank you for being here. : Please, the podium is yours. : Good evening. My name is Nicole. I work in the Environmental Services Department. I am an equipment lead operator. I've been working with this department for about five years. I am the only female driver. I'm going to kind of keep this short and sweet because I really don't know what to say, but I am here to back up my brothers and sisters here. I just want to let you guys know that all city employees matter. You know, we get thanked from multiple people out on the streets for servicing their refuse and recycle. And I think we should get thanked as well in that department. : Thank you for being here. Let's see. Anyone else who has been waiting their turn? Anyone on Zoom? Madame Clerk, : If the attendees in Zoom would raise their hand, we can promote you to speak. : Nobody's raised their hand, Mayor. : Okay. Thank you then. Thanks everybody for coming and speaking and appreciate the wonderful decorum and the comments that you've all made. Thanks for being here tonight. Really appreciate you taking the time to come out. Madame Clerk, can you take us to the next item on the agenda, please? : Certainly, Mayor, do we want to go back to 10A? : Regular? Oh, well, I don't know if we have. : Oh, we got, we got to untab it. : What? Well, let me find out if we've got the right person on the line. Yeah, actually, Director Michael Doer is not available, and he did communicate through Interim Director Jesse Roach that he would prefer to gather the information and bring it back. He said that two weeks is not going to be too problematic. So we'll take, I wrote down all your questions. We'll gather that information, bring it back, and then put it on the next agenda. : Why don't we untab it and then postpone it till the next meeting? If somebody could make that, the first of those two motions. : Move to make it the next order of business. : Remove from the table. : Move to make it, move to remove it from the table. : It's like 10 what? : A. : A second. : There's a motion to take 10A off the table. Let me see. We have, if you could call the roll on that motion, please. : Councilor Lee Garcia. : Yes. : Councilor Michael Garcia. : Yes. : Councilor Lindell. : Yes. : Councilor Romo Worth. : Yes. : Councilor Cassett. : Yes. : Councilor Chavez. : Yes. : Councilor, I'm sorry, Mayor Weber. : Yes. : Motion passed. : Okay. And now let's. : Move to postpone till the next council meeting on the 13th of August. : Second. : There's a motion to postpone this item to get more information. Is there discussion? I think, Madame Clerk, if you'd call the roll, we can dispense with that item. : Councilor Michael Garcia. : Yes. : Councilor Lindell. : Yes. : Councilor Romo Worth. : Yes. : Councilor Cassett. : Yes. : Councilor Travis. : Yes. : Councilor Lee Garcia. : Yes. : Mayor Weber. : Yes. : Motion passed. : Very good. Can you take us to our next item then, Madame Clerk? That me or you? Okay. : All right. We will go to matters from the City Manager. : Or in this case, the Deputy City Manager. : I don't have anything specific to share this evening. Thank you. : Thank you. In that case, we'll go to the next item. : That would be matters from the City Attorney. Thank you, Mayor and Councilors. I just have a recommendation to go into executive session for two reasons under the Open Meetings Act 10151. The first reason being subpart H5, discussion of bargaining strategy before collective bargaining negotiations with AFSCME. And the second reason being for subpart H7, attorney-client privilege discussion of pending and threatened litigation through a quarterly litigation update, including but not limited to a discussion of City of Santa Fe versus Purdue Pharma, Mark Thomas Lopez versus City of Santa Fe, and Gina Waterman on behalf of Drone Topia. Councilor Romo Worth, do you have a motion for? : I move that we enter into executive session pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Section 10-15-1, subpart H5 and, sorry, subpart H7, as just defined by the City Attorney. : Is there a second? : Second. : Is there discussion? Madame Clerk, could you call the roll? Councilor Lindell. : Yes. : Councilor Romo Worth. : Yes. : Councilor Cassett. : Yes. : Councilor Travis. Councilor Castro. : Yes. : Councilor Lee Garcia. : Yes. : Mayor Weber. : Yes. : Motion passed. : Thank you. We will meet in the conference room, and we will zoom in those who can't be in attendance. : I need some, I just turned it up there. : I did. I put it to 70. : It's chilly right now. Council, are we, are we still streaming? Madame Clerk, : Give me one minute, Mayor. : You have all the time you need. No, we are waiting to be determined that we are streaming so we can resume being in session. No. Oh, well, that's something you'll have to take up with somebody else. I'm not sure we're qualified to answer that question. We are still streaming. : We're streaming. Very good. In that case, I am going to gavel us back into order and ask Councilor Romo Worth if she'd like to make a motion. : I move that we come back into regular session and state for the record that the items discussed in the executive session were as mentioned in the motion for going into executive session. : Second. : There's a second. Madame Clerk, can you call the roll, please? : Yes, Mayor. Councilor Cassett. : Yes. : Councilor Castro. : Yes. : Councilor Chavez. : Yes. : Councilor Faulkner. : Yes. : Councilor Lee Garcia. : Yes. : Councilor Michael Garcia. : Yes. : Councilor Lindell. : Yes. : Councilor Romo Worth. : Yes. : Mayor Weber. : Yes. : Motion passed. : Thank you. With that, Madame Clerk, I'd ask you to take us to item 14 on the agenda. I believe that's next. : Yes, Mayor. That's matters from the City Clerk. And I do have an announcement. We will be having rank choice voting candidate training on Tuesday, August 12th, at 10:00 a.m. at the Main Library in the community room. And then again on Saturday, August 9th, at 11:00 a.m. at the Southside Library in the community room. And we'll move to communications from the governing body. : Very good. Council, would you like to start in the middle? I hear your plea, and I will start in the middle, but first I will ask Councilor Lindell if she would like to have first ups to say something. : I'm good, Mayor. Thank you. : I will then turn to the middle and ask Councilor Faulkner if she would like to kick off. : Sorry, I just get triggered because I'm a middle kid. I'm like, "Well, no one ever listens to me." I just want to invite everyone again to our Back to School Bash that Districts Three and are hosting. It's lining up to be kind of a really cool event, and we've had a lot of amazing community partners: Albertson's, Sam's, Coca-Cola, and Cororum, the Housing Trust. Oh God, that's an endless target. There's just so many people who have been willing to help us get this lift done. And I'd like to thank the Fire Department. They always help us, and they do a great job. And I hope everyone who can attend will attend. Tell us when and where it is. I will now. August 2nd, from 11:00 to 3:00, at Swan Park. Councilor Romo-Worth, you're still kind of in the middle. Okay. I don't have anything tonight. Thank you. Councilor Garcia, you're in the middle. Nothing tonight. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All right. Councilor Chavez, you're in the middle. Thank you. I wanted to acknowledge Councilor Faulkner and her work and just taking the lead on that Back to School Bash, that event. It's been a lot of work and time and effort, and she has just put in so many hours. So thank you. Thank you for caring so much about the community and committing and seeing things through the way you do. And I didn't do this during remembrances because I do want to do this as a celebration to Sig and Maria. I had the honor of meeting them as a pair at my school before I ran for office. They were brought there to see the work that I was doing, and I remember when they exited their car as a duo, the light that they brought to the environment immediately. And it was just like the love you're envious of, but also honored to have witnessed. So I just wanted to take a moment to celebrate them both and the love and commitment they had for one another, the beauty they brought to the world as two individuals that cared deeply about people around them and for each other. And just say that I celebrate and I'm very honored with the fact that I've been able to connect with Maria, but have been able to witness their presence, be within their presence, and have had the opportunity to have them both in my life at one point. So I just wanted to say the beauty that she brought, the beauty that you brought together, is something to celebrate, and I am grateful for it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Cassett. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. And thank you for that, Councilor Chavez. I don't think that I could reflect on that at all. That was really beautiful and I think a very apt description of Sig and Maria and the gratitude that we all have for having them both in our lives. And Sig, we love you so much, and we are here with you in both the grieving and in the celebration of something that beautiful actually existed. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Castro. Similarly, just celebrating those folks. And I also want to celebrate Lens 360 and all the amazing music and fun that we're having in the plaza. One thing that I have learned from this governing body is how much we love our city and how much we enjoy being part of the community. So thank you so much. Thank you, Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to appreciate all of the city staff and all those involved with Spanish Market over the last weekend. It takes a lot to do these big events on the plaza for our community and for those that come in. Whether it's Environmental Services or Fire, Police, City Staff, everybody that's involved with that, it's really important to me, and I know it's very important to many in our community that these type of events happen. They happen so well and so smoothly. I also wanted to remember, and there was a dedication of a tree at Rose Park for fallen Officer Duran that we lost about three and a half years ago. And a beautiful dedication to him, his family, and the officers that were there. You know, I use the quick analogy of the very big sequoia that's just probably about 100 yards from the small one that was just planted. And for years to come, people could go and remember Officer Duran, who gave his life in public service. There are also a couple of memorial benches in his honor, one at the police station and police headquarters, and the other one is off of Alamita, which is right near the river. So again, it was a good weekend, and thank you for all who participated. Thanks, Councilor. I shared those sentiments about the tree planting and also what a great start we are off to this summer with Oakhart Market setting a new all-time record for sales and participation. And now Spanish Market, just again, doing a terrific community engagement and community celebration. And it reminds me that we don't celebrate enough. We often have a moment that's really exciting, and then we let it go and go on to the next thing. So I wanted to remind everybody about the Travel and Leisure rating that we are number one in the United States of America. And we will be number one for the entire year, and nobody else is number one. And we should celebrate that, not just because the magazine came out, but because it's a tremendous achievement, and it's really a tribute to what Councilor Garcia was talking about, the many different ways that the city comes together on the plaza for music, Swan Park for the community. Every single day there are things happening in Santa Fe that explain why the voters of Travel and Leisure selected Santa Fe as the number one destination city in America. So in the rough and tumble of daily life, sometimes we ignore the amazing achievements and focus on things that need to be better. But they're not mutually exclusive. We can do a better job, but we can also give a big shout out to Santa Fe for that number one. What's next on the agenda, Madame Clerk? We'll move to item 16, Introduction of Legislation. 