Regular Governing Body Meeting - Last Wednesday Wed, Sep 24, 2025 · Governing Body https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/276 == Executive Summary == The City Council meeting covered a wide range of critical topics, including the approval of a Collective Bargaining Agreement for AFSCME Local 399 employees after five years of negotiations, and a significant donation of city land to Homewise for affordable housing development. A major point of contention and extended debate revolved around the scope of a proposed Charter Review Commission, specifically whether to include a review of ranked-choice voting, which ultimately failed to pass as an amendment but will be pursued as a separate resolution. Other key discussions included funding for the Agua Fria Cottonwood Roundabout to improve safety, an Intergovernmental Agreement to support homelessness services and explore repurposing a shelter facility, and a proposed increase to the city's minimum wage. Public comments were robust, particularly concerning the affordable housing donation, the minimum wage increase, and concerns about short-term rental enforcement and potential Open Meetings Act violations related to the Charter Commission amendment. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda as amended (8-0). - Approved the Collective Bargaining Agreement with AFSCME Local 399 (8-0). - Approved the Local Government Road Fund Cooperative Agreement and Budget Amendment Resolution for the Agua Fria Cottonwood Roundabout (8-0). - Approved the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the NM Department of Workforce Solutions and associated Budget Amendment Resolution for Homelessness Response (vote not explicitly stated, but implied approved). - Approved the donation of city property (Los Estraas Tract 6A) to Homewise for affordable housing development (9-0). - Approved a motion to move the living wage item forward for discussion (9-0). - Approved an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration for $75,000 to settle potential claims (9-0). - Approved the proposed bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family (9-0). - Approved the Government Entity and Shareholder Agreement related to the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case (9-0). - Approved the Secondary Manufacturers Combined Subdivision Participation and Release agreement with several pharmaceutical companies (9-0). - Approved recommended next steps in the litigation of Harley Glenn Smith vs. City (9-0). - Approved Bill Number 2025-18, amending Chapter 22, Exhibit A, to remove location of service as a criterion for determining sewer service charges (all councilors present voted Yes). - Approved the appointment of Amarissa Montoya to the Mayor's Committee on Disability (all councilors present voted Yes). == Motions & Votes == - Approval of the agenda, as amended — Passed (8-0) - Motion to approve the Collective Bargaining Agreement with AFSCME Local 399 — Passed (8-0) - Motion to table Los Estraas Tract 6A item until after the 7:00 p.m. public comment session — Passed (8-0) - Motion to approve Amendment A to the Charter Review Commission resolution (to include ranked-choice voting) — Failed (3 Yes, 5 No) - Main Motion (presumably the Charter Review Commission resolution without Amendment A) — Passed (8 Yes, 1 No) - Approval of Local Government Road Fund Cooperative Agreement and Budget Amendment Resolution for Agua Fria Cottonwood Roundabout — Passed (8-0) - Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with NM Department of Workforce Solutions and associated Budget Amendment Resolution for Homelessness Response — Approved (vote not explicitly stated, but implied approved) - Motion to remove item P (Las Estrellas Lot 6A donation) from the table and hear it immediately — Passed (8-0) - Motion to donate the property (Los Estraas Tract 6A) to Homewise for affordable housing development — Passed (9-0) - Motion to move the living wage item forward for discussion — Passed (9-0) - Motion to Waive Rule (requiring advisory committees to precede standing committees) — Passed (9-0) - Motion to Send Bill to EDAC (Economic Development Advisory Committee) on October 1st — Passed (9-0) - Approval of TSA Agreement with Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration — Passed (9-0) - Acceptance of Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Plan — Passed (9-0) - Approval of Government Entity and Shareholder Agreement (Purdue Pharma) — Passed (9-0) - Approval of Secondary Manufacturers Combined Subdivision Participation and Release — Passed (9-0) - Approval of Attorney-Client Privileged Next Steps (Harley Glenn Smith vs. City) — Passed (9-0) - Approved Bill Number 2025-18, amending Chapter 22, Exhibit A, to remove location of service as a criterion for determining sewer service charges — Passed (all councilors present voted Yes) - Approved appointment of Amarissa Montoya to the Mayor's Committee on Disability — Passed (all councilors present voted Yes) == Public Comment == The public comment period was extensive and covered several key themes. Strong support was voiced for the proposed minimum wage increase, with many residents sharing personal stories of struggling with rising costs of living and advocating for policies that support working families. The donation of Tract 6A to Homewise for affordable housing also generated significant discussion, with both strong support for addressing the housing crisis and concerns raised about potential geotechnical issues, infrastructure strain, and the need for thorough community engagement. There were also calls for stricter enforcement and revision of the short-term rental ordinance, with suggestions for a moratorium on new permits and limiting STRs to owner-occupied properties. Concerns about political speech suppression and the need for fair and consistent application of rules regarding amendments were also raised. == Topics == - Collective Bargaining Agreement - Employee Compensation & Benefits - Agenda Approval & Changes - Water Offset Requirement Fee - Water Project Funding - Traffic Operations Program - Micro-Community Initiative - Sewer Service Charges - Roll Call & Quorum - Invocation & Remembrances - Councilor Personal Updates - Community Events & Recognition - Suicide Awareness - Mayoral Committee Appointment == Full Transcript == It looks like we are live on YouTube. Mayor: Very good. In that case, I will call to order the regular meeting of the governing body for September the 24th. My clock reads 5:04 p.m. We'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilor Faulkner, salute to the New Mexico flag led by Councilor Cassett, and then invocation and remembrances. Councilor Lindell, please rise as you are able. Councilor Lindell: Thank you, Mayor. If you care to join me in the "we" version of the Serenity Prayer: God, grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, the courage to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Mayor: Are there remembrances tonight? Well, in the absence of a specific individual, let's think about those in our community who are struggling to make ends meet, dealing with loss, dealing with sickness, dealing with financial and other challenges. They're all part of our community, and we are all in this together, and we care for each other, and we look out for each other. Tonight, we think of them and extend our thoughts, promise to do our best to help. Let's take a minute of silence. Thank you, everybody. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody zooming in tonight, or is it everybody going to be physically present to the best of your knowledge? Clerk: I believe everyone will be present. Mayor: In that case, could you please call the roll? Clerk: Councilor Cassett. Councilor Castro. Councilor Chavez. Councilor Chavez: Here. Clerk: Councilor Faulkner. Councilor Faulkner: Here. Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia. Councilor Michael Garcia. Councilor Michael Garcia: Present. Clerk: Councilor Lindell. Councilor Lindell: Here. Clerk: Councilor Mayworth. Councilor Mayworth: Here. Clerk: Mayor Weber. Mayor: Present. You have a quorum. Mayor: Thank you. Are there changes to be made to the agenda as it has been published? Clerk: There's one change, removing V as it is a duplicate of U. Mayor: That's the only one? Clerk: Yes. Mayor: Okay. Councilor: Move to approve as amended. Councilor: Second. Mayor: There's a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Is there discussion? Madam Clerk, can you call the roll on that? Clerk: Councilor Castro. Councilor Castro: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Chavez. Councilor Chavez: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Faulkner. Councilor Faulkner: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lindell. Councilor Lindell: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Mayworth. Councilor Mayworth: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Cassett. Councilor Cassett: Yes. Clerk: Mayor Weber. Mayor: Yes. Motion is approved. Mayor: Thank you. And please mark Councilor Lee Garcia as present. With that, Madam Clerk, could you take us to the first item on our agenda? Clerk: Item 9L, request for approval of a collective bargaining agreement with Local 399, City of Santa Fe employees of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 18, AFL-CIO, AFSCME. And here to present is Human Resources Director Bernadette Salazar. Mayor: Entertain a motion, and then we'll get a presentation. Councilor: Move to approve. Councilor: Second. Mayor: We have a motion. We have a second. Director Salazar, why don't you give us, and people who are not familiar with this, who may be listening or learning about it for the first time, a presentation on what we'll be voting on tonight. Director Salazar: Mr. Mayor, members of the governing body, tonight we ask approval of the collective bargaining agreement between the city and AFSCME Local 399. This will be the entire contract through June 30th of 2027. And it includes salary increases for AFSCME bargaining unit employees to include the classification and compensation study increases, the 3% salary increases, a retention incentive for $1,000 for employees to continue to be employed with the city, as well as increases to our shift differential pay, bilingual pay, uniform allowances, and so forth. So, we worked really hard with the union team to get to this agreement, and we're really excited to get this implemented so employees can receive the salary increases that they deserve. Mayor: Thank you. I'll start with Councilor Garcia. I assume other people are going to have questions as well. Let's try to adhere to 10-minute time, and then we'll go around as many times as necessary or as desired. Councilor Garcia, you have the floor. Councilor Michael Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No questions. I just have comments, and thank you, Ms. Salazar, and to the city team that actually brought this contract to fruition. We can't ignore the fact that this has been five years in the making. A lot has happened in five years, gone through a pandemic. We've had a presidential administration change. I mean, I've had a child and celebrated his four-year-old birthday yesterday. I mean, to me, this is my opinion before I get attacked for saying this, to not have a contract in place for five years is shameful. It shows that there is not the urgency from the administration to actually support the workforce that gets the work done on behalf of the residents of Santa Fe every single day. And to not only have the contract in place, but to not financially compensate our dedicated workforce is disappointing. And so I just want to extend my apologies to all of the union workforce that has not received the benefits that has been in this very frustrating position for the last five years and ultimately has had to deal with the uncertainty, especially in a time like now where every single little penny counts. So, thank you. Thank you to the AFSCME team. I just want to thank the workforce for everything that they do. They are the true backbone of this city. So, with that, thank you for getting this done. Mayor: Finally, other comments or questions? I take exception to the thought that we haven't compensated our employees or that the fact that we've been working toward a total contract has kept them from being immersed, reimbursed, paid, recognized, and given raises. That's just stunningly inaccurate or ill-informed. I'll take your choice. If I'm not incorrect, Director Salazar, I'm looking at an old document. It only goes through August of 2023, but there was a 3% increase. AFSCME got that. There was a $2,000 retention incentive in December of '22. AFSCME got that. 8% salary increase in July of '22. Salary increases for all AFSCME bargaining unit employees. Year by year, this administration has allocated and awarded raises to AFSCME and our other employees who work incredibly hard in ways both significant and consistent. So much so that on the announcement of this, this final contract which covers everything and doesn't just provide for an annual opener but does in fact give a really strong vote of confidence to our employees. I got a lovely email from the president of AFSCME statewide saying, "This is great news. I want to express my sincere thanks for all you've done for the employees. On behalf of AFSCME International and personally, thank you." So, I take the words of the president of AFSCME as more knowledgeable, more well-informed, and frankly, less designed to be a personal matter and more a professional matter than any other comments because I think they come from somebody who knows what she's talking about. Madam Director Salazar. Director Salazar: Mr. Mayor, yes. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Mayor and Councilor Garcia. In the packet, for those viewers or listeners who might not have the packet in front of them, there is a timeline of actions that have been taken through the course of the time that we haven't had a full contract in place. And even though the contract expires under state law, the contract that was last approved is in force in full effect, again, according to state law. Even though that's true, we have done a lot of work since the expiration in 2020. And in the packet again is the timeline. So, and we are up to six amendments of the contract. And those six amendments allow for salary increases and several retention incentive payments to AFSCME collective bargaining employees. The first one was June of 2021, Amendment 3, to provide a 4% salary increase to employees. And that same year in December, employees received a $2,000 retention incentive. Then in May, we had a memorandum of agreement with AFSCME to ensure that employees with 15 years of service or more are appropriately credited for their longevity incentive. Then in June of 2022, we had Amendment Number 4, and that provided 8% salary increases to all AFSCME bargaining unit employees. In June of 2023, Amendment Number 5 provided for 3% salary increases for all AFSCME employees earning less than $100,000 and 1% for those earning $100,000 or more annualized. In November of 2023, we began mediation to try to get to an agreement with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services. We attended nine sessions with the AFSCME team, and those sessions concluded in June of 2024. December of 2023, we had another memorandum of agreement providing AFSCME employees with a $1,150 retention incentive. In June of last year, AFSCME filed for binding arbitration, and the next month in July, we entered into Amendment Number 6 with the AFSCME leadership team to provide AFSCME employees with the first set of increases as a result of the classification and compensation plan, as well as a 3% salary increase in addition to the class and comp increases. And then in December of 2024, a few months ago, we entered into a memorandum of agreement with AFSCME leadership to provide AFSCME employees with a $1,000 retention incentive. So, even though we don't have a current contract, hopefully we will after tonight. We've done a lot of work in the course of the last five years to ensure that AFSCME employees are appropriately compensated. Mayor: I have one other question, just in terms of highlighting some of the good work you and your colleagues did in landing this agreement. There were a number of items that had not been updated for perhaps as much as a decade, and I think it's to your credit and the bargaining team's credit and to our AFSCME colleagues on the other side of the table that those have now been updated. Do you want to give us a rundown on those items? I believe there are two or three that really add to the confidence building of our relationship with our AFSCME colleagues. Director Salazar: Mr. Mayor, yes, we have included an increase to tool allowance benefits for employees who are required to bring their own tools to perform job functions with the city from $400 to $700. We've increased the uniform allowances for employees who are required to wear a uniform from $500 to $700. And we've increased safety footwear for AFSCME employees from $200 a year to $400 a year. We also had a lot of discussions with AFSCME leadership about increasing the shift differential because as you mentioned, some of these benefits hadn't been updated in several years, probably a decade or more. So we increased the shift differential for swing shift for AFSCME employees from $1 per hour to $1.45, and for graveyard shift from $1.75 an hour to $1.95 per hour. I'd like to give credit for the last one we're going to talk about, which is the bilingual incentive. We had a lot of work with Theresa Martinez from the AFSCME leadership team, and she was really instrumental in helping us have discussions about this benefit, and we were able to come to agreement to increase bilingual pay from $40 a month to $100 a month. But we also are implementing a new benefit with that article that allows for people who also write and read in Spanish as a requirement of their job to receive a level two benefit, which would be $140 if approved tonight. And again, Terece Martinez was really helpful in getting this approved. Thank you very much. Appreciate the update on some of the fine points in the agreement. Other questions from the members of the governing body? Councilor Darcy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor, can you help me understand when, whether it's fire, police, or non-union employees, received their class and compensation? Mr. Mayor: Councilor Garcia, it was in phases. And so the last phase that the non-union employees received was December of 2024. So since December of 2024, these folks have been seeing due to class and compensation potential increases in their pay. Did that prohibit ASMC employees, because there was not a contract in place, from receiving similar increases in their pay? Mr. Mayor: Councilor Garcia, we were in the middle of an arbitration process at that point. So we were not negotiating any more amendments after that. So since December 2024, every single city employee, in lieu of ASMC, has received class and comp increases in their wages. So we can sit here and say we've done X, Y, and Z over the number of years, but for a greater part of 10 months, the vast majority of the workforce has seen an increase in their pay potentially through declassing comp. Our ASMC employees have not. Will retroactive pay be given to these employees because there was not a contract in place? Mr. Mayor: Councilor Garcia, retroactive pay is illegal in the state of New Mexico. So that is the reason why we're requesting the retention incentive for ASMC employees. So not having a contract in place means that these employees lost out on critical wages. Correct? Mr. Mayor: Councilor Garcia, they did not receive the raises, the second phase of the hybrid parity increases as recommended by the compensation study, as scheduled with the non-union employees. Okay, this is just the second phase, right? So we can't ignore the fact that a vast majority of our workforce has not seen an increase in their pay because a contract was in place. I agree that there were amendments previously done, but for the latter part of the year, nothing was done. So I don't want to ignore the fact that a vast majority of our workforce has not seen equitable pay increases like the other part of our workforce, either non-union or police or fire. So with that, thank you ASMC union employees for sticking through this. Thank you for sticking with the City of Santa Fe because we've lost a lot of employees for this particular situation alone. Any other comments? Just really quickly, Mayor, I just want to, I guess, let the public know that the governing body has approved these raises, these retention incentives to compensate while these negotiations have gone on. Am I, I mean, I guess I want you to confirm something I already know, which is that this isn't like, this isn't about two men here on the dais. This is about the city as a whole. And I believe, and I know because I've sat through them, you've also participated in keeping us apprised in executive session about these negotiations. And there are very specific and tight rules about when these negotiations are going on, and particularly when we're in arbitration, about what we can and can't say and what the union can and can't say. So I guess I just want to acknowledge that we all have been very much involved in this and trying to get to yes. And so I actually think that I'm very grateful that we have gotten to that point and that it seems that there are some really great things that are being included here. And I am delighted that our workers are going to be, have a contract now. I believe it's a five-year contract. No, it's a one-year contract. Okay, it's a one-year contract. Two-year contract. All right. How many years are we talking about here? We got all kinds of fingers going around. Mr. Mayor: Councilor Romero Worth, it'll expire in June of 2027. Okay. All right. So that's helpful. But anyway, I just think, you know, I want to congratulate the team. I want to congratulate the union. This is a really important moment that we have, we've gotten to yes. We have an agreement here. It's going to do great things for the workforce. And I think we all have been concerned about the length of time that it has taken. And we all have been involved in trying to get to yes to the extent that we can under the rules of all of these processes. And it has been, I would say, because of the rules, sometimes frustrating for some of us. But these are governing body decisions that have been made to make amendments to work to help our workers during this time. So I just, I want to draw, I want to bring the lens out a little bit wider. Thank you. Other questions, comments? Thank you, Director. Madam Clerk, we have a motion on the floor. Councilor Faulkner. She stepped out for a moment. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Marworth. Yes. Councilor Cassipet. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Mayor Wy. Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Thank you. Congratulations, Director. Next item on the agenda. Madam Clerk. 