16A is consideration of a resolution sponsored by Councilor Lee Garcia. It's a resolution accepting a grant from the Local Government Road Fund Program administered by the New Mexico Department of Transportation and entering into a cooperative agreement, control number L500618. Councilor Garcia. Not much about it, just exactly what it says there. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next item, Madame Clerk. Next is 16B, consideration of a resolution sponsored by Councilor Alma Castro, Councilor Michael Garcia, and Councilor Pinad Faulkner. It's a resolution proposing a ballot question to be submitted to the city's voters during the November 4th, 2025, regular local election regarding amending the city's charter to limit the Mayor's authority to vote when there is a tie. I guess Councilor Castro, you're the lead on that, but each of your colleagues should also have an opportunity to speak about it. Yeah, most definitely. I will try to be brief, but I wanted to make sure that this piece of legislation was in front of the voters and could be talked about, discussed freely on the dais. I want to pass it along to Councilor Michael Garcia. A lot of this language came from a previous resolution that he tried to pass in 2023. Thank you so much. Councilor Garcia. I think Councilor Castro covered it. I look forward to the discussion. Okay. And Councilor Faulkner, did you want to say something on this? You're a co-sponsor. I think we're good. I mean, this is along the same lines as every the other pieces of legislation I'm sponsoring. Terrific. And that brings us, Madame Clerk, well, let me entertain an idea. Can we quickly go to appointments? Can we have a motion to get appointments done, and that'll leave nothing but the case in front? Move to make appointments next order of business. Second. Can you call the roll on that, please, Madame Clerk? Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Yes. Councilor Romo-Worth. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion passed. Very good. Madame Clerk, can you just, we've scrubbed one of those appointments, so we really only have 21A, I believe. 21A is appointments to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Angela Bordigary, reappointment with a term ending June 2027. And then Ben Pingilly, reappointment with a term ending June 2027. Is there a motion? Motion to approve. Second. Councilor Garcia, did you want to say anything about these individuals? That's your committee. Sure. Just happy to have them continue to work on BPAC. Just for reference, Angela Bordigary represents District Two, and Ben Pingilly represents District Three. Thank you. Is there any discussion? If not, could you call the roll on the motion to approve these appointments? Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Yes. Councilor Romo-Worth. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion passed. Thank you. That clears that. Could we then go to 20A, if you would please? 20A is a public hearing. This is a land use case. It's Appeal Number 2025-9812-APL of Case Number 2024-9478 HDRB. Property owner Miriam Leth Espenson and agent Robert Khan appeal the Historic Districts Review Board's December 10th, 2024, decision denying a request for an exception to exceed the 4'6" maximum allowable height by 1'2" for a fence in front of a contributing house at 614 Paseo de Peralta in the Downtown and East Side Historic and Business Capital Districts. We have Frank Rubalid, Assistant City Attorney, to present. Thank you. Let me go through our process, and then we'll begin the hearing. We always begin if any member of the governing body needs to recuse themselves because of pre-hearing communications, now would be the time to do that. If there are no recusals, we'll start with a staff report, and hopefully that can be done within 15 minutes. We'll then go to the appellant or the appellant's agent with an opening statement and sworn witness testimony. We'll have that for up to 20 minutes. The appellant, then we will have sworn public comment if anybody wants to speak from the public. The governing body will ask questions of the parties, whether it's staff or the appellant or the public. And then we will go to a closing statement from the appellant, who will have an opportunity to summarize their argument, then close the public hearing once questions have been asked, and then move to a motion and then a vote. So that's the process. And we will begin. Frank, we'll turn it over to you for a staff report. Thank you. Good evening. Our presentation here. Set up. I see my PowerPoint presentation isn't showing on the on the screen. What do I need to do? Help is on the way. This slideshow rather than what I've usually done is have I put on extend and so that the extension slide. Okay. Be sufficient. There we go. All right. Okay. Let the let let's see if we can get this in tonight. Thank you very much, Mayor Weber and Councilors. Appeal from a decision by the Historic Districts Review Board involves a highly visible property at 614 Paseo de Peralta, where the property owner built a 5'8" high fence without first getting a building permit. The building inspection and historic preservation staffs issued notices of violations to the property owner. And the property owner applied to the Historic Districts Review Board for retroactive approval of the fence, and the H Board denied the application, finding the fence to violate the height restrictions and the design standards for that location. The applicant has appealed the H board's decision. As you know, Santa Fe has these five historic districts. This particular property at 614 Paseo de Peralta is on a northeastern slant of the downtown and east side historic district, more on the west side of that district, and other districts that apply here. This is something called the Business Capital District, which we don't see very often, but these Business Capital Districts also set what are called building envelope standards, and they are largely within the Paseo de Peralta loop. That arc there, that orange arc there, shows roughly where the Paseo de Peralta falls with respect to the Business Capital District or BCDs, and that property you see with the red square is right there on the northeastern corner, and it's right on Paseo de Peralta. As we zoom into that, you see there's the triangle that's created by Paseo de Peralta, Otto, and Marcy streets. There's the subject property right there. To get your bearings, there's Castillo Plaza, which is a parking area where people can access restaurants and shops. Across the street from the subject property is the Cross of the Martyrs, up quite an incline because the east and north sides have a substantial incline, as we'll see more later. Here's a detail of the Business Capital District. Specifically, there's a subdistrict called the East Marcy and East Palace Street subdistrict. The area in the brown there, as you see to the west and south of Paseo de Peralta, is in the East Marcy East Palace subdistrict, whereas the area in the white, which is across Paseo de Peralta, is outside the BCD. Paseo de Peralta essentially forms the boundary of that northeastern quadrant of that BCD. There's our subject property, 614 Paseo de Peralta. There's the non-conforming fence that the property owner built. The Historic District Review Board found the height objectionable at 5'8", but they also found it non-compliant because it's not fenestrated. There is an open space feel to that Business Capital District there, and the fact that you can't see the structure on the other side of the fence is something that the H board found significant. We're looking at the property to the east, that's 618 Paseo de Peralta. You see it has a conforming fence. See how it compares to the property at 614 Paseo. And then here is the west side of that structure. As you can see, the fence kind of goes about a third of the way around the west side of the structure. There's an open lot there between 614 and 608 Paseo de Peralta. And there's a very low yard wall there. You see how that fence compares to the other fences in close proximity. This is the fence that was there before the non-conforming fence was built. As you can see, it's fenestrated, meaning you can see the lower part of the structure through the fence. And this conforms to the BCD and the Historic District Code. There are actually two codes that set height limitations for this fence. One is found in the Historic Districts Code, which is subsection 5.2 of Title 14 D9, which is a rather long section, several pages. D9 C2C: "Yard walls and fences shall be limited to a height that does not exceed the average of the height of other yard walls and fences in the streetscape." I'm drawing attention to the word "average" there because nothing in the code allows a property owner to build a fence or a yard wall as high as the next highest yard wall or fence on the streetscape. The land use staff actually arrives at an average of the yard walls and fences on the streetscape to decide what is allowable. The streetscape is defined as both sides of the street for a distance of 600 feet in both directions parallel to the street. But there are some more standards that apply to streetscape, which we'll look at in a moment. So here's how land use does the streetscape height calculation. As you can see along Paseo de Peralta, a land use agent has gone through and measured the yard walls and actually written those measurements down. There's 614 Paseo. And then if you look over there on the right side of the screen, you'll see the calculation that the land use staff does there. They've measured all the walls and heights in that streetscape, and they've found a total of 252 inches. There are 38 yards and yard walls and fences that they considered, and they calculate the average is 54 inches, or a total height of 4'6". Now this is under subsection 5.2 of Title 14. The other standard that applies are the building envelope and open space standards, which is where we find the Business Capital District standards under subsection 7.4 of Title 14. The dimensional requirements for that East Marcy and East Palace subdistrict: yard walls and fences are permitted to a maximum of 4 feet. They don't calculate the average or anything else like that. They measure 4 feet, and that is the maximum permitted. And then there are also design objectives for the Business Capital District, and one of the design objectives is to encourage low walls compatible with the characteristic open yards. Another design standard is to encourage a sense of openness. So as you can see, we have two standards that apply here. We have the Section 5, Subsection 5.2 standards for the historic districts, and we have the building envelope and open space standards under 7.4 for the Business Capital District. How do we decide which of those standards applies? That is answered in the Land Development Code. There is a section subsection involving conflicting provisions that reads: "In the case of a conflict within Chapter 14, the more restrictive limitation or requirement shall prevail, and the provision shall govern that requires the lower height of structure or lesser number of stories." So if you have two conflicting provisions, it is the more restrictive or the lower height that governs. Therefore, the 4-foot regulation is the one that applies to this particular piece of property. I'm going to show you what the buildings look like in the Business Capital District again, on the west and south sides of Paseo de Peralta. And we're going to start looking at the streetscape there at the entrance to the Castillo Plaza. And there's the entrance there. This is roughly where Hillside meets Paseo de Peralta. And we're going to move west. That house there, 640 Paseo de Peralta, as you can see, doesn't have a front yard fence. It has a perimeter fence on the south that sort of shields the wall there from the alley that goes into the Castillo Plaza, but that has basically an open yard. Moving to the west, there's 632 Paseo de Peralta. That fence there is a conforming fence at 3'2". And then again to the west, that property there is 630 Paseo de Peralta, 3'2", same as the fence next door to the east. And as you can see, that fence not only is it fenestrated in that you can see the foundation of the property by looking through the fence, it also has pointed staves so that kind of discourages people from trying to climb the fence there. It's kind of a security feature of a picket fence. Again, moving to the west here, we have 624 Paseo de Peralta. It has a wire fence, and there are actually two fences there. There's a fence behind the first wire fence that may be non-conforming to the H board standards. Maybe code inspectors need to go out and have a look at it. But what is important is that it's fenestrated. You can see the structure through the fence. And that is part of the building envelope and design standards for the BCD. The original fence is 2'8". We looked at this property, 618 Paseo de Peralta, 4-foot conforming fence. There's the property on appeal, 614, with its 5'8" fence. This structure here to the west, 608 Paseo de Peralta, I did not get a measurement on that wall, my apologies, but as you can see, it's probably two or maybe 2 1/2 feet. 608 Paseo de Peralta is the only structure on the west and south side of Paseo de Peralta there where the facade of the structure actually abuts the sidewalk. So, it's kind of unusual there, but that's not a yard wall or a fence. That's actually the facade. That's the north facade of that structure. This structure here is actually on Otto Street at the north side of the structure of Butts Paseo de Peralta. And that fence, you see how it steps down as you move east to west? It's 4 feet so that it conforms along the entire north side perimeter there at 4 feet across Otto Street. This is the last structure in the streetscape. This is the tallest fence, and it likely predated the Business Capital District. That fence is 5'10". But as you can see, because of its wrought iron nature, it's fenestrated. You can see the structure on the other side of the fence. And again, the security feature of a wrought iron fence like that is that those stakes that sort of stick up kind of discourage people from straddling that fence to try to climb over it there. So, but nonetheless, that is a historic fence and is the tallest on the west and south sides of Paseo de Peralta. Now, under the Historic Districts Code, a person who has a non-conforming, wants to build something non-conforming, can apply for an exception, and the board can grant exceptions. The D9 exceptions for height and setbacks and height of structures and number of floors. There are actually six criteria that have to be met, and it is the burden of the applicant to conclusively demonstrate that the requested exceptions comply with all six criteria. It is not sufficient for the applicant simply to prove or conclusively demonstrate one criteria. All six criteria have to be conclusively demonstrated, and the criteria are: one, that structure does not damage the character of the streetscape; prevents a hardship to the applicant or an injury to the public welfare; strengthens the unique heterogeneous character of the city by providing full range of design options so that residents can continue to reside in the historic districts. That criteria has been the subject of a lot of debate, and those terms aren't defined anywhere. So sometimes some board members have expressed confusion as to what that criteria actually mean. Are due to conditions peculiar to the land or structure not applicable to other lands on the streetscape. Special conditions are not caused by the applicant. That is quite rare. I recall a situation where the applicant ever actually caused the conditions. But then also provide the least negative impact to the general purposes of the Historic Districts Code. So under that criteria, the H board actually considers what other design options were available to the property owner that would have a less negative impact under the Historic District Code. And something the H board considered was perhaps a picket fence or a wrought iron fence would have the same security feature and would allow that open space feel that is common to the East Marcy and East Palace subdistrict. And the applicant has compared her property to some other properties. You'll see throughout the appeal that the applicant has asked the board to consider that there is a tall non-conforming coyote fence at the Girls Inc. property on 301 Hillside Avenue. And as you can see here, this detail of the map of the East Marcy East Palace subdistrict on the other side of Paseo de Peralta Street, whereas our subject property at 614 is inside that Business Capital. Something else the H board considered is that under the code, under Section 5.2, again, one of the many subsections under D9, when determining a streetscape, some structures are excluded from the height calculation, and among those are institutional buildings and also structures approved by way of a variance or an exception. And the Girls Inc. fence, that tall coyote fence that you see at the Girls Inc. property, was approved by an exception. So, it should not be included in the streetscape under D9B2 of Section 14-5.2. The H board approved that by an exception in a hearing on July 23rd, 2024. And then finally, something with respect to the Girls Inc. property. The H board considered that there is a substantial slope to that property from the front of the property on Hillside and Paseo de Peralta to the back of the property. The slope is actually 35 feet. It ascends 35 feet above the back. And the applicants have also, the appellants have also asked you to compare their property to 803 Agua Fria Street. As you can see, according to this map here, 803 Agua Fria Street is in another historic district. It is in the West Side Guadalupe Historic District. Fence restrictions are a lot more lenient there on the West Side Guadalupe. They don't require the fenestration. Coyote fences are presumptively approvable in the West Side Guadalupe District. And then as well, showing where these properties fall with respect to the BCDs. 803 Agua Fria Street is not in one of the Business Capital Districts, whereas 614 Peralta is. So, we ask you to support the decision of the Historic District Review Board. Here's a decision tree. This chart here, you ask the first question: Have the appellants conclusively demonstrated all six criteria for an exception to the H district standards? If you answer all of those questions yes, you get to the bottom and you can grant the appeal if you find that the applicant exclusively demonstrated all six of those criteria. However, if your answer to any of those questions is no, then we ask that you deny the appeal. And thank you for your attention here. I would like to note that Land Use Director Heather Lamboy is also present and can answer any questions at this time. Thank you for your— Thank you very much. We'll turn now to the appellant or the appellant's agent for your presentation and ask you to try to be within 20 minutes, but we want to hear your case. Be sure you speak into the mic. Is that better for openers? Yes, if you stay there. Thanks. Okay, I won't. I will have to move around because I don't have this technology. All I have is the binders that you have. And emphasis, I'm going to put these page right here on this is Tab 16 of the tabs. Start with Tab 16, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. What you see in Tab 16 is the current fence, the coyote fence, which is 5'8" tall, and that's the one for which we're seeking the exception. The previous fence, which is the one made out of chain link with the white wooden supports. The earlier fence before that is the blue fence. I guess you could call that a board fence, and that's the most historic that we have in the record. That one does not have any fenestration whatsoever. But in any case, what we're looking for here is an exception to the general design standards, and the exception has, in order to get that, as you know, six elements. But, or we can consider those elements, we're going to have to talk about the streetscape. Streetscape here under the code. It's that section of Paseo de Peralta between the intersection at one end, which is Otowi Street, that's the west end, and the east end intersection with Hillside Avenue. You don't get to go beyond those intersections. You don't get to go past Otowi. You don't get to go past Hillside. But where I have to take issue with the city attorney's analysis is that you do have to consider both sides. By law, the streetscape is both sides. Quote, "Fences on both sides of the street," unquote. That's what it says in the City Code Section 14-5.2 E92. That's in black and white. It's certainly true that there are different requirements, or different general standards, I should say. None of them tell you what constitutes the streetscape itself. Code tells you the streetscape itself is the fences on both sides of the street. Quote, "Fences on both sides of the street," unquote. Now, the city staff's memo recommended to define streetscape by excluding the coyote fence, the previously existing coyote fence, not the one that got the exception, the previously existing coyote fence at Girls Inc., that's the one that sits on the corner of Hillside Avenue and Peralta. And the city staff's recommendation was to exclude that from the streetscape, not because it's in a different district, but because it faces Hillside Avenue. That was erroneous because code tells us, quoting now, "If a portion of a structure falls within the measurement of an applicable streetscape, such structure shall be considered as part of the applicable streetscape." That's Section 14-5.2D 9B5. And the photos in your packet show you that the fence does have a portion. The Girls Inc. fence does have a portion facing Peralta. Those are in Tabs 14 and 15 of your binder. And what you can see is the Girls Inc. fence is down here in the distance. The part that's not in shadow is the part that fronts Peralta. Is it necessary for me to be sworn to testify about things like this, to talk about things like this? I'm happy to do that. If you'd please raise your right hand and state your name and your street name. Don't have a street name, but my name is Robert Cole. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, part of it faces 614 Peralta. This photograph is taken from directly in front of my mom's house at 614. I'm here as my mom's agent. So obviously that's a part of the relevant streetscape because by law the streetscape is fences on both sides of the street. One thing I would like to point out to you as we're looking at this is the fence, the white picket fence at 618, which is visible in the foreground. It does not have any fenestration, is not fenestrated. This is irrelevant to the general standards because there's no dispute that my mom's fence doesn't meet the general standards. The only question in dispute is, does she qualify for an exception? That asked, there's—am I too close to the microphone? I know there may be feedback from part of our— Existing streaming service. Councilor Lindell, can you please mute yourself? Now, as I just pointed out, the white picket fence at 618, which is the next-door neighbor's house to my mom's house at 614, does not have any fenestration, or let's just say doesn't have very much fenestration. I mean, you could peer through and see a little bit. And that's also true for the coyote fence at my mom's house. You could peer through and see a little bit, but not too much. Okay, so this is Tab 14, and this is the more close-up view of that portion, the Girls Inc. fence, which fronts Peralta. It's on the opposite side of the street, but it's still part of the streetscape. And as you can see, it has no fenestration, similar to two other fences we've just been discussing. What you can also kind of tell is that there's no visual access whatsoever from the street. What you can see from the street is the fence and the wall. You can't, you can't see buildings. Now, some of the houses in this streetscape have the house walls abutting the sidewalk. You saw a photograph of one of them on my mom's side of the street. There's another one on the other side of the street, which is also part of the streetscape. Tab 18 in your binder has a photo of that. Apologize, it's not the best photograph, but it is, it is taken from the record. And what you can see in the immediate foreground is the same white picket fence from 618. And then the one with no fenestration. And then right beyond that is my mother's place where the sign says "Yarn." You see her coyote fence, the one that we're talking about trying to get approved. Now, on the opposite side of the street in the distance, you see the car. That car is stopped at the intersection of Otowi Street. So, that's the end of the streetscape. And what it's parked, stopped next to is a great big high wall that abuts the street. It's about 10 feet high. You can see that. And it abuts the street, right on the street. There's not even a sidewalk there. All this is relevant to the question of massing as well as fenestration. Those houses that are right on the street, they're massed right on the street. There's no separation. Well, from all that, what you can, what I, I hope you can take away is that the streetscape is varied. There are low fences, there are high fences, there are low walls, there are high walls, there are fences with fenestration, there are fences without fenestration on both sides. Now, this brings me to the elements, the six elements for an exception. No, these elements have nothing to do with the general design standards that covered initially. So it doesn't make any difference whether the general design standards are different on one side of the street or another, just like it makes no difference how you define the streetscape. The first one is, is there any damage to the character of the streetscape? And the answer is no. Because the streetscape is varied. Streetscape has low fences and high fences. Fences with fenestration, without fenestration. It has walls. It has some buildings that are right on the street or the sidewalk, and some that are not. So adding a coyote fence doesn't damage the streetscape, but it already was a coyote fence at Girls Inc. in 2023. Now, the city attorney is correct in pointing out that you're not supposed to consider buildings with an exception. So by that understanding, the new fence isn't part of the streetscape. The new fence at Girls Inc. wasn't there when my mom built her fence. What was there was the old fence, the old coyote fence at Girls Inc., which is perfectly consistent with my mom's coyote fence. Now, on top of that, if you're looking at the question of damage to the streetscape, Girls Inc. got an exception. That means that building that Girls Inc. fence caused no damage. Girls Inc.'s fence is a coyote fence just like my mom's, but it's taller. It's six feet tall. My mom's coyote fence is 5'8". And the Girls Inc. fence is not only 6 feet tall, but it stands on top of a wall, which is why you get almost no visual interaction with Girls Inc. Now, I'm not saying that's wrong. What I'm saying is that didn't damage the streetscape. And my mom's fence doesn't damage the streetscape either. So if you take a look at Tab 6 and Tab 19, same thing really, but 6 is the better copy, better photograph. What you can see here is a lot of visual interaction. There's a lot of visual interaction with my mom's house from the street, more than you get at Girls Inc., which is part of this, part of the same streetscape, and more than you get at 618 Peralta, which is next door, which is why there's no harm to the character of the streetscape. Anything, it's obvious that the fence looks a lot better. Now, the next element is the requested exception prevents a hardship to the applicant. The issue here is safety. I'm going to hear from my mom when she testifies about how building this coyote fence has stopped people from climbing over the fence, which they were doing because there's a passageway between 614, where my mom lives, and 618 next door. There's a passageway that connects Peralta down to Castillo Place and out to the downtown area. Now, why were people using that particular passageway? That particular passageway is exactly at the bottom of the trail that leads down from Cross of the Martyrs. Now, if you take a look at Tab 4 in your binder, that's my mom's house where the post says 614, and next to it is a gate. That gate leads down to that passageway. That photograph is taken from the walkway down from the Cross of the Martyrs. That's the view that you get when you're walking down from Cross of the Martyrs. If you're looking for how to get a shortcut to get to downtown, that's it. And that's what they used to do before my mom built the fence. She complained about that in a police report in 2005, and that's in Tab 20 in your binder. And what was reported by the officer who took the report is that this was an "ongoing incident." Now, it was ongoing 20 years ago, and it's been ongoing since until the time in 2023 when my mom built that fence. The reason why is because the gate that I just showed you is 5'5" tall, but her fence used to be only about 4 feet tall. So, what people would do is they would jump the fence to get around the gate, and then they would walk down that passageway, the one that they could very readily see from walking down the trail that comes down from the crest of the Martyrs. Now, what you can still see, even with the fence today, there's still quite a lot of visual access. Walking down, you've got a pretty good view of the house. Now, safety was also the criteria on this point, but for the Girls Inc. institution when they got their exception in 2024, their rationale was, "We're on a steep hill, and that means we need a high fence in order to interrupt visual access." And the Historic Board thought that my mom's house is not on a steep hill because it's on the other side of the street, and the pitch or the incline is shallower on my mom's side of the street, which is a true fact, but it's not a relevant fact. The relevant fact is that people coming down from the Cross of the Martyrs are coming down from that same hill that the Girls Inc. property is located on. It's the same pitch, it's the same hill, and they have the same opportunity for not just a view, but then when they, of course, when they get down there, to jump over the fence. So, it is the same hill. It's the same pitch that the Historic Board was just wrong to overlook that. One of the memos pointed out, or maybe the Historic Board, I can't remember, that the fence my mom put up doesn't go all the way around the house. We just saw that there's visual access from one side. And this was thought to undermine the safety rationale, but the opposite is true because that side of the house, the side that isn't blocked by the fence, is the side where you don't have a passageway. So nobody was jumping fences to get down to that side of the property. The only place that that happened was on the other side of the property. So the fence that's been built, what it does is it encompasses the entire front yard, as the front yard is how you can get around that 5'5" inch gate. Nothing else is cut, nothing else is blocked. The last thing about this element is that people like my mom are not required to experiment with alternative security devices to find out whether they might meet the same safety goals. The Historic Board and the staff said that it might be possible, but they didn't cite any facts saying that that would actually work, and there's nothing in the record to suggest that it would have worked. But on this element, the only thing is this fence does work, and that's why it satisfies that element. The third element is whether the requested exception strengthens the city's unique heterogeneous character by providing a full range of design options to ensure residents can continue to reside in the historic districts. My mom lives as a resident full-time. As far as I know, there might be one other place on the street where people live there full-time. All the other places are residences that got turned into businesses or Girls Inc.; nobody resides there. But it's obvious that coyote fences contribute to the heterogeneous nature character of the historic districts. The record is full of photographs showing coyote fences, and it is completely heterogeneous because there are all these other kinds of fences too, and walls. Now, the next element is number four: that the exception as requested is due to special conditions and circumstances peculiar to the land that do not apply to other lands or structures in that streetscape. In that streetscape, none of the other houses are situated directly below the trail down from the Cross of the Martyrs, except for one, which is 618, sharing that passageway. But unlike 618, my mom's house has a very narrow setback from the street, which means that my mom's bedroom window is only about 5 1/2 feet away from the street. That's the place where people were mostly jumping over the fence, right next to her window. Now, you look at Tab 2 and Tab 3. That's Tab 2. That's what the setback looked like for the new fence. That's what it was like under the old fence. That's how much the front yard is wide. This is the same basic viewpoint, taken in daylight, obviously. It shows the current fence, the new fence, the 5'8" inch fence for which we're seeking the exception. And what you can see, just to the right, is my mom's bedroom window. There's no other property on the streetscape that has that circumstance where you have a full-time resident living—she sleeps in that bedroom—with that very narrow setback right next to a gate leading to a path adjacent to the Cross of the Martyrs' path that people are jumping over the fence, and they've been doing it for 20 years. Now, my mom didn't create that. This is getting to the next element, the fifth element. My mom didn't cause the setback to be what it is. She didn't cause the trail from the Cross of the Martyrs to be directly across from her house. She didn't even cause there to be a path. And that path was there when the house was built more than 100 years ago. Now, as you can see from the photograph, people walking down, and you can see them looking up, they can see looking down, they can see the house. They have lots of visual interaction with the house. But what Mom's going to tell you is they don't jump the fence anymore. Mayor: Sir, if you're also going to have your mom testify, you're going to have to pick up the pace. You're already a good 25 minutes into this. Thank you. And I apologize for that, and I appreciate the indulgence that's been shown to me. On the last one is, oh, I was just going to say that she lives there