9P. Request for approval of a donation agreement with Homewise to donate Los Estraas Tract 6A for development as affordable housing. And here to speak is Asset Development Manager Terry Lee. I'd first entertain a motion to approve. Second. There's a motion and there is a second. Mr. Lee, I know there are people who are not familiar with this item or who maybe have different ideas about what it actually covers. Do you want to give us an overview before we get to questions and commentary by the governing body? I'm not sure that's on, sir. Mayor Weber, councilors. Yes, sir. Happy to. So I do want to let you know also since last meeting, most of the questions, a great majority of the questions had to do with what might happen with 6A if the donation agreement is approved. So I will let you know that we do have Lisa Uval from Homewise that would be happy to stand and answer questions as well. So anyway, the donation of Los Estraas 6A, you want the, I'm sorry, sir, you wanted a summary quick? I would. I think it's important to have a summary for people who may be tuning in for the first time as to what this, if approved, what it would be and also to some extent what it isn't tonight because there may be some misinformation or confusion as to what the donation would result in. Whoever, Councilor, sure. So Los Estraas Tract 6A is just short of a 20-acre tract of land in the north, just off of 599 in Richtop. One of seven or eight tracts of land the city owns in Los Estraas. This tract of land was identified in resolution, I'd have to look at the number, the resolution of 2023, I believe, to be put through a request for qualifications, a competitive process for donation for an affordable housing project, which would be a mix of affordable housing and also market rate housing in order to compensate for the affordable housing. There was a feasibility study done in 2023 that was part of the request for qualifications. And that request for qualifications, they looked at many different factors. They looked at the terrain, access, some also, they didn't do soil samples, but they did a lot of slope analysis, excuse me, and also looked at the master plan and also the city's requirements for development of Tract 6A. And that study indicated that it could take almost, I think, 86 units of varying sizes and would, and also identified really the water issues, looked at water and different factors on that. And, you know, it stands donation went through the request for qualification competitive process, and Homewise was a successful submitter purchase proposal. And we've since negotiated a donation agreement with Homewise. And part of that donation agreement is there are certain qualifications, certain factors that have to be met by Homewise. If those factors are not met, then the city, there's already a quick claim deed as a part of the donation agreement, and the city would take that land back. So, thank you. Let's, and I know that's an overview and there may be more details to come, but Councilor Garcia, you wanted to pull this off consent. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The only reason I pulled this off, no questions, Mr. Lee, is I think we probably have folks in the audience that want to speak to this. So I would like for us to postpone approving this until after our 7:00 p.m. public comment session. This, there's been a big request from community members for public engagement. I tried to allow for continued public engagement and slow down the process a bit during the committee process. That was not approved. So I think at minimal, we can wait an hour and a half and hear from anybody and then call you back up, Mr. Lee, if that's okay. So if there's no other questions, I'm happy to make a motion to table this item until after public comment. Second motion to bring this back up after public comment. Is there any discussion? Madam Clerk, can you call the roll on that motion? Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romeorth. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved. So, very good. What we'll do is after petitions from the floor, when, and we try to aim for around 7:00, we'll bring this back up immediately after that. Thank you. Could you take us to the next item then, Madam Clerk? 9U. Consideration of Resolution Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Councilor Jamie Cassett, Councilor Pilar Faulkner, and Councilor Alma Castro, a resolution convening a Charter Review Commission no later than April of 2026 to consider mayor and city council powers. Here to speak is Legislation and Policy Innovation Manager Marcy In Honor. I always mess that up. Sorry, Marcy. Let me request a motion and then we'll go to discussion. Move to approve. Second. Motion to approve. And there is a second. I don't see Mar. Do you want to come up to the podium, please? So, in keeping with what we've been doing, if you would like to summarize what this resolution calls for and then we'll go to questions from the governing body. Sure. Mayor Weber, councilors, this resolution would convene a charter commission for a narrow purpose. The purpose is described in the caption as exploring the topic of separation of powers between the mayor and the city council. And the rest of the resolution sort of describes the role of the commission. It complies with Article 10.01 of the city's charter in timing the resolutions convening and, yeah, so that's it. Thank you. With that, Councilor Garcia, you again were the councilor who pulled this off of consent. So why don't you begin the discussion? Sure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No questions, Marcy. It's just I pulled this because I have an amendment to this proposal. Convening a Charter Review Commission is no easy feat. And the way I look at it is when we convene such a commission, we need to ensure that we're taking a look at it from the holistic perspective of, is there anything else in addition to the, you know, the topic at hand that this Charter Review Commission should be really exploring? I know that there are many topics that we can add to this, but I think one that's definitely on the top of folks' minds is ranked-choice voting. So I've got an amendment that proposes that the Charter Review Commission review ranked-choice voting for the City of Santa Fe. I will reiterate, it does not call for ranked-choice voting to cease. It is calling for simply the Charter Review Commission to really understand how it's working for the residents of Santa Fe. With that being said, I've submitted an amendment request. Unfortunately, that amendment request was not signed off by the City Attorney because, from my understanding, it is outside the scope of the resolution. But I have quite concerns about that opinion on multiple fronts. One, it's definitely not outside the scope. The request deals... **Weber Counselor:** May I give my opinion, and then you can respond to it? **Councilor:** Sure. **Weber Counselor:** Okay. So, the Open Meetings Act requires that meeting notices include an agenda containing a list of specific items of business to be discussed or transacted at the meeting. And the Attorney General's office has interpreted that provision, and it says the agenda must contain a list of "specific items of business to be discussed or transacted at the meeting." The requirement for a list of specific items of business ensures that interested members of the public are given reasonable notice about the topics a public body plans on discussing or addressing at the meeting. A public body should avoid describing agenda items in general, broad, or vague terms, which might be interpreted as an attempt to mislead the public about the business the public body intends to transact. This is an especially important consideration when a public body intends to act on an agenda item. So, in this case, the caption is narrow and describes a specific purpose for a charter commission. The "whereas" clauses describe the reasoning for that narrow purpose, and the "therefore" clauses support what both the caption and the "whereas" clauses lead to. So when we add something new to both the caption, the "whereas" clauses, and the "therefore" clauses, I am concerned about the governing body violating the Open Meetings Act. So that's my concern, and it's up to you. **Councilor:** Understandable. So, City Attorney, I'm going to use the projector over here. So, one moment. I want to show that this interpretation does not follow precedents in the past. This amendment request was submitted weeks ago, so there could have been sufficient notice that this amendment was wanting to be proposed. In addition to that, the City Attorney allowed for an amendment to be introduced regarding a previous resolution, folks might remember, which is the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Infrastructure Resolution. What you see here on the top is the original resolution title. Now, then you see on the bottom is the new resolution title that was adopted after an amendment, which significantly changed the resolution, significantly. Why was it allowed during that process, but my proposal tonight is not being allowed? Doesn't seem like we're following precedent that was set in the past. So, with that being said, there is no requirement for the City Attorney to approve a resolution, an amendment request. So, with that, I'm going to go back to my chair to introduce the amendment. **Councilor Faulkner:** And if I may, I'm a co-sponsor on this piece of, on this amendment. **Councilor:** Get there. **Mayor:** I think it's time to move your amendment, Councilor. **Councilor:** Okay. So, with that being said, I just want to go through the amendment because in the packet, we're talking about notice of the public, etc. In the packet, I don't even see the amendment requesting, except for it in context, which is helpful for me, but it ultimately is not the document that would be approved should this amendment be passed. And so, with that being said, the amendment that I am proposing on line 24, after, it's going to, it would now read, "A resolution convening a Charter Review Commission no later than April of 2026 to consider Mayor and City Councilor powers and the use of ranked-choice voting." So I'm including the language, and Councilor Faulkner as well is including the language that states, "and the use of ranked-choice voting." So it's not changing the topic. We're still convening a Charter Review Commission. We're just adding an additional task for them to take on, not changing the scope at all. Then, where it adds a "whereas" section 10.1 of the Charter addresses community engagement during a charter review, stating that the creation of the commission and its function shall be advertised on a separate page of the city's website, and the page shall allow for the public to submit proposed amendments. The commission shall hold no less than two meetings in each of the city's council districts for the purpose of taking input from the public. And whereas, the governing body recognizes that meaningful community engagement is fundamental to ensuring that the city charter reflects values, priorities, and the voices of Santa Feans. Then on page three, in line 14, it adds a couple more "whereases." Whereas, the voters of the city approved ranked-choice voting during the 2008 regular municipal election, and the city implemented ranked-choice voting beginning with the regular municipal election, March 6th, 2018. And whereas, section 4.06.906 of the Charter outlines the ranked-choice voting system, stating, "The Mayor, City Councilors, and Municipal Judge shall be elected using a ranked-choice, quote, sometimes called instant runoff, unquote, voting system, allowing voters to rank in order their preference for the candidates for each of the office appearing on the ballot." And whereas, the governing body seeks the commission's review and evaluation of the ranked-choice voting system to ensure it continues to serve the best interests of the voters and to support fair and representative elections. And then it goes on to add, in addition to, "and whereas." So it will now read, "Whereas, the governing body wishes to dedicate additional time to the topic of separation of powers and consider a balance of powers, as well as review the ranked-choice voting, again, review, as well as review the ranked-choice voting by convening a commission to review separation of balance of powers between the Mayor and City Councilors and ranked-choice voting system." Now, where it gets into the "now be resolved" section, we're adding some additional language on page four. It would say under section two, "Purpose: The purpose of the commission is to review the city's charter and determine whether to recommend to the city to the charter to modify the Mayor and City Council's powers and duties, as well as whether to recommend changes to the ranked-choice voting system." Section three, "Duties and Responsibilities: The commission shall review the Mayor's and Councilor's duties and powers, as well as the ranked-choice voting system established in the charter and any amendments proposed by the governing body and the public on these topics, focusing on separation of powers and balance of powers between the Mayor and the City Councilors and the ranked-choice voting system." Has a lot in there. And then, and again, at the end of that, it also adds, "The commission recommends, the commission recommendations shall include, but not be limited to, the powers and duties of the Mayor and City Councilors and the ranked-choice voting system." Then further on, it adds an additional section G that says, "Whether ranked-choice voting continues to serve the best interest of voters and whether it supports fair and representative elections." So, in essence, this proposal is simply asking for the Charter Review Commission to review, assess, and provide any recommendations on ranked-choice voting and how it's working for the residents of Santa Fe. Just like any other process that government undertakes, we should be continually reviewing our processes to ensure that they're working for the residents of Santa Fe. So, with that, I make a motion to introduce Amendment A. **Councilor:** Second. **Mayor:** There's a motion and there's a second. I know there's discussion. Councilor Romero and Councilor Faulkner, you wanted to speak as well. I know you had a hand up. Go ahead, and then Councilor Lee Garcia. I think probably everybody. Councilor Cassid, if you'd like to go first, why don't you go ahead, Councilor Faulkner. **Councilor Faulkner:** So, I have one question. Why is the City Attorney's signature not needed? Approval not needed on amendments. **City Attorney:** It is not needed. Mayor, counselors, I don't think I'm required to sign anything. **Councilor Faulkner:** You're not required to sign anything. **City Attorney:** I sign to signify that I've not found legal problems generally, but you don't, you're not required to not have me find legal problems. It's a, it's, it demonstrates to you that I've reviewed and not found legal problems. **Councilor Faulkner:** Oh, okay. So, I was a little confused because I know that when Councilor Chavis and Councilor Casset and I had an amendment, and the distinction was that you generally have to sign on ordinances and resolutions, but not on amendments. **City Attorney:** Counselors, in your procedural rules, it says, "In order to be introduced, legislation must be fully drafted and included in the packet posted with the governing body's agenda." One of the elements of the packet is "signed City Attorney's signature as to form." You can waive that. I would probably, well, fully drafted legislation. So, amendment is not fully drafted legislation. It's just not covered in your procedural rules. There's just not something that addresses that issue. Generally, I sign, my office signs things to show that we have done a legal review. There's nothing that stops the governing body from taking any sort of action without legal review. But you've required yourself to have legal review in certain circumstances. This is one of them would be the packet. So, agendas, when legislation is initially loaded, which is what this rule is about that says "Attorney signature to form," amendments are not generally there. So I don't have a rule about amendments. Oh, I didn't sign this one. I generally sign when I have reviewed amendments. To Councilor Garcia's point about the form, I think Miss Ianino had explained that we're updating how we're doing amendments in general, so that it is only the in situ, the redline version that we're going to be using as the amendment sheet itself. I think it's the part that most people are using anyway to understand the amendment. So we're making the amendment process faster for the team and removing one of those elements. There's nothing that requires the amendment sheet and its redline. We used to only do amendment sheet, and we added the redline when we had time. Now we always do the redline, and we're going to get rid of the amendment sheet. **Councilor Faulkner:** Okay. And I, I would just offer that I co-sponsored this amendment because we've seen charter reviews look at a whole range of issues. I think the, the intent is to form a charter review, and then we can add items to that. I know in my district, ranked-choice voting is very, nobody really likes it in my district. There's a handful of people, but most of the people do not. And I think in part because they don't fully understand how it works. I, I even don't fully understand how it works. And so my intent in co-sponsoring this was to kind of shed, put some light on ranked-choice voting so that we can have a more robust conversation in the community and use it as an opportunity to educate the community about how it works and what the pros and cons are of ranked-choice voting. **Mayor:** Thank you, Councilor. Councilor, you had your hand up. We'll just go down the line. I think Councilor Cassid and Councilor Lee Garcia want to speak as well. **Councilor:** Thank you. Unless Councilor Cassid, you are also a co-sponsor of the original resolution. Councilor Railorth: Yeah, I am interested in hearing from the original sponsor because my understanding of this is that it was to be—we have to, we're required, I think—City Attorney, correct me if I'm wrong—to do a charter review commission at least every 10 years. Correct? Mayor: Councilor, that's correct. Councilor Railorth: Okay. And it's only been how many years since the last one? Mayor: Councilor, it's a couple years. It was going on when Marcy started with the city. When was that? Councilor Railorth: It's only been a few years. Mayor: Two and a half years ago. Yeah. Councilor Railorth: Yeah. So there's nothing that requires us right now to be convening a charter review commission, except that we've been having this conversation about the Mayor's powers and duties and the Council's powers and duties, and whether we want to make changes to it. So I think we were, you know, this conversation was ongoing and there was a desire to really—and the last charter review commission did look at this. They brought forward a package of ideas about how to make changes, and unfortunately, they came kind of at the last minute. They had some problems. They didn't fully work. And so I think there was a sense, at least from where I sit, a sense that maybe it would be a good idea to convene a charter commission for a very narrow purpose, to just focus on this. I'm concerned that the City Attorney has not signed this and is flagging for us potential legal concerns. I think we should take that very seriously. And I'm very concerned that I don't think this amendment is in the packet. I don't think the public knows that we're talking about it tonight. They've had no notice that we were going to talk about it tonight. And we're—if this thing has been jumping around the committees for a while, and I bet we don't have anybody in the audience from either side of the rank choice voting debate. And so it would have been nice. We, you know, we get people who reach out to us about legislation and they say, "Hey, really don't look at that right now, or do look at that right now and here's why." We haven't heard any of that because this is being added on final passage. I think our rules also say something about, you know, amendments should be offered as soon in the process as possible. Now I understand with this, and Councilor Garcia, if you could just maybe calm down so that I can have a chance to speak. Your gyrations in the background are distracting me. Thank you. Councilor Garcia: Can I have a conversation with my colleagues? Mayor: Excuse me. Everybody calm down. Councilor Railorth: Yeah, I know you—I know that I'm speaking and that bothers you, but if you could just let me speak, that'd be great. Mayor: Everybody calm down. Councilor Railorth: Yeah. I think the other piece about this is that, correct me if I'm wrong, but this could run as its own resolution, couldn't it? Mayor: Counselors, yes. I think that, just to be clear, I'm not saying the idea isn't permissible or anything like that, but just that we have procedural rules about introduction of resolutions and there's disclosure rules about captions. And captions—there's nothing prohibiting captions from changing. It's whether or not the initial, whether the caption and the agenda put the public on reasonable notice about what will be discussed and what will be voted on. Councilor Railorth: Right? So certainly it could be introduced as its own resolution. And that, I think, is the way we should do it if this is what this governing body wants to do. Let's—and there's no rush in this because this charter review commission isn't going to be even convened until 2026. So it says no later than April 2026 right in the caption. So if there's a desire to do it, let's run another resolution that says, you know, that when the charter review commission is convened in April of 2026, it also look at rank choice voting if that's what the governing body members would like to see. And that way, when it goes through committees, I'd like to hear, is this really the burning issue that the community thinks it is and we should be reviewing it? Clearly, we've had a lot of discussion about, you know, what powers and duties the governing body has versus the Mayor versus individual counselors. That to me clearly warrants that. We've had a lot of feedback on this. This charter review commission piece, I don't know because I haven't heard, because I don't think the public even knows we're talking about it. That's my only point. So, if this is something we all want to do, let's run another resolution. We got plenty of time to do it and let the community know that we're thinking about having a review of the commission. I completely agree, yeah, Councilor Garcia, that you're not saying we should get rid of it. You're not taking a position either way. You're just saying let's review it. So, if it's really the burning thing the community wants to do, then let's run it separately and review it. I think we should take very seriously when the City Attorney flags for us a legal concern. That's her job. We want her to do that to protect us from legal pitfalls. That's all I have. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. And now, Councilor Cassid, you were one of the original sponsors of the resolution calling for the creation of this charter commission. Go ahead. You have the floor. Councilor Cassid: Mayor, thank you everybody. I know this has been a very robust discussion over many, many months. Especially, again, the reason that I was really narrowly looking at the powers and duties of the, or the separation of powers, or the balance of powers, whatever you want to call it, of the Mayor and the City Council, is this has frequently come up as a conversation and how it impacts our day-to-day operations and how we function as, you know, a legislative body versus an executive. I know that there are a lot of questions and still a lot of areas that we need to continue to move forward. My thoughts around really narrowly defining the goal of this charter commission had to do with what a robust topic this is, and that there has been a lot of conversation around, you know, kind of the time and the heavy lift that this takes. I know after the last charter review, we've had a lot of conversation around the resources that really need to go for these to be successful. And that means both staff time as well as finances. So again, really thinking about how we utilize our resources, and that this has been a reoccurring topic of conversation, that my thoughts were, you know, all right, let's really, let's zone in, let's focus, let's really effectively and efficiently use those resources for an issue that really does have an impact on our day-to-day operations. That said, rank choice voting, it is a very, it's an important topic. You know, of course, this has been an experiment across the country. I can understand the conversation around, is this something that we are ready to look at again? I am not in favor of it for this resolution. You know, again, this was what I was thinking. Obviously, if the rest of the governing body feels otherwise, then that's fine. But if that is the case, and if the rest of the governing body does decide to, or a majority decides to pass this tonight, I would request that final passage does need to be delayed at the very least, because of the concerns around allowing an opportunity if there's any members of the public. I have heard from one member of the public regarding this, but I would want to provide that opportunity anyway that we could. That also said, there was a—I know there was conversation around another amendment that would have essentially stated, because, you know, that it is a lot of time and effort to convene a charter review, that it is a big process, but that there had been some swirling conversation around a resolution that would essentially state, "Hey, before we disband, we're going to go ahead and we're going to look at powers and duties, and separation of powers and balance powers before we disband any charter review committee. Let's make sure that there's nothing else that we want to," and at that time be able to assign that information. I do really like that idea. Again, this is a pretty weedy topic and we're already going to be in a pretty weedy topic, though. But I do, I do like, you know, the focus around some of these really big areas that take a lot of energy, that take a lot of time, that are going to take a lot of resources, and tackling them if we still feel that is what is needed. My understanding is we don't necessarily actually have to pass a resolution at this moment in time to be able to do this. We could already do this. If this resolution passes as is, we can pop another one on later. But I understand that that sometimes can be helpful when we are talking about the intention. It gives us that reminder of what we would like to do. So those are my thoughts on the moment. Again, my underlying statement is, you know, it's time, it's resources. This is a heavy, complex topic that I think if we really take a deep dive into it, and some of the conversations that I've heard among us, among the community members, could have some really big implications for everything, for how we district the city, for how many counselors per district, for when do we have our elections, do we have these staggered elections, are we going—so there's a lot that could, that I think needs to be delved into here. I think it's really important, and again, has an implication for our day-to-day functioning. And would love to see some real time and attention spent on this, and, you know, see where we go from there. Again, I would not diminish the conversations around rank choice voting. I know that was a very meaty topic as well and I'm sure will continue to be whether or not we choose to have it at this time. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. And now, Councilor Lee Garcia. Councilor Lee Garcia: Mayor, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor: I was also—I apologize. No worries. I didn't mean to slight you. You were also one of the original sponsors. Why don't you go first, Lee, and then we'll come back. I apologize. Councilor Lee Garcia: I will be very brief. Thank you. Yeah. And I jumped on this for the same reason. So, I didn't do as much work as my colleagues did, but I think part of the discussion was this separation of powers. And in particular, in my work with some of the previous members of the Charter Review Commission, they specifically asked for more time on this specific issue, and so that's why I decided to jump on this legislation. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you. Apologies again. I overlooked your co-sponsorship. Councilor Lee Garcia: My heart is big, but my body is small. I'm so sorry. Mayor: Councilor Lee Garcia, sir, back to you. Councilor Lee Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, as I'm listening to the conversation and I'm kind of deciphering all the information that's coming through, I see this as reasonable. I believe that it seems as if we add another process to try to reintroduce something and bring it through the committee process or go through the whole legislative process, getting signed to form and everything else. That's another two months. The amount of time that it takes to get these things through, it's considerable. And your office is already so full of work. I can't even begin to think how much you work because of each and every governing body member here, the Mayor, City Manager, everyone else needing something run through your office. This is a reasonable request. I've sat here on this dais for the better part of almost four years. We've had resolutions brought forth that have amendments A, B, C, D, E. I mean, there's red lines, green lines, you name it. Just mortgage board we passed up that have been introduced from this dais, submitting it to the legislative review, getting signed by the City Attorney that sometimes have changed that caption. And we, with all due respect, have been guided that if it's the will of this governing body, you can bend your rule if you so choose. But again, I'm just speaking to this process. I think it's reasonable. The request of adding this to the initial legislation, I think, has been floated around for quite some time, and why it hasn't been introduced through the committee process, I don't know. I don't know the details. And so I'm tonight, especially with this, I believe that the rank choice voting is probably amongst one of the top requests also of the community. It doesn't matter if it's District Three or Four or One or Two. And so to at least have a look at it and not have to spend any more time on having to come and reintroduce something else back again, I believe this is reasonable, and that's why I would support it tonight. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you, Counselor. Either you want to go next or do you see Chavez? Go ahead. Councilor: Thank you, Mayor. I actually very much so agree with Councilor Merritt Worth. I think that this could come separately if needed. I also have an issue focusing on rank choice voting because I think that as it's amended in here, it talks a lot about community engagement around the issue. Our community is not educated in rank choice voting to have those conversations. I think to lead the work to make a decision about it, I feel like as a city, and there has been some initiatives to start educating around rank choice voting, that's what we need to do first. I also don't know if it would be a priority item that I would want work to be done on outside of the separation of powers. I think when we start work on something like this, it's easy to throw a lot of things in that we hear from constituents about, and you know that there's some voice of concern or confusion. But I think we have to be responsible in slowing down, understanding why those things are coming at us, and if they are really matters that should be thrown into a process just because a process has been initiated. So I like the focus. I would like to investigate a little bit more. I already kind of said my belief around ranking choice voting. It's a lack of education, the lack of understanding. If the commission was holding classes and teaching, that would probably solve the problem more so than having community engagement around a topic that I think the community finds very confusing. So I like the focus. I think it's a good place to start. I think it also leaves a lot of room for us to kind of dive into systems that we feel are hurting the way we function as a governing body and bring those forward. I appreciate the sponsors first starting this and initiating the process because I think that it's obvious the first time the commission convened, a lot of things didn't get accomplished the way they wanted to because the process was rushed. Giving them one focus item and having time to possibly bring things forward after we really think them through is, I think, the best decision to make at this point. So I will not be supporting the amendment, but I think it is a good initiation to us all to start thinking about now that we have the commission coming together to do this work. Are there other things that we think are priority to bring forward to give them that space and that time to actually focus on one item at a time? Mayor: Thank you, Counselor. Councilor: Thank you. Mayor: Councilor Lindell, you have the floor. Councilor Garcia, you have your hand up, sir. Councilor: All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to clarify some timeline for folks. So it was on September 2nd when I submitted this amendment request. September 2nd. We're now at September 24th. This amendment was submitted before the Public Works and Utilities Committee meeting on that day of this September 2nd. All committee members that were at present that meeting should be aware of this conversation because I talked about it not only at that committee meeting, but I also talked about it at the Quality of Life Committee meeting the following Wednesday, and it was delayed, it was postponed at that Quality of Life Committee meeting because this amendment was not ready. Now we're talking two and a half weeks later, and it was barely ready. So I just want the public to know that this was not something that I delayed. I worked my tail to get it off the ground and get it out. So I just want the folks to know that. Now, in regards to the proposal around submitting a new resolution, a new resolution would just be the exact same as this amendment, just in a resolution form. And as one of my colleagues mentioned, that takes time. It's not efficient government to introduce a resolution asking for the same actions that this amendment is proposing. In addition to that, I think Councilor Garcia's proposed timeline of two months getting it out the door is, I don't know about you, but I haven't got legislation out the door in two months. I still got legislation sitting in the City Attorney's office since 2022. So to go through that process to require resolution to get the work done that's asking for us to get done tonight, that is efficient government. Now, when we talk about educating the public, I mean, I have a flyer right in front of me saying rank choice voting educational sessions. Madam City Clerk, are education sessions going on right now? Is this correct? City Clerk: This is correct. They start on the 29th. Councilor: Okay. So I think the public is getting informed. What I think needs to happen is the public needs to have that critical conversation: Is it working? That's the conversation and dialogue that needs to happen with folks. Is this process working? I don't know why conducting a review of a process is receiving so much pushback because ultimately, I feel government should be always working to be efficient, effective, and working for everybody. Now, proposing that a resolution be introduced to further delay the process, that's neither efficient nor effective. Delaying the process of asking the question of is this process working for everybody? Well, you eliminate that third. It's not working for everybody because you're not even allowing for the conversation to happen. I have full faith and confidence whomever is convened as this Charter Review Commission that they can take on two tasks. If we look at the previous Charter Review Commission, this council loaded them up with nearly 10 tasks, and they still got work done. Asking them to take on two tasks where we will provide them sufficient time and resources to get the work done is not an overbearing request, especially when it's two controversial topics that is at the top of folks' minds. This is clearly a response to the residents' needs. So I'm just acting on behalf of my constituency and ensuring that we're representing their needs, which is what local government should be doing. But then I'll call the question. I know that Councilor Lindell seconded that anyway. Councilor: I'd like a chance to speak before you call the question if you don't mind. I haven't had my chance. And I don't mind waiting. I just wanted to point out, I think we've conflated several different concerns here, and I do believe they need to be separated out. The first is the concern that has been alerted to us by the City Attorney with regard to the change that has been brought by this amendment to the title of the resolution. And it was also highlighted by Councilor Casset that if we were to go ahead with this amendment, we should probably not vote passage on it tonight because there has been a change in that language. And I don't relish a legal challenge to whether or not we are following the Open Meetings Act. So I think we need to act with caution. I think government needs to be efficient, but it also needs to be highly scrupulous in following legal requirements so that we don't run afoul of the law. So that's a procedural issue. And then there is a substantive issue, and there's a disagreement on the governing body about the substantive issue, which is whether or not the narrower focus of looking solely at the separation of powers between mayor and city council ought to be the very narrow focus with a lot of depth applied to it, or add other discussions and go more broadly afield. And that's an area where people can disagree, but it would be resolved if there were a separate resolution where we could take it up as a very specific proposal without amending the caption, without potentially running afoul of any Open Meetings considerations, which is solely what the City Attorney is, as I understand it, the City Attorney is flagging for us. We absolutely can override our own procedures and requirements if that's our will. But she is, as the City Attorney, calling our attention to the fact that this comes with certain risks. It could be handled in a variety of ways. If the subject is of such burning concern, there could be a separate resolution. There could be a delay in the vote, a change to the caption, and/or we could simply set it over and bring it back with a different caption. City Attorney: And Mayor Weber, I do want to clarify something. The Open Meetings Act and waving rules are two different ideas. I certainly have never said you can wave the Open Meetings Act. Councilor: No, I didn't say that. City Attorney: I'm not saying you did. I'm just making sure that it's clear that I didn't say that since you are speaking for me right now. And earlier, Councilor Garcia suggested that I had said that you could just get rid of certain requirements previously as well. But not Open Meetings Act. You cannot wave the Open Meetings Act. You can wave your own procedural rules, which do relate to committees, order of operations on your agenda, that type of thing. We don't have the ability to wave the Open Meetings Act. Councilor: Thank you. As far as the time it takes to bring resolutions forward, there has been a the drafting is basically done, as Councilor Garcia pointed out. So we're not working from a scratch situation, and it would be perhaps advisable to take it up as its own separate matter where the pluses and minuses of doing it now, doing it this way, wording it this way, would undergo the same dialogue that the original consideration brought to us with the very specific clear call to look hard at mayoral authorities, powers, and council authorities and powers. So I think there are two issues, and whichever way we go with the amendment, we need to be very clear about Open Meetings Act and procedure, and then potentially open up another debate about the proposition that we want to bring to the Charter Commission, this specific subject. So with that, thank you for the chance to say a few words. Councilor Garcia, you wanted to call the question. City Attorney: And Mayor Weber, counselors, I would like to correct a couple factual things. The amendment was sent to Councilor Garcia on the 17th, 1:44 p.m. And things that are pending since 2022 have been expressly deprioritized by any counselor that has something pending that long. So that is why Marcy and her team meet with counselors and the mayor to constantly reassess the priorities for legislation so that things that are requested more recently can be prioritized over things that were requested a time ago. For example, Charter Commission resolutions to enact ballot questions for the Charter Commission, for which we dropped everything and wrote seven resolutions for Councilor Garcia two and a half years ago. I think there was a proposal to call the question, Councilor. Did you want to do that? Sure. And since I've got the floor, I'm going to reiterate the fact: on Tuesday, September 2nd, at 12:10 p.m., this amendment was submitted. Tuesday, September 2nd, 12:10 p.m. So, we want to reiterate this has been in for weeks. And then there is no Open Meetings Act violation if this were to be considered because from this dais, we have the ability. The only requirement to propose an amendment is that it is in writing. That would not be an Open Meetings Act violation if we were to present an amendment that's shown on that screen. If we were to come up with one right now on the fly, we would not violate OMA. What's concerning here is that when this original amendment was proposed, I was told, and I'm going to read from the email, this is from the City Attorney: "It appears the proposed amendment below likely goes outside the scope of Councilor Cassett's resolution that was introduced last week." And my feedback was, "No, it doesn't. It only adds to the resolution. It adds additional details. It's not going outside the scope." And that's the reason why I showed the example of the BPAC resolution, how that caption changed. It completely changed the intention of that resolution. Yet that was approved. Whereas I was receiving pushback from my proposal. I just wish we would all be treated the same. So with that, I'll call the question. Second. After that, the question was called. Madam Clerk, could you call the roll? Councilor Cassett. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero. No. Mayor Weber. Yes. So, the motion to amend 9U with Amendment A, it already has a first and a second. Councilor Romero. No. Councilor Cassett. No. Councilor Castro. No. Councilor Chavez. No. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Mayor Weber. No. Motion fails. You wish to explain your vote? What I generally say at times like this, I gave my word to a colleague and I keep my word. Thank you, Councilor. So, we still have on the floor a motion, a main motion. Is there further discussion of the main motion? There is no discussion. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll on the main motion? Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. And I'd like to explain my vote. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Councilor Michael Garcia, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want the public to know that I'm doing my best to act on your behalf, and so I will continue to move forward with a resolution requesting that an upcoming Charter Review Commission take on reviewing ranked-choice voting. What's the next item on the agenda, Madam Clerk? Item 10A. Discussion agenda action items. Request for approval of a Local Government Road Fund Cooperative Agreement administered by the New Mexico Department of Transportation for the construction of Agua Fria Cottonwood Roundabout project, identified as L5000618, in the total amount of $87,639. And here to speak is Capital Projects Manager Romela Oioso Moss. And also along with this is a request for approval of the Budget Amendment Resolution (BAR) to appropriate $65,729 from the grant and $21,910 from the road impact fees to FY26 Complete Streets revenue and expenses for the construction of Agua Fria Cottonwood Roundabout. Can we get a motion? Move to approve. We got a motion and we have a second. But I do appreciate you being here to walk us through this item. Thank you very much for coming tonight. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Weber and Councilors, and thank you for the opportunity to be heard tonight. So, the city is receiving additional construction funding of $87,639 from NMDOT through its Local Government Road Fund program. The total funding currently available for this project is $3.5 million, provided by the Federal Highway Administration via the Highway Safety Improvement Program. This project stems from a 2012 Worcester Polytechnic Institute study of the 142 most hazardous intersections in the City of Santa Fe, in which the Agua Fria Cottonwood intersection was ranked first. Mind you, it was a 2012 study. The $3.5 million will be used for constructing a roundabout, ADA-compliant sidewalks and bicycle lanes, utility relocations, and construction engineering. The additional $87,639 in funding will be used for construction management services. Thank you for your time. I welcome any questions and/or feedback that you may have. Thank you. Thanks for being here again. Are there questions on this subject matter? Councilor Garcia, no. Just getting ready to vote. All right. If there are no questions, Madam Clerk, do you want to call the roll? Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Thank you so much for your hard work and for being here tonight. Could you take us to the next item, Madam Clerk? 