full-time. The neighbor at 618, nobody lives there full-time. Part of the house is leased out to a residential tenant. That person's not there full-time. They have their own, they're leasing it out on a short-term basis. Other people who are there on weekends. So, my mom really is in a unique situation, and she didn't cause it, and just living there doesn't isn't causing the situation. Now, on the last element, and then I will be turning it over, I hope, the least negative impact, the purposes of the historic district code. There's actually no negative impact, and the reason why is that my mom's coyote fence is fully consistent with the streetscape. This same point was made by the Girls Inc. application for an exception. You see that in Tab 1 in your binder. But there just isn't any damage because there are plenty of other places on the streetscape which are allowed that don't have fenestration, do have massing greater than mine. They have less visual impact. So there's no negative impact. As far as the idea of putting spikes on a fence or having pointy things on a fence, maybe, but what we know for sure is that this fence works, and we don't have any evidence to suggest that making a shorter fence with pointy things on it would work. That's speculating. No evidence of that. So, I'd like my mom to be sworn in and to speak as well. Mayor: Great. Thank you. You'd come forward and get sworn in, and then you could have a chance to make a statement, and then we'll move on to the next part of the hearing. Thank you, sir, for the presentation. Madame Clerk, can you swear in the witness, the applicant, the appellant? Clerk: Would you please raise your right hand and state your name and address? Miriam Lit Espenson: My name is Miriam Lit Espenson, and my address is 614 Po Dealta. Clerk: Do you, oh, go ahead. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Miriam Lit Espenson: I do. Clerk: Thank you, Mr. Mayor: You need to get right up to the microphone, ma'am. Miriam Lit Espenson: Okay. Can you hear me now? Mayor: Very good. Thank you. Miriam Lit Espenson: I just, having listened to all the change in my fence, it's not part of what I had prepared, but I just want to say I never wanted to change the fence. When I came here, there was this original plank fence, but because I'm so close to the street, it got destroyed by the dirt, and especially in the wintertime with the salt. The salt would hit the wood, and it began to deteriorate. And for years, because I couldn't afford to replace it, I would sand it and paint it. And that's why on the pictures it looks blue because I was hoping the dirt wouldn't show and the salt wouldn't continue to destroy the fence. That's an aside. And the wire fence, oh, it looked so beautiful in the beginning, but again, the salt destroyed the wood, and all these people who kept jumping over, the wooden post started shaking, and the gate, there were people who tried to push in the gate, and so I couldn't properly close it, and I had never wanted to change any of the fences. I just want to mention anyway. There were only three things I wanted to talk to you about, and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to do that. First, the fence that I built in 2023 makes me safer because it's taller than the gate that my neighbor built at 618. Because the new fence is taller, where was I? Mayor: Because the new fence is taller. Miriam Lit Espenson: It's taller. It has stopped people from climbing over into my front yard, which my son explained is just a shortcut from the Cross of the Martyrs to get to downtown Santa Fe. The hill across my house is very steep, and that means that anyone who's walking down from there can look right down into my property. One thing they can see is that between my place at 614 and the neighbor at 618, there's a passage that leads down towards the downtown. But that gate was much taller than what my fence used to be. So people would just jump over my fence and go around my yard, go down the stairs, and pass my house. My neighbor Ray Man built that gate after he moved there in the 1990s. And after that, some people would get around the gate just by climbing over my fence. I reported this problem 20 years ago to the police department as an ongoing problem. There was nothing they could do to stop it. Now, my new fence is 5 feet and 8 inches tall, and nobody has tried to climb over it. The second thing is that I have followed the rules to the best of my ability. My contractor told me I didn't need a permit for the new fence in 2023 as long as it was below six feet. And nobody told me that a permit was needed until after the fence was built. After the fence was built, I did get a "red tag" in the mail. But I want you to know I have never seen any red tag posted on my fence, and I have never removed any red tag. Now, I don't know if Mr. Man got a permit for the 5'5" inch gate that he built, the one that people used to go around to climb into my yard. I don't know if he needed a permit for that gate, but it is personally offensive for anyone to say that I'm a scofflaw or a person who doesn't follow rules. I am not a thief. I'm not a criminal. I'm just a lady who lives alone. As my son explained, my bedroom window is only 5 and a half feet from the street. Third, the new coyote fence fits the streetscape on my block of Pío de Peralta. I think we all know coyote fences are common in the historic district of the city. I have looked into a lot of the history of my area. Pío de Peralta was constructed in 1962, and in 1966, the City of Santa Fe decided to give dual zoning to the houses on my side of the street of Pío de Peralta, which was perfect for me. I could live and have my weaving studio there. When I came in '88, there was an engineering firm. Former City Councilor Cadmac had his engineering business there, and there was a law office, and the rest was all residential. That has slowly changed in the early to mid-90s. So now I'm the only property owner who actually still lives there. It might interest you to know that 614 and 618 were built, I believe, either in 1919 or 1920. Two immigrants from Lebanon arrived shortly after the First World War, and the grandson of Mr. Anton, who built 614, actually came to visit me in 2021, and we had a very interesting discussion about the house. One of the things he pointed out was that he really appreciated what I had done, putting up the coyote fence in my backyard. I hadn't yet put it up in the front. It's true, it looks a lot nicer than when I came here in '88. I would also like to point out that when I came here in '88, there were no white picket fences on my side of the street between Hotel and Hillside. They came in the early to mid-90s. There was no picket fence at 618. There was a wire fence, and a little further down on Plaza, which is now a law firm, there were two old buildings there. That three-story building that was erected to connect the two historic buildings was not there in '88, and there was no white picket fence there either. I don't think there's anything historic about the white picket fences. I'm old, and I'm not historic, but I've been there longer than the white picket fences. What else can I say that my son hasn't said? I mean, there's the whole thing about the fencing. **Speaker:** I think perhaps you could wrap it up because... **Speaker:** Yeah, I'll wrap it up. **Speaker:** Please allow me the security that I... I thank you very much for your time. **Speaker:** Thank you. **Speaker:** I know it's late. **Speaker:** No, it's okay. Thank you for your statement. Madam, is there anyone from the... I'm sorry, sir, were you going to come say some more? **Speaker:** You're kind of trying the boundaries of our reasonableness because you were allotted about 25 minutes, and you're at 45 minutes. Just want to say that our request is that you approve the exception during the board hearing, also a proposal to slightly modify the fence staggering of the latas, in some instances at least slightly shortening. I think you could approve that as well as the alternative without sending it back to the H board, or either one of those things. We thank you. **Mayor:** Do we need to suspend our rules? **Speaker:** Yes, we do, unfortunately. **Speaker:** Move to suspend our rules. **Speaker:** Second, with regard to time. **Speaker:** We're going to have to take a vote on going past 11:30 in order to complete the hearing. Madam Clerk, there is a motion to go beyond 11:30. If you would call the roll, please. **Clerk:** Councilor Faulkner? **Councilor Faulkner:** Yes. **Clerk:** Councilor Lee Garcia? **Councilor Lee Garcia:** Yes. **Clerk:** Councilor Michael Garcia? **Councilor Michael Garcia:** Yes. **Clerk:** Councilor Lindell? **Councilor Lindell:** No. **Clerk:** Councilor Romero Worth? **Councilor Romero Worth:** Yes. **Clerk:** Councilor Casset? **Councilor Casset:** Yes. **Clerk:** Councilor Castro? **Councilor Castro:** Yes. **Clerk:** Councilor Chavez? Mayor Weber? **Mayor Weber:** Yes. **Clerk:** Motion passed. **Mayor:** Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Lindell, for being yourself. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this matter from the public? If so, please come forward now and be sworn in, or on Zoom, Madam Clerk, if there's somebody who's been patiently waiting their turn to testify on Zoom. **Clerk:** Mayor, there is one hand raised in the Zoom room. **Mayor:** All right, let's admit that person and swear them in. One moment. It's not allowing me to give her permission to talk. Michael, are you able to promote Stephanie Benato and allow her to speak, please? I'm unable to do that. **Speaker:** Okay, I can do it now. **Mayor:** Stephanie Benato, we need to swear her in. Stephanie, will you please raise your right hand and state your name and address? **Stephanie Benato:** Excuse me. Stephanie Benonato, P.O. Box 1601, Santa Fe. **Mayor:** Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? **Stephanie Benato:** Yes, I do. **Mayor:** Thank you. **Stephanie Benato:** I'm here as a former agent for the applicant, and I'm here because I find this case to be rather outrageous. It's really about personal preference, about wanting a white picket fence in front of this property as opposed to looking at safety in allowing somebody to actually reside in the district and the other criteria. So, I point out that, number one, you can't put a wire fence or metal there because that is non-conforming. Non-conforming material cannot be put back. It can only be removed. It can't even be repaired or replaced. The historic district, the Downtown East Side, definitely allows coyote fencing, and so does that BCD sub-district because there are at least four properties on Otero that have coyote fencing, and on Castillo Place, there are at least two houses that are fully surrounded by coyote fencing. It's also the staff has said that it wasn't really a hardship, that safety wasn't really a hardship because it wasn't unique to that property, but that is not how the staff normally looks at hardship because people come in and say they want to age in place, and that's fine. And Girls Inc. said that they needed the higher fencing for safety, even though there were no actual trespasses or danger to girls, it was the threat of or the possibility of danger. Additionally, the house's status is not in question. That would only happen if the fence was touching the front facade, which is the primary facade, or historic materials are being removed. The board itself said that the safety that used as an issue both for Girls Inc. and 803 Agua Fria set a precedent, and that they should actually allow this fence because they've just allowed it as for Girls Inc. And then they decided that somehow their preference really was for a white picket fence. And they didn't like the idea that there was 16 feet of fence, then a gate, and 16 more feet. But at the Girls Inc., in that one photo from the driveway to the edge where it goes up the hill, that's 72 feet. I actually measured that. I also point out that the walls that support the entry to the Cross of the Martyrs, they're seven feet high, and they drop down to six feet. That is part of the streetscape and needs to be considered in terms of height. The city is not supposed to be speculating, or the board is speculating, and it's speculative to think that a coyote fence should be there or was there because there's no evidence of that at all. And although it may be arch, it's not even architecturally appropriate because it doesn't have a porch the full length of the building. As pointed out, there's a room, the porch is recessed, and on the other side, there's a wall with a window in it. And then the other thing that I wanted to point out is these are for the exception is for people who want to reside there, and that is what Ms. Leth Espenson is trying to do. And the staff has also, I'm sorry, just a minute. It's kind of late, and I'm a little bit tired. **Speaker:** I think she's over her two minutes. **Stephanie Benato:** One more thing. If I could just say one more thing. **Speaker:** Please wrap it up. **Stephanie Benato:** All fence guidelines allow a 20% increase over the approved... **Speaker:** Thank you. Is there anyone else? **Stephanie Benato:** A 4.6 that would allow a 5.5 foot. **Mayor:** Miss Benonado, I think you've got to wrap it up, please. **Stephanie Benato:** I just did again. The exception would... **Mayor:** Got it. Thank you. Thanks for testifying. Anyone else in the public or on Zoom? **Clerk:** No. **Mayor:** No. In that case, let me move to questions by members of the governing body of either our staff or of the appellant or the appellant's agent. And I'll start. Councilor Casset, I'll go to you to open the discussion. **Councilor Casset:** So much, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, everybody, for being here so late. So, a couple things. I do want to get to the conversation around streetscape. And Frank, or maybe even Heather, this is probably for you regarding, so I did go look up the definition of streetscape. And it looks like there are a couple options. So, one is both sides of the street. The other one had to do with parallel to the centerline of the street. And then there was also discussion of it not crossing districts. So that's from what I'm understanding from what the staff is presenting. Please correct me if I am wrong, is that Girls Inc. is not in the Business Capital District and therefore is not a good comparison because we have different requirements on each side of the street based on one being in the BCD and one not being. Am I understanding that correctly from the staff's perspective? **Staff:** Thank you for the question. Mayor Weber, Mayor Pro Tem, Councilor Romero Worth, and Casset. I just, I'm going to... **Councilor Casset:** Yeah, right. May as well. **Staff:** So, but with reference to, there are several things at play here, but the streetscape standards are determined by the historic district's ordinance, 145.2D is the code citation. And as you can see in that code section, there's lots of ways to marry or to measure that. In this particular case, it was 600 feet either way from the actual property itself. And yes, yard walls on both sides of the street were considered in that overall height calculation. You bring up a good point with the different zoning districts. So, Ms. Leth Espenson can have her business at that location because it is in the Business Capital Zone District. In that zone district, which is based on characteristic townscapes, those code criteria were developed based on that basis. The maximum height of the yard wall can be four feet. So if it is the pleasure of the governing body to approve a higher fence than four feet, then the applicant also must go to the Board of Adjustment and request a variance to that fence height. So the historic district's ordinance does not overrule zoning law. So, in this particular case, there's two things at play. And you were correct in stating that Girls Inc. is in a different zone district, a residential zone district, and there were other criteria that applied when considering the exception. **Councilor Casset:** Okay. And then in terms of historic district, I know there was a map there. Is this property and Girls Inc. in the same historic district? Because then there was also an example of something in Agua Fria, but that's actually a different historic district. Am I correct in that understanding? **Staff:** Mayor, Councilor Casset, they're both in the Downtown and East Side Historic District, but it's outside of the streetscape or the historic district's ordinance. **Councilor Casset:** Okay. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. So the gate was built in the 19... Wait, that was answered. And then in terms of permits being required for fences, there is conversation around permits not being required if the fence is below six feet. That is not, I'm not sure if that's relevant citywide, but regardless, we are because we are talking about zoning in the BCD as well as the historic district. That is not correct in this location. Am I understanding that correctly? Mayor: Yes, that's correct, Councilor Cassid. It's not correct, especially in the historic districts, which are governed by streetscapes and our fences for any area of the city. I believe you need a permit for those as well. You need a permit for most things that are going to be on the outside of a house and actually some of the inside. Yes, that is correct. Okay. Okay. When was this, so the zoning already existed when this home was purchased in 1988, correct? Have we had changes to this current zoning since that time? Councilor Casset, the BCD zoning standards were adopted in the 1960s. Okay. So that zoning would have been in place in 1988. Okay. All right. Thank you. And then in terms of, so the previous fence, how high was the previous fence at this property? That might be a question for the applicant. Appellant. Thank you. It was an "AP" word. I knew that much. You were right. So what we know of, at least two previous fences, just looking at Tab 16, it looks like the board fence was a little bit taller, the fence was a little bit lower, and I don't think we have an exact measurement, ballpark about four feet. Okay. But you don't know if it was, if it hit the maximum for the BCD or not at four feet. I'm not aware of any precise measurement. Just looking at it and comparing it to, looking at the photographs, it looks like about four feet. Okay. And then have the pathways from the Cross of the Martyrs, those have been consistent. I don't think those have changed. I was, I was here in 19, well, I don't remember much. The Cross of the Martyrs itself, the new version, some people call the new version, the one, the big white one on Marcy Park, that was already built before 1988. The pathway, I believe, goes back even earlier. Before there was a cross, there was a pathway. The pathway was redeveloped and redesigned in approximately 1986 to be more historically interesting with more information and design elements. But looking at old, old photographs of that area, there's been a pathway there for a long time. But you know, there wasn't always the same touristic tourism interest and the same number of people using it. So, Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Also, in terms of comparison properties, this is again probably for you, Director Lamboy. When we are taking a look at exceptions to design, institutions are not considered as part of those. Am I understanding that correctly? Is Girls Inc. considered an institution? Mayor, Councilor, that is correct. Institutions are not included in my calculation. Okay. And then there's a couple, couple issues here. So one, one is the concern around height, and then but coyote fencing is also one of the concerns. Can you please explain that again? I know Frank went over it, but if you could give me a review of, of either of you, what that was from the perspective of staff. Yes. Thank you, Mayor Weber and Councilor Casset. The history of this part of town makes what this part of town represents very unique. So originally, when Santa Fe was developed, this area was a cienega or a wetland and was not developed at that time. Only during the American period did this East Marcy area, as well as connecting over to Po de Peralta, that area was developed and is reflected in the different type of architecture, the bungalow architecture with the pitched roofs and the like. So, and it was more of a classic type of, you know, front yard, backyard type of experience along Marcy Street. But because Hillside, what used to be Hillside Avenue, came down and the way that the tracks were divided up, there was a more, a stronger relationship with the street for the houses at front at Pedo Peralta. And the characteristic of these types of development with bungalows are low fences. You can see that in the Don Gaspar Historic District. You can see that throughout town where there's that relationship with the street and the low fences as part of a character defining feature. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. That's helpful to get that brief history. In terms of the design standards that we're looking at here for concerns around trespassing and safety and people jumping over the fence. I know that this has been a, and maybe this is a conversation we're not going to solve in this moment, but I know that there's been conversations around how much can land use and planning provide guidance, provide information to somebody who is coming in trying to meet standards and also meet a particular goal. Is that something that you've had experience, that staff has had experience with? Especially, I mean, the historic district's complex and, and you know, when you buy in the historic district, you, you take on a responsibility. It is, it is a wonderful opportunity to be in the historic district. We all know how, how beloved this part of town is. But we also know that it is a big responsibility because you are trying to uphold the history of Santa Fe and the way that we have, at this moment in time, could be some changes coming up, really tried to enshrine that in our, you know, design codes, in the historic code. But I, I am curious if, if staff does, you know, do we work with people to say, we understand what this issue is, how do we address that while also making sure that we are staying within the character of the district that, that one is in. So, Mayor, Councilor Casset, we do do that when we're given the opportunity. In this particular case, the fence was built without a permit and without consultation of historic preservation staff. So, we, we certainly do the height calculation, the streetscape calculation, and talk about the materials and listen to the concerns of, of person who's desiring to, to erect a fence in their yard. I will say that the Historic District's Review Board did comment on the material. The coyote fencing is out of character with the streetscape and there were questions that were raised by the HDRB that whether, you know, something else would be considered, what Mr. Khan, I believe, referred to at the end of his presentation about having a different height. The HDRB was really trying to engage with the applicant at that time and the request was to retain the fence as it was and so therefore it was denied by the HDRB. And so now we are here. Okay, got it. I heard whispers that I was getting close to 10 minutes, so I will yield the floor. Thank you. Thank you for having rabbit ears. That's very good of you. We'll come back around if you didn't finish your questions. We just want to share the, the, the podium, please. Councilor Castro, you have the floor. Director Lamboy, don't go too far. I'm so sorry. I want to get staff's opinion on this third option that was suggested that potentially the H board was looking at tearing the fence. Do you know anything about that? Mayor, Councilor Castro, so the, the, the issues that were twofold. So there was the height and the Historic Districts Review Board did comment that certainly security and safety is a concern, but the material also is a concern. So as you can see in other fences and yard walls in the streetscape, there's a lot of transparency. So there was some discussion of rod iron as a possibility or other design solutions and the applicant really wanted to retain the coyote. And so was this option of adjusting the height or tearing the coyote fence discussed at the H board meeting? So, Mayor, Councilor Castro, there was a discussion about the material and so whether it would be a wooden fence like you find some others in the streetscape and, you know, that there was a passing comment about that, but there, that wasn't flushed out because the applicant just really wanted the fence as it was. Okay. And so the real concern here is the material. So even if there was some sort of setting wider so that there was some visibility from the street, really the concern was the material rather than, I mean, obviously the height and the character, but the material in and of itself is not characteristic of the streetscape. Is that correct? Mayor, Councilor Castro, that is correct. In fact, the H board and their, their motion stated that they denied the application without prejudice and, and actually encouraged the applicant to come back with design options. Great. Thank you. And I see the floor. Thank you. Are there other hands to ask questions? I see one. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Director Lamboy, and maybe this is, I apologize if I'm repeating your question, Councilor Castro, but the applicant had mentioned that they were open to an approval that would have staggered latillas. Is that something we could approve? Mayor, Councilor Garcia, we actually did discuss the material of it at the Historic District's Review Board meeting and was concerned about the character of the streetscape and coyote fencing isn't characteristic of that streetscape. And so yes, the, you know, having that sort of visual relationship with the street through wrought iron fencing and others or a wooden fence that has space would be also considered, you know, with some staggering and a bit lower heights. So what the applicant mentioned then would not apply, which is staggered in height latillas, which from what I heard, maybe I misheard, is that that would be something that the H board would have been in favor of as well as the applicant would have been in favor. Let me ask the applicant since you made the statement. Can you clarify? Well, I, I can just refer to what was said at the H board was that they would need to see a design, but there was a discussion about that at that meeting. Okay. And then I'll just, if sir, you, you're the one who made the statement. So, Yeah. So, I only saw the YouTube video. I'm sorry, I wasn't actually there. But so yes, there was a discussion about staggering the height and that would involve lowering the height of some of the latillas. Not sure where this notion about the character of the streetscape being inconsistent with coyote fences comes from because there is a coyote fence across the street at Girls Inc. One question was asked about institutions. Yes, institutions are excluded from streetscape. Girls Inc. is not an institution. The board didn't say it was an institution. The staff memo didn't say it was an institution. The city attorney's memo didn't say it was an institution. Didn't hear anybody say it was an institution tonight. It's not an institution. It's a private club. It has a coyote fence. I saw lots of other fences all around that little section of East Marcy as well. It's right on the streetscape. The streetscape clearly is consistent with coyote. Gotcha. Well, thank you for clarifying the question. And if Director Lamboy, if outside of Girls Inc., let's take Girls Inc. off the, out of consideration. If there were coyote fences on the, coyote fences on the opposite side of the street, does that fall into streetscape? Mayor, Councilor Garcia, it does fall into streetscape, but the relationship to the street is important. So, across the street, there are coyote fences that are perpendicular to the roadway for sideyards and backyards, but the what's adjacent to the road are rock retaining walls across the street. And so there are really no, no large presence of coyote fences in that streetscape. Right. So it has to be parallel, not perpendicular to be considered. Am I understanding? Councilor, I'm sorry, Councilor Garcia. There was actually discussion of the H board having no objection to the coyote fencing that, that is on the sides themselves. Okay. What I'm trying to find is, is there a middle ground? Because I come from the perspective of the ideology of, "The border didn't cross us, we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us." The same thing, in my opinion, relates to the historic district. All of a sudden, at some point in time, certain materials became historic and certain weren't. My ancestors used materials not because it was historic or cool, but because those were the materials available, in particular, coyote fences, river rock walls, etc. So what I want to try to do is figure out how we can have a compromise because I'm of the opinion fences fall within a historic kind of design concept. And then we get to, "Well, is the height the prohibitor here? Is it maybe having a staggered?" Maybe that, because I think from hearing from folks that there's a potential there. But then hearing from Ms. Benavides, there's another exception where 20% is allowable. And I think that's where, what would be a good compromise in your opinion, Director Lamboy? Mayor, Councilor Garcia, there was a lengthy discussion at the H-Board about other options, and the H-Board actually encouraged the applicant to come back before a denial and actually make an alternate proposal based on that discussion. But that option was not chosen. So, and I agree, coyote fencing represents a material that was available and that predominantly is in other parts of town, not for this particular American period construction of bungalows along Peralta. But you are correct. Gotcha. And so let me ask the applicant, how come you didn't try to work out a compromise with the H-Board and instead just coming directly to us to say, "Well, we want to keep the fence and make a determination," versus trying to come to a compromise and then the compromise didn't work out, then come to the governing body? I would have preferred if there had been more of an effort at compromise. I think that the lack of motivation to compromise can fairly be laid at both doors, without pointing fingers at anybody behind any particular doors. The suggestion to reapply before a denial, I don't recall it that way, and I wasn't there. What I recall is, again, just from looking at the video, "You're going to be denied. Feel free to reapply." Now, that could be about spin or tone of voice, but that's how I took it, and we were removed. One of the city staff previously told my mom that her fence would be just fine if she just cut it down to four feet. That's in tab nine of your binders. This is part of the consultation. That gentleman's name is Paul Duran, who was a member of the city staff, and my mom met with him after she had been told that she needed a permit. Mr. Duran explained that if you cut down the coyote fence to be a 48-inch high coyote fence, you'll get approved. I don't really think this material issue, the issue about coyote fencing as a material, it's just not accurate. I mean, Mr. Duran's a professional member of the staff, and there are coyote fences all over that area, not just on the side fences and the back fences, the front fences. There's a front-facing fence at Girls Inc. made out of coyote latas. Yeah, it's also on the side. Yeah, it's also on the front. Gotcha. So, let me ask this question to staff because I know my time's limited, and then because ultimately, from my recollection, if we deny, then the next step for the applicant is litigation in court, or in which I think there's an appetite for this being revisited at H-Board versus going the court route. And so, could we as a governing body recommend that this goes back to H-Board for a new application? Mayor, Councilor Garcia, certainly it can recommend that. And as to court, you are actually correct. So, we can make a recommendation. So, certainly if they want to appeal, they would go to district court, or they could apply with a different version of the project. They do not have to appeal. They absolutely could go back to H-Board with a different proposal. Gotcha. Can I piggyback on that for one second? Sure, absolutely. Is there any, assuming they were to want, were to pose a new solution, is there a time, is there a limit to how soon they can do it, or can they do it right away? Am I being clear in my question? Yes, Mayor Weber. So, they could come to the next Historic Districts Review Board where we can get them on an agenda. So, it's not you have to wait a year before you can come back. It could happen right away. Yes, Mayor, that's correct. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. No, no worries. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for clarifying that. So, I'm, I guess I'm a, well, we're not giving comments right now. It's just questions. So, thank you, Director Lamboy. Thank you, applicant, for clarifying the matters for me. No other questions. Good. Other questions from members of the governing body? Mayor, Councilor Lindell has her hand raised. Oh, Councilor Lindell, I apologize. I did not see your hand. You have the floor. You're forgiven, Mayor. Thank you, ma'am. I think mine is not direct questions. I think mine is more appropriate in comments. So, thank you. All right. We'll come back to you after we close the hearing. Before I close the hearing, are there other, are there other questions from the members of the governing body? Sorry. Councilor, I have one quick question for the appellant. I'm so sorry. So, referencing your comment about Mr. Duran, was there any attempt to make that adjustment? The adjustment, lowering it to four feet? I understand now that you would actually have to... The mic, please. Permit application. So, I mean, that post-it note doesn't get you there. I mean, that's, it's advice, but it's not enough to just look you... I apologize. The question was, was there an attempt to lower the height of the fence after you got that suggestion from Mr. Duran? What there was was a permit application, and that permit application is in your binder in tab 10. That's what the, you can't just cut down a fence. You have to get a permit. No, the permit is in tab 10. Well, actually, tab 10 is an exchange of emails that includes the permit application. What Mr. Duran wrote on March 8th of 2024 is that my mother should not bring in information to pursue her application until after waiting for the city to appoint a planner. But a planner was not appointed until, I want to say December, which is when the H-Board, which was shortly before the H-Board hearing. When was the new planner appointed? I don't have the exact date, but it was about six months later. So the whole process got stalled because she was told, "Don't come in to get a permit till we can give you a planner," and then there was no plan. And so you were given incorrect information by your builder or your contractor, from what I understand. Was there any conversation with that contractor or builder once you found out that that information was incorrect? I wasn't involved in that conversation if it happened. I'm sure it was something like, "Hey, how come you told me I didn't need a permit, and now I'm told I need a permit?" I don't know. I don't know what the contractor could have done at that point because you have to have a permit to change the fence, too. Couldn't just cut it down without getting a permit. No further questions. Thank you. Other questions? I'd like to go now if the staff would like to make a closing statement, and then we'll come back to the appellant for a closing statement. There's anything you'd like to bring back in front of the governing body as a response to testimony or a reminder of what you think is the most important material, and then we'll provide the appellant with that same opportunity. Thank you, Mayor. I think I'll take Mr. Rubel's place as to a closing statement, just to review over, overview of the facts. So this, this fence was red-tagged December 2023. During 2024, there were several meetings with the applicant to discuss the fence, the design of the fence, and all of that. And then there was a planner assigned. Mr. Duran was part of those initial discussions and relatively new. And so after that, there were additional discussions regarding height, regarding the zoning district, and the need to have a four-foot fence in the zoning district and the like. And then in December 2024, it was brought to the Historic Districts Review Board for action. This case has been postponed several times for a variety of different reasons. It is currently pending in municipal court because no action was taken to rectify it. The applicant was cited into municipal court. Certainly what we're trying to do here is to find a solution and be able to move forward. So, certainly it's up to the governing body as to whether you would like to remand this issue. I don't know exactly how that works. So Ms. Sherry would probably have to tell you whether to uphold the appeal or to remand the issue back to the Historic Districts Review Board to find a solution. But as it stands, the six-foot fence does not comply with the zoning standards of the BCD East Marcy East Plaza zoning district, as well as the Historic District's ordinance, and no exception was met. Thank you, sir. If you'd like to give a closing statement. I'm sorry. Oh, the city attorney has got her hand up. Of our counselors on the remand issue, that would be if you feel like the district, the Historic Districts Review Board misapplied a particular code or something like that, you could remand the case to apply the correct code. I think what is being asked for different facts or a different proposal to be analyzed. So that would just be a different case. That would be a different application, a different analysis, a different case. So a remand would be if you think they didn't consider some of the facts or if you think they didn't consider the right law. Thank you. Well, they certainly didn't consider the fact that the trail down from the Cross of the Martyrs is the very same steep hill that applied to Girls Inc. They made a big deal about saying, "Well, actually, no, you're on the wrong side of the street, and the hill is lower." But what they didn't consider is the fact that there's a trail going up and, more importantly, coming down from the Cross of the Martyrs on that very same steep slope where Girls Inc. is located. Now, it's certainly true to say that no exception was granted. Yeah, an exception should have been granted. It's not true to say that the fence is six feet tall, six feet tall, which is just three inches taller than the gate people were trying to get around by climbing over my mom's previous fence. You know, I don't, I don't see how you can ignore the fact that there is a coyote fence in the streetscape. Every time somebody from the council has asked about the streetscape, the answer from staff is like, "Yes, the other side of the street is in the streetscape. Yes, it does have a coyote fence." It did have a coyote fence, one which was not subject to an exception in 2023. Now it's got a taller coyote fence. That one is six feet tall. That one at Girls Inc. is six feet tall, and it got an exception under the exact same criteria for an exception that were not properly applied here. Thank you, sir. I, yes, of course. Make sure you're in front of the microphone, please. Okay, so I hear that I didn't take any action, but that's not quite true. When Paul Duran helped me and told me what to do, I prepared all the documents that he asked me to do, including a complete drawing of the fence with the metal post two plus feet in the ground, etc. As the record indicates, I let him know I had everything ready that he asked me to prepare, and he responded by email that I should wait until I heard from a planner. I waited. I never heard. Instead, I got a criminal summons. Thank you. I'm going to close the public hearing now unless there are any other absolutely burning questions that people feel they need to ask. Instead, I'll go to whether somebody's ready to make a motion, or Councilor Lindell, you wanted to make a statement. I want to recognize that you're still with us and give you an opportunity to have the floor. Mayor: Thank you, Mayor. Just commenting on a couple of things I heard tonight. I remember very distinctly the day that I first drove by and saw that fence up. It kind of looked like a—I was shocked by it. In fact, I went into Land Use that day and said I didn't see a permit for that. It looked more like a wall than a fence, and it was troubling. I know there are a lot of circumstances. I also am not able—I hear again and again and again tonight about the Girls Inc. situation. I'm not reviewing that tonight. That's a whole different file. That was a whole different set of circumstances, and I'm not familiar with it. I don't know the details of it, but I'm always troubled with these kinds of situations. The solution is not for us to make a suggestion of what the compromise is. I have no idea what the compromise is, but I think that the applicant has the ability to come up with a compromise and go back through the process. Is it what they want to do? Of course not. But the code doesn't allow for what's happened here. I will tell you that clearly enough, when that coyote fence went up, it stood out dramatically on that streetscape. So, thank you, Mayor. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Cassid. Councilor Cassid: Thank you so much, Mayor. Just one quick comment. Municipal court is not criminal court. Just so you can take that concern off your plate. Municipal court would be a civil violation, but not a criminal violation. No. Am I getting that wrong? But that would not be a criminal, Councilor. Municipal court is just criminal. It was just criminal. What was—okay, never mind. Mayor: They were wrong. Councilor Cassid: It's okay. Okay. Well, that said, I do want to, again, when we talk about the historic district, I know it gets complex, and we talk about the code, we talk about Land Use. I do think that there is a very important responsibility that comes with choosing to live in the historic district, and it is often a choice. It's not something that is accessible to most people right now. I think Councilor Lindell is correct in the fact that these are, it's very clear what the code tells us. Obviously, we can't come up with the compromise, but I would encourage the applicant, depending on what happens here tonight, but if this is not—if the appeal is not granted, I would encourage, and you know, speak to Director Lamboy in terms of the guidance with working with Land Use, to work with the team to come up with a compromise because we do have really professional staff there. I know sometimes there are challenges in getting a hold of our staff, in which case I always do encourage people to reach out to us if that does occur so that we can assist, or your, I believe your district councilors would be Castro and Lindell. But that is, when we talk about all of these different things, Cross of the Martyrs existed, the district was already in place, the zoning was already in place at the time of purchase of the home. That, I think, is really important, and it's, you know, we've talked about this before, how to, when people purchase these homes, understand what they are taking on, and something to continue to look at as we move forward with the code update. But that was all, Mayor. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you. Other comments? Is there a motion someone would like to make at this time? Councilor Cassid, Councilor Romero, Councilor Lindell, Councilor Garcia. Councilor Cassid: I have a motion, Mayor. I move to deny the appeal. I don't have the packet in front of me with the exact wording, but I do move to deny this appeal. Mayor: Second. And I think it would be helpful for the record if anyone wants to, and I think Councilor Cassid was attempting to start down that path. I think we ought to try to enumerate to the best of our ability some of the reasoning for that motion so that the record will be as complete as possible. Is there any appetite for that? Councilor Cassid, have you got notes on your thinking? Councilor Cassid: I do have notes on my thinking. I mean, again, this is part of the BCD. There is a very, very specific height for the BCD as opposed to even H-Board, which does talk about the average, and even then the fence would be too high. The code very clearly states that whatever is the more strict requirement needs to be followed, and the Business Capital District does limit it to a 4-foot fence. So with those components in place, and as I stated, these are not—these are not situations that have shifted, you know, once this individual purchased this home. Cross of the Martyrs and that pathway have been there longer. So there's not this extenuating circumstance of things changing that were not within the choice of the appellant. So those are my thought processes at 11:55 p.m. at night, which might be a little— Mayor: Thank you. That's helpful. Any other comments on the motion? In that case, Madam Clerk, we have a motion to deny the appeal. I think we also have had several comments about reapplication and compromise that are part of the record as well. Will you please call the roll? Clerk: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Councilor Lee Garcia. Councilor Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia. Councilor Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lindell. Councilor Lindell: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Romero Worth. Councilor Romero Worth: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Cassid. Councilor Cassid: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Castro. Councilor Castro: No. And I'd like to explain my vote. Clerk: Councilor Chavez. Councilor Chavez: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Falner. Councilor Falner: Yes. Clerk: Mayor Weber. Mayor Weber: Yes. Clerk: Motion is passed. Mayor: And Councilor Castro, you would like to explain your— Councilor Castro: Indeed. I just want to make it very clear that the historic district does sometimes create situations that are cost-prohibitive. I do think that it was very important that we talk about safety, and in particular, I think that it is important that we look at the streetscape in general, which is why I voted the way I did. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you, everybody, for sticking with us tonight. I think there's a sentiment to hope that we can reach some kind of a good compromise here. That said, I believe our agenda is completed, Madam Clerk, and we are adjourned.