10B. Request for approval of Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) number 26-631-111-00008 with the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions in the amount of $1,642,23 to support shelter operations, street outreach, site improvements, and neighborhood cleanliness activities related to the city's homelessness response. And here to speak is Community Health and Safety Department Director Henry Hammond Paul. Move to approve. Second. Does the clerk need to read the BAR too? I think so. And one request for approval of a Budget Amendment Resolution (BAR) to allocate grant proceeds to Community Health and Safety FY26 revenue and service contract for implementation of the IGA. You still move to approve. There is a motion and there is a second. Director Hammond Paul, for folks who are looking at this for the first time and would like an overview, can you walk us through this, please? Mr. Mayor, City Councilors, thanks for having me. I'll give a high-level overview. And effectively what this covers is that the city, my team, approached the state requesting funds when we had begun to move forward with implementing our Homelessness Emergency Action Plan. One of the things that we've said from the outset, or onset rather, is that this is not only a city responsibility, but instead this is a joint effort that the city, the county, the state, community partners, businesses, all have a role to play. The state was very receptive to that, and specifically what this funding does is it enables the city to make good on something that we've been talking about in many different forms for at least the better part of my tenure here, which is acknowledging that 2801 Cerrillos, while it has served an incredible need in our community at that location, the site itself is not fit for purpose. It's too small. It is in a really challenging part of the city. The surrounding area has carried a considerable burden over the past 16 years. And what we really want to do is make sure that while we never lose any gaps in service or we don't experience any bed decrease—actually, this is something I've said every time I have the opportunity: we need more beds in our community, not fewer—but that that location is not the best location. And what this does is it provides funding for us to maintain a year of services at that location and ultimately move towards having a plan to move locations and repurpose that city facility for better, more specific, and community-enhancing uses in that area. So things that we have floated, and this is still being discussed and considered and thought through, but how can we potentially repurpose that area for something like a daycare or another kind of pro-social use that benefits the surrounding community? So this funding allows us—the city was already committed to supporting operations at that location for one year. This replenishes our coffers and allows us to use additional funding that we had previously committed to that for other homelessness-related services. We have more than enough need in our community. And it really is an opportunity for us to make good on a promise that we've collectively voiced in different forums. So, it's great to have this partnership with the state, and I hope to be able to make good on our side, or I plan to make good on our side, to the best of my ability, and to be able to continue this relationship with the state where they are supporting our homelessness response activities. Thank you, Director. Mr. Astron. I may need a 10-minute mark on this one, but we'll see. Thank you so much, Councilor Faulkner. Director Hammond Paul, thank you so much for your work and for all of the efforts that you have made, not only in this location, but all over the city. I was very fortunate to have the opportunity to talk to many providers at a HOA meeting last night, and I think the goodwill of this department is not lost on them. I think a lot of folks are really excited for the possibility of a new location for more resources. Now, there were a few questions that I'm hoping we could clear up for the community and for folks on the dais. It's interesting that we're looking at Workforce Solutions. Can we explain a little bit the reorganization at the state level and why these dollars are coming from Workforce Solutions? Mr. Mayor, Councilors, thank you for the question. I'll do my best there. Effectively, there was, as I understand it, an effort to create a state office of housing in the last legislative session. That effort did not succeed. So, the homelessness portfolio was transferred to the Department of Workforce Solutions. And I've been working closely with Secretary Nyer, who oversees that portfolio. And so, that portfolio, if I'm correct, is something that will be distributed throughout the state. So, we will be sharing that pot of money with other cities. Is there any change in the relationship that we've had to these funds? I know that we tentatively weren't going to get anything, and now we are receiving some funds. It seems that we're doing a better job than we had been. Is that correct? Mr. Mayor, Councilors, I don't know if I can comment on the previous work. All I can say is that we have a really great relationship with them now and are really excited to continue to leverage that partnership to bring benefits to our community. Perfect. So, I just wanted to make that clear. I know that there had been some hesitation from providers around some of the funding and some confusion. And so I want to assure all providers and community members that this money is that money that was originally coming from the state. We are in negotiations with that Secretary, and we are hoping that other providers. So my next question is, how will we be using these funds? Will this go to local providers? Mayor, councilors, this money will go for the specific purposes laid out in the agreement, which is to stabilize operations at 2801 Cerrillos, the former location of Pete's Place and the current location of the Agape House, as well as for street cleanliness activities and outreach services. It has a short timeline of being expended; it's through the end of the fiscal year, I believe. But the short answer is that all of this money will be directly invested into organizations serving our community. Perfect. So I really do support these efforts. I have some concerns around the building. Now, I know that we are talking about alternative uses and we're nowhere near what that might look like, but there's some significant need and improvements on that building. Would you like to elaborate a little bit on the condition of 2801 Cerrillos? Mayor, councilors, the building is in need of serious renovation and work. We're actually undergoing, as part of this agreement, I believe it's $120,000 for immediate repairs to the facility to make it a more dignified and hygienic environment. So that will cover things like repairing the roof, replacing broken windows on the building, installing a new fence that will start on Monday, this coming Monday. So, it covers some immediate repairs, but in the long term, to make that building 100% healthy, it would need substantial additional work. Perfect. Thank you. Those were all my questions. I just want to add that right now we need some repairs on the kitchen in particular. And so, for that to be a fully functioning space where folks get fed, we do need to update that kitchen. Correct? Mayor, councilors, that's correct. And some of those additional immediate repairs that we're doing are life safety issues, ADA compliance, things like that, but kitchen repairs to make it fully functional are on the list. If no further questions, I see the floor. Thank you. Councilor Chavez, do you have questions? Councilor Garcia, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Some of my colleagues are so quick to point out work should be done at the committee level. Why wasn't this sent to the Quality of Life Committee? Why did it only go to Finance? Mayor, Councilor Garcia, the process of getting an IGA signed from both a state set of counterparts and the city set of counterparts takes a really long time. And the intention of this has been in the works for three months or so. And the idea of getting the city manager's permission to have it only go to one committee and then go directly onto discussion was just so we could get the money into our coffers as soon as possible. That was the only reason. And the reality was that it hadn't been signed until, I believe, last Friday. I don't see in the packet a breakdown of how the $1.6 million is going to be spent. You had mentioned to Councilor Castro that a certain amount was identified for repairs to the facility. Do you have a full breakdown of what you plan, how you plan to expend the money, because it's a significant amount of work? I mean, when you look at the tasks, there are 17 activities that are requested through this, some very significant like infrastructure for the facility, some oversight. But the one I want to really deep dive into is "developing a plan." The contractor shall develop a plan for moving the physical location of the shelter and shall take all steps reasonably necessary to effectuate the move, including but not limited to listing the current location for sale or lease or uses that do not include homeless services. So what's the plan with that? Because this money has to get out the door quick, as you mentioned. That is a pretty significant task. I mean, I actually had this conversation with the city manager earlier this summer before the whole Urban Alchemy contract came forward, that this is work that I fully support in regards to looking at moving the location. How quick can we get this work done? How quick can we get a new site identified? Could it be done before the contract is up for the current lease? That way, we do not extend services at that location beyond summer of 2026. Mayor, Councilor Garcia, and if I miss a piece of the question, please let me know and I'll circle back to it. The first answer is that the planning work is squarely on the responsibility of the city. So some combination, and this is, I'll work with the city manager to identify the best process on how we engage the governing body on this, but in terms of coming up with a plan for presentation, that would fall in my department. And there are two dates that I think are critical in this. One is October 31st, which is the kind of broad outlines of a plan, and then having something actually in the works by March 31st, 2026. Very clearly, we are not saying that the guests and the services will end on March 31st. It is that we have taken steps to make sure that there is a timeline for ending services at that location and moving them to another one. So, I just want to clarify that it's not saying we're out of the building on March 31st. It's that by March 31st, we may have listed the building for, and this is a hypothetical, listed the building for sale, and then with the agreement that it would be leased back to the city for six months while we move into a new facility or something along those lines. So there's some navigability there, that latitude we have to make it. But the thing that, at least from my department's perspective, is that we want to be committed to this and do it right. With regard to a cost breakdown, there are kind of three big chunks of money. One is for $120,000 for physical repairs to the building. Then there is $1,080,000 for operations of the shelter facility, and then the remainder is for outreach services. So those are the three breakdowns. In terms of that work coming onto the city, we will subcontract that out to kind of recover some of our costs currently for the current operator. But then the kind of planning and execution work, which was what you were inquiring about, will fall on city staff. In terms of the last question, which is about realisticness, I don't think that's a word, but I'm looking to the city attorney. Is that a word? Real. Yeah. How realistic is it that we can find a building? And that's a question I don't have the answer to, but I'm hopeful that a forum like this, having a discussion like this, can help put, there's already pressure on the city to do this. It is not a problem that we can, and I'm going to speak very candidly here, this is something that we need help with, right? It is not something that we can solve. As you know, I won't speak on behalf of the governing body. My team is hungry to solve this problem, but we are constrained by our ability to find locations. There's considerable pushback from any neighborhood for this. So this one opportunity here, if I may be so blunt, is that this puts everybody in our community on notice that we have to find a, collectively work together to find a solution here and find a building. So, I'm hopeful that by saying this out loud, that the city wants to come to the table and make good on a promise that we can rally the support necessary from our partners at the state, the county, the public school district, as well as civil society to find an answer here. Okay. Thank you, Director, and get an A+ for answering all those, that myriad of questions. I appreciate that. Just for further clarification, the $1.08 million is to cover the costs of Urban Alchemy to operate the Agape Center. Correct? Currently, through that one-year contract. Mayor Weber, Councilor Garcia. Yes. And if I may also add one slight thing there, which is that that was an emergency one-year contract. My department is fully committed to putting that contract out for RFP. So when we move to a new facility, that'll be a competitive process that we'll put out to the community for a shelter operator. Okay. Thank you, Director. And you didn't want to say it, but I'll speak for myself. This absolutely is an issue where we've got to work collectively and collaboratively. Not only the city, not only the county, not only the state. It's going to require an all-hands-on-deck effort. So thank you to you and your team for all the work. Thank you, Councilor. Council, I'm going to take a moment of personal privilege to follow up on something before we go down the line because, as you know, Director Hammond Paul, the issue is one that is significant for our community, and I think we've all devoted a lot of time and energy to try to develop solutions that work for everybody. You've talked in answer to Councilor Garcia's questions about location, but maybe you could expand on the other side of the equation before we get to locations, and that is what is the theory of the case? What is the scope of the services we are designing for? What is the model or models? Because there are many different options that need to be considered. I think we jump very quickly to "where" before we first evaluate "what" and "why" and "how." And so in developing this going forward plan, while everybody is always quick to look at the question "where," where would a location be or multiple locations depending upon the model that gets adopted, it seems to me that the first order of business is to have a robust discussion of what is the theory of the case in terms of addressing homelessness needs. What are the different models that are available for us to look at and either adopt one or develop our own based on best practices here and elsewhere that we could bring together in our own hybrid? And then what does that suggest about the scope of services that would make that model successful? Because we know that given the complexity of homelessness and the co-occurring issues of mental and behavioral health, having a location or several locations without having adequate services and scope of interactions to bring successful conclusions to bear really doesn't address the problem. So I understand the desire that everyone wants to get to "where." I want to talk about "what," "how," "why," and really what is the vision or the theory of solution that we're presenting. Could you give that a little bit of a go? Mayor, councilors, I'll try my best. There's a lot in there. And I think the short answer is that it does warrant a very robust discussion about what is our city's homelessness response strategy, and not only in the immediate, but what is our long-term plan? And I'm really thrilled to have again the support of the City Council. From the last budget cycle, we have grown our team so that we can have a team that is built to respond to the level of need. So we went from one person working full-time on homelessness with me splitting some of my time there, now to having a fully staffed homelessness services function, which is part of it. If we want to have our streets cleaned, we need to have teams to do that. If we want to address homelessness, we need to have teams built out to do that. So, that's a big win, and that's about internal capacity. I would say there's not a one-size-fits-all model. But that said, the one thing that we need more of is beds, and we need more beds of all different types. Within that, we can break that down into a little more nuance of what are the kind of specific things that we should be investing in and targeting. I think one thing that the evidence is clear on is that non-congregate facilities do better. You give folks a door to lock and a place to keep their belongings. That mitigates a lot of the things that communities tend to express concern about, whether it's loitering or light strewn about, things like that. So, by having non-congregate facilities that people can be in for the whole day, that is a positive, evidence-based solution that we see across the country. We also need to invest in all different parts of our continuum, so emergency services for folks who are in really acute situations and simply need a roof over their head, to transitional, to permanent supportive. So, we need to do simultaneous investment. Another key pillar that I would point out is we need to understand who can do what well, and what is the city's comparative advantage in terms of what can we do? Should we be in the business of day-to-day shelter management? I don't believe so. I think that is something that we have experts in our community who we should be supporting. So, embracing where expertise lies and figuring out where we can be a value add. And there are many things that I would point to there. The last thing, I think, and this is critical, is how can we look for more resources? The city is a center of gravity for the surrounding area, and while the county contributes to addressing many of the challenges that we face here in the city, we do have a large share of that burden financially and just in terms of our day-to-day work. So, how do we think about broadening the pie that we're tapping into so that there's more to go around? Because right now, we're trying to spread resources quite thin, and realistically, we want to be able to fund all of our community organizations well, so that everybody, so it's not about how do we fight over crumbs, how do we grow the pie that we're all coming from? So, that's an insufficient answer to a big question, but I think as a follow-up, I would love to have the opportunity to bring the new Director of Human Services up here at some point in front of the governing body and have Director Salivary co-present with me on a more robust... **Councilor Faulkner:** Thank you. I'll pass the baton over to you, Councilor Faulkner. As some of you know, this has become my passion project, and some of the things that I've seen is that we have some redundancy in care. We also, there's not, in the cities that are successful around homelessness and solving this issue, we're never going to solve it. But in kind of having a sustainable plan to alleviate some of the challenges, we really need like a patchwork of things that work in other cities, and then we need to take those things and match them to our city. And one thing I've continually said, and I am actively pursuing this, the private sector of the city of Santa Fe has to step up. This is literally not a problem that the city can solve on its own. And in no city where there's been a successful response to this challenge has it been the government by itself. It's been the private sector. It's been the citizenry. It's been the government. And it's been a combination of different levels of government. And so, in all the research that I've done, I just have to say, and I'm going to do a shout-out to you, Henry. Any mayoral candidate who wants to get rid of you if they become mayor is insane because you are literally one of the best things the city has going for it on this issue. You are super smart. You're very dedicated. You're patient. You're thoughtful. You're mindful, and you're methodical. And so, I just want to thank you so much because I've worked very closely with you on this issue, and I have gone to other cities, and I've talked to other cities. You are a key part to the success that Santa Fe is going to have with solving this problem. So much so that in my normal fashion of apologizing rather than asking permission, I have been asking you permission to do things. And so, just know that I'm here to help, and I look forward to working with you in the future. **Mayor:** Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Mayworth, we'll just continue down the line. **Councilor Mayworth:** Oh, good. Director Hemphill, can you just speak to, we got an interesting email this week from somebody who was, I mean, rightfully had some bad experiences, but there was a conclusion that I'm concerned about. Can we afford not to do this work? I mean, if we don't use our resources and try to collaborate with others who have resources, and as Councilor Faulkner just said, bring in also the private sector, our community partners, different levels of government. I mean, this person's conclusion was that somehow the city-sponsored homelessness programming with the city's tax dollars is leading to this, I don't know, bad situation, bad environment. I think what we're trying to do is disrupt the experience that people are having in the community because of this unbelievable problem. And we are not the only city facing this. This is a national problem. I mean, we have to do this work, don't we? **Director Hemphill:** Mr. Mayor, councilors, first, I just want to take a quick second and say that I'm very grateful for the support I have of the council, but I also have an incredible team who supports me in this work. So, as much as I would love to take credit, I don't think I can do that in good conscience. With regard to the obligation for this work, that's a complex question. I think that there are, it's in some ways, not to moralize, but it's a reflection of the kind of community we want to live in. And there are examples of places in this country that have actively chosen to have much more draconian, criminalizing approaches to homelessness. And I don't know if those results are what we want as a community or actually good and durable. I mean, the city's largest homeless shelter is not one that exists in city limits. It's the county, the prison, the adult detention facility. **Mayor:** Make sure you're speaking to the mic. I think you're saying important things, and I'm concerned that people who may be listening are catching every fourth word. **Director Hemphill:** No, so there are many, there's not a, if there was a silver bullet for addressing homelessness, I think that would be the $80 billion question that people want to answer. So, in some ways, it's a reflection of the community that we want to live in, how we choose to continue to invest in it. And it's not, I think demystifying homelessness is also an important part of this, which is that it's not just street homelessness that interventions like my team, interventions that my team invests in, is not only addressing street homelessness. It's addressing people who are temporarily homeless, who are working in the service industry or in a variety of critical functions that residents depend on. So, it's really a set of services that touches a lot of people in a lot of different ways. But it's not something you can just bury your head in the sand and hope goes away. You have to be active about addressing it. And it's being active in a way that is not only the work that my division and departments do, but work that the office of affordable, it's an affordable housing question. It's a law enforcement question. It's a public health question. So, the long and the short of it is, is we have lots of really positive work happening, but it's all requires substantive investment and sustained investment. And, you know, I'll just go back again, which is, it's ultimately a reflection of how we want our community to look and the values of the broader community. **Councilor Mayworth:** Thank you. Appreciate your work. That's all I have. **Mayor:** Thank you, Councilor Cassid. **Councilor Cassid:** Thank you, Mayor. I think that we've already had a quite robust discussion, but I do just want to once again thank Director Hemphill and your team and our community partners. I don't think that there is anybody sitting in this room, including members of the public, that don't understand how complex and challenging of an issue this is. And I think that we experience a lot of pushback in this arena. And one thing that I have truly appreciated about the leadership you have brought, and as well as the work that your team has done, those who are still here at the city and also those from the past, is really looking at data, really looking at information, really looking at what has worked in other communities, and helping guide us through some really, really, really tough decisions. As everybody has mentioned, one of the biggest challenges about this issue is when we can't solve it alone. I think that that is a really important conversation. I think it's taken a while for us to really say that out loud because it's not, it's not a great thing that you really want to admit as an elected official that you can't solve something. But we can't. But also, you know, and Councilor Chavez is the one who I always think about when she really brings this up, is so many of the root causes of homelessness are a lot of this intergenerational trauma, intergenerational poverty, these really structural issues in our community that have come to a head. And so, you're fighting an uphill battle. And I really appreciate the ability that you have given us to be able to make informed decisions and to be able to make hard decisions because I don't think we would be able to make them as confidently without the work that you and your team do. The other thing that I'll say is when you brought forward Urban Alchemy, and we were having a lot of conversation, the dollars were, there's heartburn. It's a lot of money. It was a lot of money. And you said then, and you delivered, that you're going to work on finding other funding sources. And you did this quite quickly. We passed that in June, June 25th-ish, right? September 24th. So, three months, and you're coming to us with a substantial amount of money to support this work and to help refill the city's coffers and let us utilize our funds in other ways, whether it's this issue or another one, but really how you expand our financial availability to work on this issue. I do not think that can be understated. I think we often hear, well, we're going to look for the state for money, and it can take a really long time to get it, and you got it in three months, and you have it before us. And so, thank you so much for all your work. **Mayor:** Thank you, sir. Councilor Lee Garcia, sir, you're good. **Councilor Lee Garcia:** Yes, go ahead. I just, I just wanted to put this out there because you're brilliant, and I'm sure you're already doing some of this. Your team and you are brilliant and dedicated, and your hearts are in the right place. But I've often brought it up that we talk a lot about being short in resources, but we're actually really rich in resources. And what we often have in New Mexico and Santa Fe is a lack of alignment. We don't have people calling all providers to a common goal and saying, "This is what we need to achieve. Now, let me help organize you so you're all playing an essential role in achieving that." And I would really love us to get to a place where we can start doing that because I think that we're not actually utilizing the wealth of our resources as a city because we have providers duplicating services. I think there's a lack of monitoring, stabilization of individuals, and sustainability of that stabilization because we're not talking enough as providers. So we're often serving the same people over and over and over again because there's that lack of collaboration and monitoring. So I'm hoping with this work and this vision that we're talking about, that comes a true assessment of how rich are we actually in resources and how are we utilizing them in an efficient way. So we're utilizing them to the absolute fullest to get to the vision that we see in serving our homeless population. So I just want to see that because I see that with your team. I see you guys, you're innovated, you're innovative, you're passionate. You have good relationships with everyone that serves individuals here in Santa Fe. And I really would like this movement to lead to all of our providers, all of our community partners bringing people from the private sector in, in moving in the right or same direction, playing their own individual part so that we're achieving more as a community. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Go ahead, Councilor Castro, you have the floor. Councilor Castro: Sorry. And just to Councilor Travis's point, Director, do you want to talk a little bit about the meetings that you have with providers? Director: Mr. Mayor, City Councilors, this is a best practice nationally to basically treat your homelessness response system as an emergency management function, where you have everybody convened at regular cadence, making sure that people are pushing in the same direction. And I think what Councilor Chavez said is correct, which is we have a lot of the right constituent pieces. It's just making sure that they fit together and are working. I mean, I think one thing that we don't have enough of is housing stock. And I think people in the city feel that in many, many, many different ways, whether you're 400% of the average median income or area median income or 30% of it, we just don't have enough. That's one thing that we need to solve. But we convene the providers, and it's growing. We do it every other week. We have healthcare represented, homelessness services represented, some city is obviously represented. So it's a muscle that you have to build. You have to do it over time, build trust, get folks kind of figuring out that we are all part of a connected system and it's okay to instead of competing when there's a handoff, to push people along positively on that, and that's how we'll gain efficiencies in our response system. Mayor: Thank you. Any other questions? Just one other thing, I mentioned this at Finance, and I just want to say it again, as I think this grant is very validating for the direction we're moving in. And so again, thank you for this work. Clearly the status quo wasn't doing it, and we needed to do something different. And I think this is a wonderful validation of the direction that the city has taken and the work that's being done by a full team of people, not just your team, but others in the community. So I think this is an important grant, and I appreciate it. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor: Thank you. Seeing no other hands, there is a motion on the floor. Madame Clerk, could you call the roll? 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. Councilor Romero: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Cassett. Councilor Cassett: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Castro. Councilor Castro: Yes. Clerk: Mayor Weber. Mayor Weber: Yes. Clerk: Motion is approved. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you for being here, Director Hammond Paul. I'd entertain a motion to go to petitions from the floor. Councilor: Second. Mayor: There's a motion to change our agenda to go to petitions from the floor. We have people waiting to speak. I would, let's vote on it, and then I'll speak to that. So the idea would be to go right now to petitions from the floor. Following that, per the agreement about tabling the other item, we'd go to that next. Madame Clerk, can you call the roll on that? 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. Councilor Romero: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Cassett. Councilor Cassett: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Castro. Councilor Castro: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Chavez. Councilor Chavez: Yes. Clerk: Mayor Weber. Mayor Weber: Yes. Clerk: Motion is approved. Mayor: Thank you. Now, I would call to people's attention that if you are here to speak with regard to the public comment on the living wage ordinance, so-called, that is not right now the petitions from the floor. Petitions from the floor are items that are not subject to other public input. So if you want to talk about anything other than that particular public comment item, now would be the time to come forward, line up to speak to things other than the consideration of the public comment on the so-called living wage. So with that, if you want to come forward, please give us your name, and the City Clerk will keep a two-minute timer. If we could keep it quiet in the back, please. We have people trying to address the governing body that need our attention. So if we could move to that now, and Madame Clerk, you'll be the timer. Go ahead. Is your mic on? Lori Glenn: Oh, hi. Hi. I'm Lori Glenn. I'm a homeowner in Las Acequias, Mr. Mayor, City Council. And we know that today you're most likely voting to donate the land to Homewise. And I think Homewise is a great organization, and I look forward to them doing a great job. And I think what I know I care about as a homeowner, and I think some of my fellow homeowner people care about, is that we have a discussion and not like this one where I'm talking at you or you're talking at me. What we really want is to have charrettes and conversations where together we can talk about what it means to build another community off of Ridgetop. And that 20 acres or less is actually adjacent to a much larger parcel of land that this can be, as I think Councilwoman Castro has said, can be a catalyst even for other development. I personally am really pro-affordable housing. I've worked in it all my professional career. So for me, it's not an issue. I think that we need to have more affordable housing. It's part of the whole continuum that the Director talked about. So I'm for that. And I live on Kai David, so I get directly impacted by what will go on. So I know that Joanna, oh, because I'm nervous, your economic development person who has been very cooperative and collegial with us, we are looking at having a community meeting on the 23rd, and I'm going to go now and hope that some of you will come to that, please, so that we can talk together. And thank you very much. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you for being here. Bradley Af: Mayor and Council members, my name is Bradley Af. Mayor: You're going to have to get real close to the microphone, sir. Bradley Af: I live in the same area that was just discussed. If you would drive down our street on Villa Estrada, you cannot pick out the affordable homes that were built 18, 19 years ago. They look just like the other homes. I can't distinguish between them. Are they affordable today? Not at your life. They are selling for $600,000, $700,000, $800,000. And so what we're talking about in the plan is to build a mixture of affordable homes along with the regular homes of people that can afford more. But in just a few years, those affordable homes will be a rich, rich investment. And we're short of homes in this city now to the extent that about 33% of the labor force in Santa Fe live outside of Santa Fe. Certainly many of them by choice, but some of them not by choice. And so affordable houses that they can move in will enrich the city. And you can count the number of ways that that can happen. And if you can't count them up, I'll count them up for you. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Thank you for being here tonight. Lewis Dell: Evening, everybody. My name is Lewis Dell. I'm with ASME. See when my counter starts here. Thank you. The contract that we passed today is for half our city employees and couldn't have happened without our negotiations team with emphasis on Theres Martinez, Gilbert Baca, and the late Gilbert Martinez. Five years we spent at the table with the Mayor's appointed management team. First three of those years being told that management wanted a budget neutral contract. The time that went into those manager salaries for those three years could have funded an increase in traffic hazard pay for our membership. But that's management's side. Our side had hard choices to make on how to allocate the taxpayers' money to best meet the needs of our union brothers and sisters and best serve the interests of the broader public. We, and I do include management in that, have made Spanish-speaking services a priority, a shift differential increase for our workers who don't have a standard 8 to 5 shift, and that the people who do good work for our city have proper clothing while they do that work. Together, we made a focus for the Spanish-speaking people in our city and state. To them, I say and end with this, thank you, folks. Mayor: Thank you. Thanks for being here. Theres Martinez: Good evening. Good evening. My name is Theres Martinez. Thank you for the approval, Councilors, Mr. Mayor, and the City Manager's team for the approval of the collective bargaining agreement. As mentioned previously, it was a long and arduous process for all involved. Going forward, we request that to save time, energy, and resources, the union be included, as requested during previous interactions in the budget process, be provided their own budget line item, not just to provide a statement after the budget process is completed. In addition, including the union and possibly all the unions in the factors of the future classification and compensation studies required that's required every three years. I think that would save us a lot of time, energy, and resources. I think these preliminary steps will be a good starting place for future joint endeavors. Thank you so much for your time. Mayor: Thank you. Thanks for being here. Peterson: Peterson, Local 3999. Mr. Mayor, Councilors, I've been on the negotiations committee for over a year and a half now. Contract negotiations have been ongoing before I was an employee here at the city. So it feels really great to finally have a contract. One of the goals for us here on the union side is we were trying to update some of the financial elements that haven't been updated since 2017, and I'm really happy that we were able to get some updated increases for people in our membership that really need them. So we appreciate that. Likewise, we're finally getting much-needed longevity increases through class and comp for employees that have served the public for a really long time. One of the big topics that membership asked us during the ratification vote was how does this contract benefit me? And I think our approach here was for gains for as broad of the membership as possible across the city for a huge variety of job classifications. And obviously not all of our proposals for all articles made it into this version of the contract. I'm pretty happy overall with what we were able to accomplish for the benefit of all AFSCME employees. I want to thank the governing body for sticking with the process and for ratifying the contract. AFSCME Local 39.99 makes Santa Fe happen, and we look forward to working with the city for future contracts and future investments into our workforce. So, thank you. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Good evening, everybody. My name is Renee. I'm a City of Santa Fe employee and the recording secretary for AFSCME Local 39.99. Thank you, Mayor Weber and council members, for granting the ratification of AFSCME Local 39 collective bargaining agreement. It has been a long five-year adventure of bargaining for a new agreement. And as an employee belonging to this union, I am overcome with joy knowing the destination has now been reached. Looking to the future, I hope for transparent collaboration efforts in the various development stages of future collective bargaining agreements and endeavors between the City of Santa Fe and AFSCME Local 39.99. At the end of the day, we are here achieving the same goal: to serve the people living in the City of Santa Fe, providing quality services for our constituents, and doing so with the support and collaboration of the mayor, management, and council members. Thank you for your individual efforts in the development, contribution, and ultimately the approval of AFSCME Local 39.99 collective bargaining agreement enacted for the timeframe of September 25th, 2025, to July 2027. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Stephanie Benonato. I wanted to talk about charter commission and rank choice voting, among other things. I would hope that the council will commit to every proposal that the charter commission brings forward, that you will not veto it and not give it to the public for their consideration, which happened the last time the charter commission met, including a suggestion that the mayor not vote unless there was a tie, which is coming back this time. In terms of rank choice voting, there is education, and there's been education every time there's been an election. And what I see are people in the paper commenting who don't live in the city, can't rank choice vote anyway, and who complain because people don't understand it. You can only provide information. You cannot make people absorb the information. We also have had a problem in our neighborhood. Somebody put up and was nice enough to donate signs that say "resist." They did it on their own, their own money. We're giving them away. And we've had somebody, a man in a blue Toyota pickup with a dented rear part of the truck, without a license plate, coming around taking them away. I had one on my property, not even in the right of way, that disappeared within two days. My neighbors two houses away actually saw this man when he was taking the signs the second time and tried to, they photographed the truck but no license plate, and the guy wears a mask. I know that Councilor Michael Garcia was contacted to enter some kind of resolution against what my neighbors call political violence, but I would say suppression of political speech. And I think it's important that whatever people are trying to do to make a difference, that that should be honored. And just one more thing, I have had proposed ordinances that Michael Garcia said he submitted to the city attorney since 2022. In terms of affordable housing, if you really want to make affordable housing, you need to get rid of short-term rentals or limit them and give people incentives not to make their houses short-term. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Bunny Hull. I live in Santa Fe Estates, and I'm here in opposition of the donation of Tract 6A. The community strongly opposes this plan, not because we oppose affordable housing, but because Tract 6A is simply ill-suited for high-density development. There is far better land within the northwest quadrant that could safely accommodate housing. It is my understanding that a full geotechnical soil stability study has not been completed for Tract 6A that addresses foundation capacity, slope stability, drainage, and subsurface soil conditions. If this study has not been completed, the city cannot accurately determine whether foundations will remain stable over time, and future homeowners, especially first-time or low-income buyers, could face drainage failures, cracked slabs, or shifting foundations, which are expensive and sometimes impossible to repair. Proceeding without this study could conflict with the city's own LDC requirements to protect health, safety, and property. Why is the city leaving it to Homewise, the builder, to decide whether Tract 6A will be a successful long-term development? Santa Fe residents, not Homewise, will live with the consequences of this decision, good or bad. If drainage fails, if foundation shifts, or if land proves unsuitable, it is our community that will bear the cost. The city has a responsibility to ensure this project is truly viable before moving forward, not after problems arise. Affordable housing should strengthen families, not set them up for future hardship. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Hello. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Cat Concaid. I am lucky enough to live and work in Santa Fe. I'm currently a renter but working towards owning a home again before too long, and I am speaking in favor of the donation of the tract to the Los Estrellas tract to Homewise and Habitat for Humanity. I think most of us agree that there's an affordable housing problem here. For myself, I'd like to see the city government set annual production goals for many types of housing, from shelter beds to transitional pallet homes, affordable rentals, and affordable for-sale homes, and enact policies to make those developments possible. I'd also like there to be stated deadlines and accountability for the progress of the land use code update. I know we all want to ensure that there are good housing options for our young relatives, our seniors, our work colleagues, and our neighbors. The good news here, I believe, is that there's the capability and in general a political unity to make significant headway. We have trusted, proven nonprofit developers who are working every day to scan for opportunities, layer the complicated financing, design thoughtfully, build community relationships, recruit volunteers, prepare the buyers, and do all the things to make affordable home ownership possible for more people. In fact, Homewise and Habitat for Humanity are nationally renowned, and we're lucky that they're active in our small city. We know developments like Los Estrellas usually require many partners to make it over the finish line, and there's a chance tonight for the city to pass the baton to our trusted nonprofit developers and let them perform for us again. I for one would go to sleep more content tonight to know they are getting the boost to move ahead on another development that gives Santa Fe exactly what it needs. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for coming down. Oh, wait a second. We've got Academy Award music playing in the background. Okay, I think you have the floor. Make sure the mic is well positioned and on. It may not be on if you've got a green light in front of you. Okay. We're really not getting a good volume from you. Maybe the clerk, can Madam Clerk, can you take a look and make sure everything is teed up correctly. Thank you. Hi, my name is Ruth Gradinsky, and I've worked for the public schools in New Mexico for 30 years. As most of you know, we are currently in a nationwide teacher shortage. Our students deserve to have qualified teachers rather than substitutes. We have to create more affordable housing that will attract teachers to Santa Fe. Therefore, I strongly encourage you to approve the Los Estrellas donation agreement. Our current housing shortage demands action. We need affordable units in all parts of town and with a commitment to 40% affordable units. I urge you to act on approving this agreement now. We can't wait. There have been extensive opportunities for community input already, and Homewise will be doing more in the future. This donation agreement is just the starting point. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor and Councilors. And let me just say in advance, I really appreciate the time and energy you all put into your jobs. It's greatly appreciated. I too am in support of the donation. We need a name. Ann Watkins. Thank you, Mayor. I too am here to approve the donation or to encourage you to move forward with the donation of Los Estrellas to Homewise. As a member of the Community Development Commission, I'm painfully aware of how desperately we need more housing in Santa Fe. This is one that is a really good opportunity. You're making the decision tonight. It will allow home buyers to move forward to determine whether we can in fact build there. I think we can, but I think that they will take on that responsibility. I encourage you to move this project forward. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for coming down. Please, you have the floor. Hello. My name is Marcia Emerton. I'm here also in support of the new development by Homewise. We all know they do such a good job. And the other, I have a little suggestion, at some of the other meetings I was at about this, people were concerned about what is it going to look like? And I would suggest they go to other Homewise projects within the city, maybe even go to a couple open houses and see the quality, what they look like, and maybe that will ease some of those fears. On another subject, this week in my little world alone, four friends have either been attacked, been harassed, had a rock thrown through their car window as they were driving down St. Francis. We need to do something. I have absolutely no answers for you, but we're in deep here. So try working on that more. I don't know what to do, but thank you. Thank you. Thanks for coming down. Yes, you have the floor. Hello, my name is Andrea Mueller. Thank you for letting me speak about the Los Estrellas Tract 6A development. I think it's a wonderful idea. I live in that area. I've lived in Santa Fe for close to 50 years, almost my whole life, and it's increasingly unaffordable for people to own homes in Santa Fe since I've lived here. I'm fortunate enough to have built my own home when I was very young and was able to create a place in Santa Fe to live permanently. But a lot of people don't have that opportunity. And so, I'm hoping that we can have more affordable housing in Santa Fe that will encourage people who just want to raise families and have a safe community to live in. I support it. Thank you. Thank you very much for speaking. Yes, you have the floor. I'm Francis Parker. I live at 787 Camino Francisca in that area. I bought a home, a spec home, 23 years ago in that, that is, that's where my heart is. This is where I live, and I plan on living there for at least another 23 years, God willing, twice as long as that. I am asking for you to pause, not to stop, not to not build on Tract 6A, and to not do it this fast. Part of the problem is we are trying to do things so fast that we're not going to have the quality. We're not going to have the time to do it thoughtfully and make sure it's done well. The number of homes has an impact on the environment with the erosion and with the drainage issues. The infrastructure on the roadway of 599 and Ridgetop Road is a dangerous intersection. We do not have enough space between 28584 to the exit of Ridgetop Road because 599 was done really fast. We wanted to get it done. We didn't stop, slow down, make sure it was done well and thoughtfully. So, they didn't think about how many homes were going to be in the area. I am so sorry. We didn't think about how many homes were going to be in that area and how much traffic was going to be there. So, we don't have the infrastructure that's done properly because we did things too fast. We need to slow down and make sure that we do this properly, not fast. The other thing that I would really like to comment on is because I had two separate concerns. One was the Tract 6A. The other one is the City Council not listening to us because we're on the north side. When we had the meeting two meetings ago that it was voted on to continue this going forward, there was a city councilor that said, "Just because you're here and voicing your opinions, we're not going to listen to you because other people don't have the same chance." I was here earlier. I had to leave and I had to come back because I had a child that I had to make sure I was getting from soccer practice back home to get dinner, all that stuff. So when it's important, people show up. So please don't say we don't have the time in other parts of the area and we do have time here because we all struggle with balancing all of it. Thank you very much for your time. Mayor: Thank you for coming down. Yes, you have the floor. Thank you, Mayor Weber. Counselors, my name is Maryanne Stickler, and I had the privilege and surprise of being invited to present some materials at the Casa Alegre Neighborhood Association meeting last night. So, I thought I'd just share with you the materials that I prepared for them. They're very similar to materials that I've sent to all of you via email showing that in each of your districts, there are over twice as many illegal short-term rentals as there are legal permitted short-term rentals. So, the map I prepared to distribute to the residents of Casa Alegre last night is consistent with that trend. I took a screenshot from the website AirDNA of the Casa Alegre area and adjacent properties, and this is between Agua Fria and Sirius Road. So these are historically modest homes, working-class neighborhood, and there are currently 45 short-term rentals operating in that particular location, and 22 of those are permitted. I've seen, since I started to approach my own councilors and other councilors and staff about 15 months ago, I've seen virtually no movement at all in actual enforcement of our short-term rental ordinance. I've seen very little interest in revising our short-term rental ordinance, and about a month ago, I asked you to please declare a moratorium on all new short-term rental permits until these issues could be addressed. We are talking about thousands of homes, hundreds in each of your districts, that are existing houses on existing infrastructure near parks and schools that just through enforcement of our ordinance could be recaptured into our housing supply. This is a much more condensed timeline than starting from scratch, building infrastructure and brand new homes, which we won't see added to the inventory for years. So, I ask for your continued consideration of my proposal. You all have my proposal and you all have evidence that this is happening in your district. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you very much. Madame Clerk, is there anyone on the Zoom who has their hand up? Clerk: Yes, we have two hands raised. Julie Bennett, you are allowed to speak. Hello. Can you hear me? Mayor: Yes. Okay. I'm sorry I don't have an option to turn my camera on, or I would make myself seen as well as heard. Many interesting topics were brought up that I would like to touch on quickly. I'm not seeing your timer on my screen, so I'll try to speak quickly. I'm deeply in favor of the donation of Las Estrellas Lot 6A to Homewise, a reputable organization in our town that's really working hard and has a proven track record. I believe that any affordable housing development, and this will support about 58 affordable homes, should be prioritized by the city, fast-tracked, especially with the track record that Homewise presents. They do have an entitlement process to go through after this. This is not the final step. They have to deal with zoning entitlement improvement approvals and towards their feasibility. If you were living on the street, and this is where these two issues are linked that the councilor spoke of earlier, homelessness and affordable housing are linked issues that your city government has the power to link and connect and work on in the alignment that Councilor Chavez spoke about. These are linked. Short-term rentals are often ways for the owners of those modest homes to earn a living wage or to receive value from their rentals and perhaps pay mortgages that are keeping them in their homes. Short-term rentals are not the enemy of affordable housing. Those people who own those homes are earning a living from them and deserve to do so. Okay. Thank you so much. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you for speaking up. Someone else in the Zoom room with a hand up, Madam Clerk. Clerk: Brandon Vela, you are allowed to speak. Hi, everyone. Can you hear me? Mayor: Yes, you could speak a little louder, but we can hear you. All right. Mayor Weber, City Councilors, my name is Brandon Vela, and I support the Las Estrellas 6A donation agreement between the city and Homewise. The city of Santa Fe, which extends from south of the airport to north of the plaza, is in need of additional housing of all kinds, particularly that housing considered affordable. It's a city that today is less than whole, given that such a high proportion of those who keep it alive and attractive must commute sometimes hours a day to make their positive contributions. This is not to mention the many more service, health, education, and other essential workers the city needs but has no room for. The city of Santa Fe is not zoned for high and low-income households. There should not be parts of the city exclusively available to those with the most resources. It's the city's land to donate, and it is the city as a whole that is in need of additional housing, including that which is affordable. It seems clear to me that the due diligence, negotiation, and community input steps that have been required of Homewise have been completed. It is also Homewise that understands and has agreed to navigate and mitigate any risks while they work to provide housing and bring the city closer to whole in Santa Fe. Councilors, I hope you will vote yes and approve this donation per the proposed agreement. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you. Clerk: Anyone else with a hand up, Madame Clerk? Not seeing anyone else with a hand up. If you want to speak, please raise your hand. Not seeing anyone, Mayor. Mayor: Very good. In that case, we'll close the petitions from the floor, and we need to bring back the item that was suspended until we got through petitions from the floor. Councilor: Mayor, yes, Councilor, I'd like to make a motion to remove item P from the table and immediately hear that. Councilor: Second. Mayor: There's a motion and a second to bring that item back from the table. Is there any discussion? Could you call the roll on that, Madam Clerk? Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia, yes. Councilor Michael Garcia, yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero, yes. Councilor Cassett, yes. Councilor Castro, yes. Councilor Chavez, yes. Councilor Faulkner, yes. Mayor Weber, yes. Motion is approved. Mayor: Thank you. So, with that, we resume our consideration of this item. Remind me, did we get a motion before we tabled? We did have a motion to approve, and we did have Mr. Lee say a few words to set the table. Council Garcia, you had asked that it be taken off of consent. Do you have any questions or concerns at this time? Councilor Garcia: No, I mean primarily, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I removed this so we can hear from the public. I want to ensure that especially since we're moving forward with donating public land, that we have the opportunity to hear from members of the public. I definitely understand the concerns that were raised, whether it was in opposition or in support. I do want to reiterate that this has been a process that the city has been working on for years. This isn't a proposal that just popped up recently. There have been feasibility studies as confirmed by Mr. Lee. As we move forward with this process, I would encourage the public to continue to participate. I will be in attendance of that meeting next month that's being coordinated with city staff and members of the Las Estrellas community. But more importantly, I would highly recommend for folks to engage with Homewise, that they're not going to shy away. And maybe that's a question for our Homewise representative that's here. Homewise Representative: Good evening, Mayor Weber, Councilor Garcia, thank you for the question. I want to just first of all thank the city team for leading such a robust community engagement process up until this point. I think that it's really allowed us as the developer to have a solid foundational understanding of what the community's concerns are. And I think that was the point of the community engagement, not to solve everything or address every or sort of resolve everything, but to understand the scope of the issues. And I appreciate the city staff's help in doing that. I think moving forward, I'm going to say a couple things. I mean, the minimum, the sort of minimum public engagement requirements are fairly robust. We'll need to do an early notification neighborhood meeting. There will be a preliminary plat hearing that's a public hearing. There will be a final plat hearing that's a public hearing. So there's built-in opportunities for the community to participate in this. However, we plan to do more than that minimum as well. I think Homewise has a strong track record of engaging the community when we're building projects. Things like doing a website to keep the community up to date, doing community meetings, going to neighborhood association meetings, doing surveys. So, as we move forward, we will have a solid community engagement plan to make sure that we're hearing from folks and getting their input as we move forward with the design. Councilor Garcia: Okay. Thank you for confirming that. I guess I just want to say when we started this process years ago, the intention was to ensure that as the city moves forward with affordable housing development, it's not solely isolated on one part of town. That we begin to have affordable housing development on the south side, the north side, the east side, the west side, Midtown, and we begin to equitably distribute affordable housing opportunities for the residents of Santa Fe. So, this just starts the process. As folks know, there's going to be the continued process with Midtown and as we explore other further options for city-owned properties. I want to ensure that folks stay engaged. So, thank you, Terry and city team, for bringing this forward. Thank you to everybody who showed up tonight. This is a process that we must go through together, and as we move forward, I will commit that we'll ensure that this is a process we do continue engagement. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilor: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Castro. Councilor Castro: Yes, thank you so much. And to Councilor Garcia's point, I am excited that there are going to be many opportunities for community engagement around this project. I do have some ideas around the development, and we'll get there in terms of when those community meetings are. But today, one thing that concerns me about this specific vote is the donation of city property. The only real issue that I have around this is the idea of how we are dealing with the land that is owned collectively by this community, of which we heard testimony that there are 700 acres on the northwest quadrant potentially that we could be looking at for development. So, I am strongly in favor of this project. I do want to make it known that I'm concerned that it is not affordable enough and that within this five-year term, where potentially we may be getting this land back, we are going to find out about a lot of costs. And so, I hesitate also to put that burden on individual organizations, in particular, not-for-profits. Now, if we're talking about for-profit developers, that's a whole other thing. But I would like to ask Mr. Lease, are we under any obligation to sell this land, or could we potentially lease it to a not-for-profit? Mayor: Councilor Castro, if I understand your question, you're asking if we are under any obligation to sell or donate the land directly, or could we maintain ownership and lease that land? Councilor Castro: Well, I suppose there's always an option to maintain ownership and lease that land. I don't know how viable that would be for an affordable housing project given the amount of investment, etc. And through the attorney, they may have more than that, but through the Affordable Housing Act and the city's affordable ordinance, we are allowed to donate the land, right? Mayor: Correct. Councilor Castro: So, it is my understanding that though we are able to retain ownership and lease the land, a big concern that the city has, and I also have, is that we currently don't have the capacity to build anything ourselves, and we have some issue with managing the assets we currently have. Is that true, Mr. Lee? Mayor: Councilor Castro, absolutely correct. So, though I have high hopes that we are going to build capacity in the City of Santa Fe to have more affordable housing complexes like the ones that we currently have at La Cieneguilla or Viasale that we do currently manage, we don't have the capacity to do that at the city right now. And I just want to name that it is my will, I can't speak for anyone else on the governing body, that we move in that direction. I do believe that we need partnerships, but I would like for government to be held accountable, to come to the table with resources, assets, and staff to maintain some of the things that we are building. I've heard from a lot of constituents that they need support in their city housing. I am disappointed that things like the Santa Fe Apartments have been sold to private industry. There's been a lot of problems in relation to those sales. So, I just want to name that this is not my favorite process by which we're going to build affordable housing, even though we need it yesterday. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Romero-Wirth, and then Councilor Cassid. I'm sorry, Cassid. I looked right at you and was still thinking about our previous speaker. Councilor Romero-Wirth: Thank you, Mayor. So, we talked about this at the committee. We didn't have the full team here. I want to address some of what we heard from the public comment, specifically about the issues around the site. I don't know, Mr. Lease, if you're, I don't think you're the appropriate person because when I asked this question in a committee, you weren't familiar. So, it might be something for our Land Use Director, or probably it's our Land Use Director, but just in terms of the process that one goes through to determine the feasibility of a site. Homewise can't begin to look at the site until they have control of it. And then, can you speak briefly to the process? There's a lot. This is just the beginning, and these concerns about the site and whether it's appropriate or not appropriate, this is going to enable that work to be done so that we have more information on the appropriateness of the site, and so Homewise can figure out maybe how to mitigate some of the challenges of the site. Can you speak to that for everyone? Speaker: Yes, thank you for the question, Councilor Romero-Wirth, Mayor Pro Tem Lindell, councilors, with reference to the feasibility study that helped to inform the path forward but did not define anything for development of the land. So, there's a lot that goes into the development of the land, which will be on the shoulders of Homewise to figure out. They will have to provide all the studies, the analysis, as well as the proposal that will come through the development review process. And I would like to add that Ms. Uval did mention that they're going to do more than just the minimum. If there's an early neighborhood notification meeting where there's a request to have an additional meeting, we also as staff have taken the opportunity in the past to have additional meetings. So, not only would it be a separate meeting with Homewise, maybe that's not managed by the city, but we could also accommodate for several meetings relative to an early neighborhood notification meeting. That is the concept. We are going to be rolling out our application, our digital, or I'm sorry, digital user platform, October 8th, and we will be putting up our active applications with some comment opportunities. So, the public, once an application has been filed, will be able to take a look at the application materials and be able to provide comments. So, there's not that black hole that happens between the ENN and the public hearing. So, we anticipate that we will get comments. This community has been very active, which is really a great thing, and we can work together to build a great project. Councilor Romero-Wirth: And after Homewise does all this work, they have to bring a plan forward, and that goes to the Planning Commission. There's like a whole process for approval and to take more community input and hear maybe how what they're doing or not doing is addressing the issues that the community is concerned about. So, there's more there too, right? There are other folks who are going to be involved and other opportunities for the community to weigh in, not just on your digital platform. Can you speak to that a little bit? Speaker: Certainly. Yes, thank you, Councilor Romero-Wirth, members of the council, Mayor Weber. The process, once an application is received, that's after the early neighborhood notification meeting. The application is vetted through all of our different departments, what we call the Development Review Team, includes water, wastewater, traffic engineering, all of the different civil engineering, all of the different reviewers relative to their areas of specialty. The Metropolitan Planning Organization is also one of those. They'll be looking at the grander, more regional street network as well. So, we do provide, after an application has been received and then reviewed by staff, a review letter to the applicant stating these are the things that you need to do in order to get to a point where we can make a recommendation for approval. And sometimes variances are requested. We will also evaluate those to determine whether there's an opportunity to avoid the variance. Are we thinking that this, are we defaulting to a variance, or are we looking towards meeting the code to the best ability possible? Think creatively. And so, after the applicant receives the review letter, in turn, they will resubmit plans to us. We will check them, and then if everything looks good, it will go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. And as you know, there are appeal opportunities once a decision has been made by the Planning Commission. Typically, the decision is final, except appeal, and then potentially the governing body could hear it. So, there's a lot of process left. This is not, there was concern that this is going to be happening too fast. I think actually we hear a lot that this stuff doesn't happen fast enough. So, that's sort of an interesting turn on that. But this process is thorough and requires many steps and won't be happening fast, rightly or wrongly, but will be done with the attention that should be given a project like this. Councilor Romero-Wirth, Mayor Pro Tem Lindell, that is correct. Councilor Romero-Wirth: Okay. And I just want to note that there was, can you talk about the community meeting that we've already had? We had it at the library. When was that? I want to say you guys, you did a big community meeting. We were at the library. The whole team was there. We had, I think, 80 people from the neighborhood. I can't remember the date of it, but I just also want to call out that that was done. Does anybody remember the date? Speaker: Yes, that was July 16th. Councilor Romero-Wirth: July 16th. Oh, wow. And we're already in September. Boy, that happened fast. Okay. So, middle of July, there was a huge community meeting at the library. This full team that's here tonight was there. Homewise was there. It was very interesting. I learned a lot. It talked about the process. It talked about the community was able to give comments about their concerns. You also have taken questions from the community and produced answers to community questions. Is that posted somewhere, or how would, if somebody wanted to know more about all of this, where would they get that? Or if somebody in the neighborhood hadn't received that yet, where is that? Speaker: Mayor Pro Tem, Councilor Romero-Wirth, thank you for the question. We sent out the question and answers to about 90 folks that were in attendance, and then also, I believe that they are posted on the website, and if they're not, if they haven't gone through the process of the website update, we'll make sure that that's available. Councilor Romero-Wirth: Okay. And the website, where would it be? On the Land Use website, or where would we find it? Speaker: Actually, that would be the Office of Affordable Housing. Councilor Romero-Wirth: Okay. The Office of Affordable Housing that has a new director, who's here tonight. Okay. So, I just, in case there are people who still have questions, the questions are pretty thorough. They came a lot from folks around the neighborhood asking questions. You all, all our subject matter experts, spent a long time responding to those. I think it's a very substantive document, and I just want to call it out and make sure that we have it available for people who continue to be interested in how this moves forward. And I think we have done a lot of work, and there's still a lot of work to be done. Speaker: Mayor, Councilor Romero-Wirth, I'd also like to point out that that document was uploaded to Civic Clerk too. So, it is available for public record there too. And we'll get confirmation too, by the end of the meeting, exactly where that is located online. Councilor Romero-Wirth: Okay. I mean, it seems like a great tool. You know, let's not bury it. Let's get it out for people. So, that's all I have. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor Cassid. Councilor Cassid: Thank you so much, Mayor. Actually, Councilor Romero-Wirth covered much of what I wanted to discuss, which was really looking at that process. Understanding that there is still a lot of work to be done when it comes to questions around the viability of the property, of making sure that all plans are meeting all safety requirements, are meeting our land development code, which thinks about things like erosion and stormwater and traffic. And it is exciting that we will actually get a new group of people who get to be exposed to our development process, which has a lot of comments from a lot of different individuals about the thoroughness versus the speed versus the potential challenges and roadblocks for actually getting really good projects. So I really do encourage everybody to be part of those conversations. I do want to thank the neighborhood for coming out, and for, I know that there have been meetings. I apologize, I've not had the opportunity to be part of them. I hope I will be in the future. And I do understand that it can feel really scary when there's new development happening in your community. And I frequently speak as one of the Southside councilors, and the four of us really do talk about the amount of development that is happening in districts three and four. And it is extensive. And there are impacts to our streets and our schools. And it is something that this community is going to have to continue to contend with. The numbers of how many housing units we'd need now versus in 20 years, I hear various numbers, somewhere from 5 to 10,000. I mean, it really, we are going to need every single part of the city to figure out how to get more of a housing stock in there. And so this is a really great step for this part of the community, this part of the city, to help pull the weight, and the rest of the city will continue to do so. And I know that that has been a really big priority for, I would say, probably everybody on this. I cannot speak for everybody at this moment, but based on all of our different votes and our conversations, everybody on this community, of how do we manage to get more housing in our community? How do we develop in a way that does create a high quality of life for everybody? And that does mean that there's going to be some sacrifice. And again, we've seen a lot of it in my district, and I know that I've spoken with Councilor Faulkner just today again about, they've seen it as well in district three. And so as we're looking at these decisions, we are very much concerned about the impact of the community that is directly adjacent to any of these developments. But it is also this larger conversation. We are really taking a bird's eye view as we are looking at these projects and as they come forward, of what this starts to look like for the community as a whole. So I just want to reiterate that it is not necessarily that those viewpoints don't matter. In fact, I think that it is really helpful in helping us get to better development. But it does not necessarily mean that everybody is always going to get what they want, because we have a lot of needs in this community. We have a lot of desires in this community, in the city, and they sometimes conflict. But at the end of the day, what I frequently hear from a lot of people is, we want Santa Fe to be a community. The people who live here can afford to, or I'm sorry, who work here can afford to live here, that our children will be able to stay here, that people can still have a high quality of life and not be house poor. And I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this process from start to finish. And I'm happy that we are moving forward and this being able to add to this. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of work to do with our policies. We've talked about short-term rentals. We've talked about affordable housing. We've talked about how long houses stay affordable. There's a lot of work to do in this policy, but I think the one thing that I can say with certainty is that every part of the city is going to take some of this on if we are to be successful. And I am happy that I can see that here. And I look forward to our other opportunities to create good affordable housing and revise our policies that are not serving us as well as we think they should. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor: Thank you. I believe Councilor Lindell had her hand up to speak next. Councilor Lindell: Yeah, just a couple of questions. I never really felt like this tract was a particularly good tract for affordable housing. I've said that numerous times, and I might be right, I might be wrong. But what's important is that we're pursuing a process to find out if I am right or if I am wrong. I mean, I'm not wedded to the outcome of that whatsoever. However, I think what we have here is a pretty low-risk situation for the city. We're donating this property to Homewise so that they can determine if they can build affordable housing on it and make it pencil out and make it a good project. If they can't, then we get the property back. Is that not correct? Mayor Weber: Councilor Lindell, that's correct in the donation agreement. Councilor Lindell: I don't think that we have a lot of risk in trying to find out if we can add to our affordable housing stock. And what I also know is that Homewise is not going to build substandard homes. It's a long process that they're going to have to go through. It's an expensive process, and I'm confident that they will build if they can find homes on this tract. So to the city, I don't think we have much risk in this. I think it's kind of a rolling the dice for a good win. If it doesn't work out, we get the property back, and then we start over and decide what to do. So let's give it a try. Seems like this might really work out for us. So thank you, Mayor. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. Any other comments? We have a motion and a second. We've had conversation. Madam Clerk, do you want to call the roll? Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia. Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lindell. Councilor Lindell: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Romero Worth. Councilor Romero Worth: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Cassett. Councilor Cassett: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Castro. Councilor Castro: Yes, and I would like to explain my vote. Clerk: Councilor Chavez. Councilor Chavez: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Faulkner. Councilor Faulkner: Yes. Clerk: Mayor Weber. Mayor Weber: Yes. Clerk: Motion is approved. Mayor: Thank you. Councilor Castro, you wanted to explain your vote. Councilor Castro: Indeed. I still have a lot of hesitations about donating land, and in particular city land. But I think it's very important that we start this process as soon as possible, and I encourage all of my constituents to please reach out to me, reach out to Councilor Lindell, and to the councilors that will be coming up to continue to be engaged. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you. That completes that item. In looking at the folks in the audience, I see a lot of people who appear to be here to talk about the living wage item. I'd entertain a motion to move that forward so we could take that up next. Councilor: Second. Councilor: Second. Mayor: There's a motion and a second to change the order of business so that we now move to public input on the proposed adjustment to the living wage. Madam Clerk, do you want to call the roll? Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lindell. Councilor Lindell: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Romero Worth. Councilor Romero Worth: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Cassett. Councilor Cassett: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Castro. Councilor Castro: Yes, and I'd like to explain my vote. Clerk: Councilor Chavez. Councilor Chavez: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Faulkner. Councilor Faulkner: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lee Garcia. Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Mayor Weber. Mayor Weber: Yes. Clerk: Motion is approved. Mayor: Councilor Castro. Councilor Castro: Indeed. I am super excited that we're finally moving on this. I don't think that we've gone far enough. I think we could do more, but I am excited that we're going to raise this minimum wage. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor. What we have now is an opportunity for first public comment and no action. And according to our procedural rules, we can start with a brief presentation from staff so that we have in front of us a shared understanding of what the proposal is. Then we'll go to everyone who wishes to come forward and speak. Everyone will be accorded a two-minute opportunity to address this issue and provide input according to our procedures. This is before it will go to committees or to any other consideration. So Director Montoya, do you have your... Councilor: Mayor, can I read it into the record? Mayor: I apologize. Yes. 18A, consideration of Bill Number 2025-21, adoption of Ordinance Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Mayor Alan Weber, a bill amending SFCC 1987 Section 28-1.5 Living Wage Ordinance to increase the city's base minimum wage and update the formula for calculating the minimum wage annually. Is your device working to give you your... Director Montoya: Michael, we have... There we go. Mayor: There you go. So we'll try to keep this under five minutes if you can do that, because I know you've got a lot of ground to cover, but it's important to get a common understanding of what the proposal is and how it's being advanced. Director Montoya: Absolutely, Mayor Weber and City Council. Thank you very much. My name is Alisa Montoya, and I serve as your Community Development Director in the City of Santa Fe. A livable community is built on ample opportunities for equitable housing policy, economic mobility, and inclusive development. When these principles work together, our community thrives. City staff work every day to bring these principles to life. And this is obvious, for example, through our economic mobility, affordable housing, and General Plan Santa Fe Forward work that we've done to date. So this evening, we have our first opportunity for public comment on another effort to help make Santa Fe a more livable community, and that is the living wage proposal. So here are key details of the proposal. Base wage will increase, should this pass, from $15 an hour to $17.50 an hour after a one-year hold on implementation. There's a 5% cap on increase per year and a 0% floor. The formula for increase is a combination of CPI and the HUD fair market rent. Who will benefit the most? Studies show that women, ethnically diverse people, and low-income wage earners benefit the most. Why are we advancing this proposal? Much has changed in Santa Fe over the past decade. Rents have increased, home prices have increased, and income has not kept pace. Inflation has grown in a manner that has eaten out any gains except for the wealthiest among us. You can see the disparity in this slide. On the left side, the top lines represent an increase in 74% of rents and an increase in 80% in home value. And the bottom line here in this graph shows the income has only increased 36%. On the right side, we see that there is an increased risk of displacement concentrated in certain neighborhoods. So the green portion of this map of Santa Fe shows where our low-income residents live in our community. These are the people who are at most high risk of being pushed out. So we have, for a couple weeks now, we have launched a community survey. And this survey to date, it's still open. We have flyers in the back of the room in English and bilingual. I also have some cards to pass out to councilors. This survey will be open for comment until Friday, October 10th. To date, we've had nearly 500 people participate, and the results are nearly two-thirds support raising the minimum wage, while about one quarter are opposed. We also have hosted two community meetings, one at the Southside Library and the other on Zoom for people who were not able to participate. These are key themes that have resonated through these conversations. There is broad support for the increase. Residents say that their current wages do not match rising costs, and there are concerns that have been voiced about how this will impact small business. In the coming weeks, we will provide you with additional detail and feedback on this survey as it closes. So the next couple slides include data that we received from Professor Riley White, who's the Associate Dean of Teaching and Learning and a full Professor of Finance with tenure at UNM. Unfortunately, he's unable to join us, so I'm presenting his findings. So, what are the expected impacts? A full-time worker earning the minimum wage could see an annual income from about $31,200 to $36,400, an additional $100 per week in income. Studies in other cities show little to no job loss. Overall effects are small. Some employers adjust hours or roles. And the business response, well, most businesses benefit from lower turnover, and they adjust with modest price increases and higher expectations of workers. So, I'd like to flag some common concerns and benefits about the living wage laws that studies have shown us. Will businesses close? No. Evidence shows that they will adapt. Will jobs disappear? No. Research shows employment remains stable. Will youth lose work opportunities? No. There's minimal impact. Training and entry jobs and training opportunities will continue. Will prices spike? No. Price increases are modest, usually less than inflation. Will this hurt tourism? No. Cities with, wait, I'm sorry. Cities with higher minimum wages remain strong tourist destinations. Will this remove competitive, reduce competitiveness? No. Workers earning more spend locally, strengthening small businesses. Are there any, what benefits do we have regarding job retention? Are there any? Yes. Study shows there is reduced turnover. Are there any benefits that have been generated by living wage ordinances like Santa Fe's? Yes. Higher morale, lower turnover, and as a result, lower training costs. Thank you. Thank you for the overview. That's very helpful. And with that, we will now go to the folks who are here. And I'm sure there may be folks on the Zoom room we'll get to next. If you'd come forward, give us your name, and the clerk will run the clock for a two-minute statement as you wish to use the time. You got the clock. Wait. Okay, you're good to go for McDonald's. Thank you. Could you get in front of the microphone, please? Thank you. My name is Leticia. I'm a member of Somos Pueblo. I'm here because I am supporting this campaign to raise minimum wage base level. I've lived here in Santa Fe for 19 years, and I am part of this city's economy. I have two jobs. I work at McDonald's part-time, and I also work at Pizza Dino. I earn $3.50 per hour. I'm a server there part-time. I had to get another job to be able to have the costs, the cost of living at the end of the month covered, to be able to pay for the monthly bills. My husband also works in construction. We have four minor children: 17, 16, 10, and 5 years old. And the youngest has special conditions, special needs. He needs more time and more care, that he needs our, the parents to be more with him. While he's in school, I had to get another job. We're a family of six, and both parents, we have to work super hard just to make ends meet for basics. I spend about $400 a week only on basic necessities. And my children are constantly in growth. They're constantly growing. They have different needs, and the services that we consume have gone up with inflation. We work very hard to be able to live well, and we're just barely surviving. Because of this, I ask and support the raise of the base minimum wage so families like ours can have a little bit more time, a little bit more money, and with this, be able to at least leave one of the two or three or four jobs and have time as a parent with the children. Thank you. Thank you both. So Victoria, Say Foria. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Victoria, and I'm a member of Somos Unidos. I'm a mother of three minors, ages 9, 6, and 2, and I work two days a week making a minimum of $15. I have to work in order to be able to help my husband with the expenditures because these have, because these have gone up, and we're a family of five. The rent this year has gone up $200 more than what we were previously paying to go to the super or the market. To buy the, we have to buy more essentials, and they're more expensive, including basics and food for our family. My children are also in their growth spurts, and there was only one, and with only one salary, it is not enough. I work at a laundromat, and they allow me to have my children with me after school, and this is the way in which I am able to help with the economy of my home. My children are growing, and they have basic necessities like their clothing, their shoes that has to be continuously being purchased. It would be a very great help to our family to make a little bit more, and $2.50 an hour would make a great difference for families like mine. Thank you. Thank you both. My name is Ma Escalante. I've lived in Santa Fe for about 30 years. I'm a single parent of four children. One of them is attending university, and my other son is about to graduate in a year. This has created more expenses and more responsibilities. So, I work with a company, a cleaning company, and I make $15 per hour. I work every single day of the year just to be able to manage a stable home, and it's not really enough, the money I earn. My children are growing, and each one of them is required, is requiring economic support on my behalf just to meet their basic needs and for them to be able to study. But I don't earn enough, I don't make enough money. Because of this, I do need you all to raise the minimum wage for all of the workers like myself so that we go out each day to work, and we do want to be able to have time with our children. So I ask that you vote in favor of raising the base minimum wage and vote yes for working families. Thank you. Thank you both. Yes, sir. Hello. My name is George Gundry. I'm the owner of Tomasita's Restaurant and the Trisco Cafe. I employ over 150 people here in Santa Fe. I love my employees. I love my community. You will notice that I am the only person here speaking tonight that actually provides the jobs, that runs the businesses, that has to have a successful business enough to actually have the money in the bank to make the payroll every week. People in favor of this proposal are very well organized. They all have matching T-shirts. That's how I know I'm the only business owner speaking here today. So, I think it's really a moral imperative for every counselor to go out into their district and reach out to the business owners that this will affect and talk to them. The cleaning company that's only paying $15 an hour, which I don't, go speak to that business owner and find out how this would affect them. That said, the mayor did reach out to me, and we had some very good conversations, and I believe some of the details of this proposal are reflected in, some of the details in this proposal are reflected in that conversation, and I really want to applaud the mayor for doing that. I have been a business owner for 16 years. I've been on the New Mexico Restaurant Association board. This is the first time any policymaker, city councilor, anybody has ever asked my opinion about a policy that affects my business, and I think you guys should take a look at that. In terms of this proposal, I can't sit here and stomp my feet and say it's terrible. I think it's a pretty reasonable proposal. I don't think it's going to destroy my business. I think it may affect some other businesses, especially those in the immigrant community that are just starting out, maybe less skilled entrepreneurs, but I think it's a pretty reasonable compromise. My concern is that some people on this city council would really like to make it significantly higher. It's not a living wage. It's a minimum wage. A true living wage would be $26 an hour. And if you were to raise the minimum wage to $26 an hour, I think you would see significant business closures and significant layoffs. And most importantly, it would hurt, it would really, really disincentivize hiring folks that are at risk or low-skilled. So I don't think this is a terrible proposal, but I ask that you don't change it and pass it as it is. Thank you. Thank you, sir. When I start for speech. Thank you. Hello. Good afternoon. I'm Lucero, member of Somos Pueblo. I've lived in Santa Fe for 18 years. During this time, I've lived through increases in rent and sometimes without knowing if I'll be able to pay the month. I've also lived through insurance and bills of the house. I pride myself of basic necessities in order to ensure that my children don't go without their basic needs. In the basics of every day, everything is more expensive just to buy the necessities. For example, to think that meat is too expensive. Therefore, I buy more chicken because it'll, it'll last longer, or my money will, will be able to last longer that way. My children sometimes ask me to buy pizza or burgers, but I have to say we don't have the money. I help myself by going to food pantries to be able to complete the week. I work taking care of one child inside my house in order to be able to aid a little bit in the house's economy since my husband is the only one who works. I'm my sister's help. She is a single mother, and she is sick. I help her because she does not drive. Therefore, I take her to her job, and I also pick up and drop off her child from school. Families like mine and my sisters are many that would, that would benefit from a minimum salary of $7.50 an hour. And that way, whenever the winter does come, and winter and jobs are, job hours are less, we will be more calm. Thank you both. Can you pull the microphone up a little? Yeah. Thank you very much. Feelchign. Thomas Madres. Thank you. Thanks for your patience. We're doing site translation. These documents are in Spanish, and we're reading in English. So, hello. My name is Lupe. I'm a member of Somos Unidos. I'm a single parent of two children, 8 and 5 years old. I lost my husband 3 years ago. So, I'm the only economic support at home. I live in Santa Fe since 5 years ago. I pay taxes, and I contribute to the economy. I work in a cleaning company and earn $15 per hour, and I work 40 hours a week. During the winter, jobs reduce, diminish, and so do the hours and the pay. And some days I don't work. This does affect me a lot because rent is really high. So, I live with my brothers and because of the high cost of living, because alone, I wouldn't be able to pay rent by myself. I also, I think the, the most essentials are the basic food basket, and those products are really expensive. My children also need shoes, clothes, and medical costs to be covered because they're constantly growing, and they constantly need to have medical checkups. The raising the base minimum wage would help me cover these costs for my children and to be able to spend more quality time with them. Because of this, I ask that you support the, the raising the minimum wage so that families like mine can have a better quality of life. Thank you. Thank you both. Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Kenneth Archletto, and I live in District 3, and I'm a Chain Breaker member. Every time there's an increase in our wages, landlords raise their rent, and the struggle to make ends meet never ends. At work, bosses complain that they have to pay us more and more, but bosses should be complaining to our landlords instead. Finally, this bill recognizes that the vicious cycle that Santa Fe residents and workers find themselves in. As always, Chain Breakers will continue to organize our people, and we will be keeping a close eye on the city council committees and meetings as they consider this bill. We, the members of Chain Breakers, urge the city council to pass this bill as written. Rent is too high and wages are too low, and we all deserve a dignified home and a living wage. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is Anta Himenez, and I support the living wage proposal because, from experience personally and close friends and family members, having to work extra hard and working paycheck to paycheck and barely making ends meet, and even going without sometimes to just make sure that at least the rent is paid. So, please vote yes for this proposal so we can ensure that Santa Fe remains livable for working people. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Philip Suazo. I live in District 3. I'm a Chain Breakers member. I would like to support the living wage increase, also due to the fact that those in the community, the recovery community, have more tasks at hand as far as seeking jobs to meet the expectations to pay for the housing and also finding time in our daily lives to seek recovery. I am in a recovery program myself and looking forward to finding a place of my own to call my own. And it's just going to be a little bit harder being the fact that I am homeless and in recovery. So, I have to take care of my recovery, take care of my finances, make sure things are paid, and I have food in my stomach, a place to lay down, bills to pay also. And not just for myself, but for the communities, the immigrant communities, our fellow homeless people, are all looking to seek some type of housing and those seeking employment, which I am currently doing, and would like to have the comfort knowing that I'm able to pay rent for a house, for an apartment, for a place to call my own and to seek recovery. And with this increase, I believe it will help not only myself, but those having the same mentality of having a community of recovery and having a community with stable living, affordable housing, safer parks, safer roadways, infrastructures, and so forth. So with that, I bid you good night and thank you. Thank you for coming down. Club Gardens. [Foreign speech] Thank you. Again, as my colleague said, thank you for your patience. We are reading these in Spanish and sight translating, so we might have a few hiccups here. Good afternoon. My name is Myella Bernal Mireles, and I live in County Club Gardens in the third district, and I'm a member of Chain Breakers. I am in favor of the... I'll start all over. This is the translation. Good afternoon, Mayor and counselors. My name is Mayella Bernal Mireles, and I live in Country Club Gardens in District 3. I am a member of Chain Breakers. I urge the city council to pass this bill as written. Even with the... Madam Clerk, can you... It'll go away. Thank you. You still have the floor. Even with the raising of the minimum wage, working families often face extreme hardship. What we need to see is that rents continue to rise. What we continue to see is that rents continue to rise. Whenever prices rise, our wages stay the same. This bill would help us maintain a balance between rent and wages for the residents and workers of Santa Fe. Chain Breakers will continue organizing our people and will continue the process of city council committees consider this law. Rents are too high and wages are too low. Please vote for this proposal and support the working communities. Thank you. Thank you both. Diego. My name is Diego, and I've been living in Santa Fe for about 30 years. I am an immigrant, Hispanic immigrant, native of this northern land. I arrived here as a small child, and I have been experimenting life in several different situations. I am currently 42 years old, and I ask of you that you feel in your heart to support what this campaign and what we are trying to get done. I'm the parent of two children, and they're in the university, and they have both learned how to work since they were really young. And since they were very small or little young, they both have studied and worked. My daughter is 20 and my son is 23, and amongst our family, we all work and we all help each other, and the money that we're making isn't enough. I don't think there's an order. I want to mention and bring this up to you this evening. I think that disorder and this problem can be solved once you feel in your heart and take a look at how this can be a solution. My life hasn't been very easy. I've been an orphan, fatherless since I was young, really young. I've been responsible to help my family since I was very, very small. And I've worked all of my life. Thank you, sir. Please touch your heart and be just and reasonable with this decision that you're about to make. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming down. Yes, you have the floor. My name is Cotton Reichel. I'm a lifelong resident of New Mexico, born and raised in Española, and I'm also a government employee. And so I wanted to speak to you guys from that point of view today because I really see in this policy an opportunity for each of you to address a crisis of faith in governance at large. When people can't afford basic survival, when wages stagnate and rent skyrockets, they lose trust in their governing bodies. And so what's so important to me about this policy isn't just the one-time minimum wage increase, but also an ongoing commitment to adjusting and increasing that minimum wage year after year. I think that each of you really has a tremendous opportunity in this policy to restore people's trust in governance by making things a little bit easier for them and to commit to restoring and renewing that trust with those residents of Santa Fe that are the most neglected. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, you have the floor. Good evening, Mayor and members of the council. Thank you for being here. My name is Jill Dixon. I'm the executive director of The Food Depot. Most of us are friends. I am here as a business owner and also as the representative from a nonprofit that hears the voices of our community. We are in favor of raising the minimum wage to $17.50 and the proposal that is before the council. When we had the conversation first with the Mayor and released our report of what it would take to end childhood hunger for 5,000 children in Santa Fe, we suggested a wage elevation as one part of a complex picture of interventions that needed to happen to lift people out of poverty and to keep them out of our lines. We're in the business of ending hunger, not just putting a band-aid on it year-over-year. So, as a business owner, I would like to share that The Food Depot employs 48 full-time employees. We do not pay a single one of those employees less than $20.50 an hour. The year that we released that report, we made a decision to put our actions where our words were and where our hearts and our calling is. And we elevated everyone's wage that year to $17 an hour, and we have continued to increase it since. We do that as a nonprofit organization that is funded by public donations. So, I do have the perspective of a business owner, and we do provide full benefits, including a matching IRA for every single one of our full-time employees and full health coverage that we pay the full premium for. So, I do have an idea of what it takes as a business owner to commit to this, and I come with that perspective. On the other side, at The Food Depot, we say that hunger is a policy choice. We recycle these fancy t-shirts and wear them at multiple events. We wore them at the state legislature last year when we asked for support at that level as well. We need to shorten the line. This is one step toward that by putting money in people's pockets that they earn through hard work so that they can go to a grocery store, contribute to the local economy, and buy their own food. Thank you. Thanks for coming down. Good evening, you all. My name is Amanda Brigel. I live in District 2, and I'm in leadership at The Food Depot, and I appreciate your support of a higher minimum wage for people in Santa Fe and your support of The Food Depot. And I hear a consistent concern through a lot of things tonight that you have not heard from enough people in our community. So last year, The Food Depot served people in Santa Fe 233,000 times. So, if you would like to come to any of our distributions before October 29th, you're welcome to come speak to people in our line. There are people that have multiple types of jobs. There are people in our line that have stickers that work at schools, people that work construction, people that work for the city, people that have Presbyterian shirts on. There are so many types of people who are employed that come to The Food Depot for help. You can come to our diaper depot distribution, speak to young families. So, that is one way that you can talk to as many people as you would like in a two-hour period even. So, you're welcome. My email is abrigel@thefooddepot.org if you would like a schedule. So, please, please come before October 29th if you'd like to. I also want to bring up that this wage would increase someone from making $31,000 a year to making about $36,000 a year. The 100% federal poverty line for 2025 for a family of four is $32,000 a year. So, we really should try to make sure that people working in Santa Fe are at least making the federal poverty wage. That would be really important to people to shorten our line, to just make sure that people are having a wage to be able to live in the type of city that you guys have mentioned tonight. Everything you all have said tonight about ending homelessness or coming up with solutions, figuring out affordable housing, all of that is so important, and this wage would be one way to get to that. So, I also want to say thank you again for supporting us and supporting this, and we look forward to talking to you more about it. Thank you. Thank you very much. One second, and we'll reset the clock. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor, counselors, my name is Scott Buntton. I live at 451 Anita Premier South in Santa Fe. I'm a member of The Food Depot's board of directors and on its executive committee. It's not only minimum wage workers in Santa Fe, but those who are making 40 and 50% more than the minimum wage who can't afford just the basics for living in our city. What reasonable person among us would see that situation and presume that if they had an option to live elsewhere that they wouldn't take that option? The Food Depot's 2022 report on child hunger that Jill referenced documented that the minimum wage here is far from sufficient to afford all the basic necessities of life, including food. The United Way this year found 36% of the residents of Santa Fe County, including the city, that's more than one-third, can't afford just the necessities. That's not right. But looking further, the inability of many members of the workforce that makes our city function to make a home here is weakening our community as a whole. Long-term, this is simply unsustainable. Please note, the gap between the minimum wage and what it takes to live here is not receding. It's not even staying static. The costs of essentials here, led by housing, as all of us know, are growing faster than wages. This problem will continue to get worse unless the governing body changes the trajectory. There's an opportunity in front of you to do that. We hope you'll take that opportunity. Thank you, sir. Thank you for coming down. Yes, you have the floor. Hello, my name is Matthew Morgan. Thank you for your time, Mayor and Council. I just moved here not long ago to be closer to an ill family member, and I live in the Agua Fria neighborhood. I'm proudly working class. I volunteer my time in the community here when I'm not working. I support raising the minimum wage proposal. I'm the single parent to a child who just graduated Coconino High School, Flagstaff, Arizona, a city which has and had a lot of similarities to this town, similar struggles as well. I'd like to address the common disagreements I hear from these self-appointed and at sometimes self-anointed job creators. The laborers, those that generate the wealth and quality of life that people in this class of person enjoys, is due to the hard work and labor of its workers. Their ideas and entrepreneurship alone do not. If your business plan heavily relies on low wages, if it's built around that, I'd submit that you reconsider your business plan. A lot of underpaid labor positions are what we not too long ago called essential and were lauded as heroes, and indeed they are. Work like sanitation, landscaping, fast food, all these enable a city to function. The workers that make a city a city deserve better. Many working-class people in Flagstaff were driven out and live far away and have to commute to work from neighboring cities. It's a safety concern. Many indigenous to the area were also displaced and replaced, a trend that I'm starting to kind of see similar again, like I said, a very similar city. And so I'd really like not to experience to see that. And so, yes, please consider passing this, and if at all possible, make this policy come soon, as soon as possible. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Madame Clerk, are there folks on the web, on the Zoom room, who would like to weigh in on this? We currently have one person with their hand raised. Stephanie Benonato, you are allowed to speak. Thank you very much, Stephanie Benonato. I kind of feel like you all are going to vote for this. And I think that people need to have a minimum wage, and it is a minimum wage. But here are some concerns. The studies that have been used are from other cities, not from this city. And we have 10 years of the living wage being implemented with yearly cost of living increases. So I think it should be looked at. For example, when wages go up, do prices go up? How much does it wipe out the increase in the wage? Will small businesses cut workers or not employ first-time workers or those with less skills? And I really think that this has to apply to people who are in restaurants, fast food places, who are getting three or four dollars an hour. That might be a state issue, but you should be working on that. And in terms of actually living here, the statistic was that a median income is $85,000, something like that. And even people at that level cannot afford to buy a house in Santa Fe. So even with this wage increase, people are not going to be able to buy houses. And until the city really, really, really deals with getting reasonably priced workplace housing, and I do mean vastly increasing the stock of that, this is, you know, it's great. It'll make people feel better for a while, but all the prices will still be going up and ultimately it wipes it out. So my suggestion again is get rid of fee in lieu of, and also start really looking at short-term rentals and how you can limit those to owner where the owner is occupying it, where you enforce the permitting process, where you don't let one person have 10, 12 multi-unit developments in the downtown that are short-term rental hotels. Thank you. Thank you. Another hand, Madam Clerk. Anyone else like to speak in the Zoom room? Not seeing any other hands raised. Very good. Let's thank everybody for coming down and speaking and for being on the Zoom and for participating in the first comment on this bill, and it'll move forward. I know Councilor Cassid, you have a concern about whether there's a way to bring it to another committee. I failed the introduction to send it to Economic Development Advisory Committee, which would be a very appropriate committee to consider this. And so we do have a meeting on October 1st. So I would like to recommend that we send it to October 1st, which would require us to waive our rules as it is its current schedule. Councilor, if you wanted to go to Economic Development on that date and still follow the schedule that's on your agenda, it would require a waiver of the rules. That's correct. So, I would move for that to occur to send it to... Well, first to waive the rule. Waive the rule first, or I send it first. Did we do both? Mayor, councilors, if your motion is to send it regardless of the waiver, I think you could do that first, but then that would automatically, I think, move all the other meetings forward. Yeah, I'd like... If your motion is to make it contingent on the waiver, then you should start with the waiver. And that requires a two-thirds vote. And the waiver is of the rule that advisory committees go before standing committees. That's the general rule. If that's being proposed to be waived... I would propose to waive the rule. Is there a second? Second. The proposal is to add EDAC to the process but not disrupt the schedule of meetings that has been set. We could do that if we waived the rule, and it would go to EDAC and also go forward with the committee structure. Is there a discussion or just about waving the rule at this time? Can you call the roll on that motion, please? Councilor Lindell. Councilor Marworth. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Fulner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved. And now we need to have the proposal to vote on of sending it to EDAC. Yes. I would propose to send this item to Economic Development Advisory Committee on October 1st. Second. So there's a motion to move it to EDAC, and it would allow us to keep the existing schedule intact. Is there discussion? Madame Clerk, can you call the roll on that, please? Councilor Romeworth. Yes. Councilor Casset. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Faulner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved. Okay. So we'll do that, and we'll arrange for a robust presentation so that some of the data that Professor White and others have produced on our behalf can be brought forward to that committee for consideration. Thank you for bringing that up. Madam Clerk, can we go back to regular order? Item 11, matters from the City Manager, Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple of quick things. I was going to acknowledge to all the people that have been attending tonight that we had adopted a new security system at City Hall. And I'm hoping that it worked. Okay, I'll look at the... I got a thumbs up. That's good. We're, it's a work in progress, as you all know, and we're trying to move into this and still allow City Hall to be a place that people feel they're part of, and it's a community place, but at the same time trying to be more secure. So I'm hopeful that it worked well, and we'll continue to try to improve the system. Secondly, I just wanted to acknowledge that I have a number of things I owe some updates on, and I'm going to follow through on that and provide them to the governing body very shortly. I won't belabor this appointment, but my last thing is I thank you all for letting me be part of this community to hear the kind of testimony we got tonight. People ask me sometimes why I'm still doing this kind of work. This is why, right? Thank you. Thank you, sir. What's next, Madam Clerk? Item 12, matters from the City Attorney. Madam City Attorney. Thank you, Mayor Weber. I do recommend we go into executive session to discuss a number of things, and we have five post-executive session action items afterwards in relation to those matters. It is pursuant to Open Meetings Act Section 10-15-1, Subpart H7, training client discussion of pending and threatened litigation, in particular discussion of threatened litigation by the United States Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration in relation to that agency's inspections findings at the city's airport, and discussion of ongoing litigation, in particular City of Santa Fe versus Purdue Pharma LP at all, and the State of Harley Glenn Smith versus the City. Councilor Mayor Worth, do you have a motion for us? I move that we enter into executive session pursuant to the Open Meetings Act Section 10-15-1H, Subpart 7, for discussion of threatened or pending litigation in which the governing body is or may become a participant. Second. There's a motion to go into executive session. Is there any discussion? Madam Clerk, call the roll. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Faulner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Councilor Marworth. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero Worth. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved. Very good. We will go into an executive session now and come back as soon as we've completed that business. Thanks, everybody. Michael, can you help me set something up in the executive session? Are we still streaming, Madame Clerk? Okay, let's see if we can hit the streaming button. Mayor, we are streaming and live. Beautiful. Thank you. We're back in session. Council Mayor Worth, do you have a motion for us? Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act Section 10-15-1J, I move that the governing body reconvene in open session and state for the record that the matters discussed in the closed session were limited to those specified in the motion for closure. There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Would you call the roll, Madam Clerk? Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Councilor Faulner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero Worth. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved. Good. We're back in session. I believe you should take us to the first action item coming out of executive session. Item 13A, request for approval of an agreement with United States Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration, settling potential claims addressed by the city through remediation and for the amount of $75,000. Second, move to approve. Sorry. There's a motion to approve, and there is a second. Is there discussion? Madam Clerk, could you call the roll? Councilor Chavez. Councilor Faulner. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Lindell. Councilor Maroworth. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Mayor Weber. Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Thank you for being with us tonight. Good job. And for all your hard work. Next item, Madam Clerk. Item 13B, acceptance of proposed bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family. Move to approve. Second. There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Madame Clerk, can you call the roll? Councilor Falner? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romero Worth? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Next item, please. Item 13C, approval of the government entity and shareholder agreement approved in case number 19-23649 in Purdue Pharma LP at all debtors in the US Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York on June 17th, 2025. Move to approve. There's a motion and a second. Madame Clerk, can you call the roll? Councilor Lee, Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romero Worth? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Falner? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Next item, please. Item 13D, approval of secondary manufacturers combined subdivision participation and release with Alvagen Inc., Aptux Corp., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Indiever Inc., Bitrius Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Zitis Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Move to approve. Second. There's a motion and a second. Madame Clerk, can you call the roll? Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romero Worth? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Falner? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Motion is approved. What am I? Chop liver? Oh, Mayor Weber? Yes. Sorry. Oh, you already voted me off the, I'm already off the island. In that case, we're really good. Item 13E, approval of attorney client privileged recommended next steps in the estate of Harley Glenn Smith versus City of Santa Fe. Move to approve. There's a motion and a second. Madame Clerk, can you call the roll? Councilor Lindell? Yes. Councilor Romero Worth? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Falner? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Next item, please. Item 14, matters from the City Clerk. I have three items for you. The constituents relationship management system, CRM, will be shut down from September 26th at 5:00 p.m. through October 3rd at 5:00 p.m. for annual maintenance and to ensure a smooth transition to our Indiegogo CRM system. During this period, the feature on our website, "Solve a Problem," will not be available to submit work orders. So, any work orders need to be submitted to email, which is the constituent services.gov. of email address, or call our team at 505-955-6949. The next item is we have five rank choice voting educational sessions. We've done a lot of campaigning on this. You have flyers in front of you. We're also, we did a little video. We're doing a mailer. But they are Monday, September 29th at the Southside Library from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. Thursday, October 2nd at Mary Esther Gonzalez Senior Center from 1:00 to 2:00. Friday, October 3rd, Lefarge Library, 4:30 to 5:30. Tuesday, October 7th at the Louisa Senior Center from 12:00 to 1:00. Thursday, October 9th at the Paseto Senior Center from 12:00 to 1:00. So, if you know anyone who wants to get training or learn how to do rank choice voting, please send them over. The last thing is our team joined up with the library to do September as Library Card Signup Month. I know you've all been reached out to, but you have six more days, the public and you all, to go get your library card. We're really happy to be working with them on this. We're all in my team very avid readers. So, libraries are a happy place. And that is all. Thank you. Next item, Madame Clerk. Item 15, communications from the governing body. Very good. Councilor Lee Garcia, we'll start with you. Thank you, Mayor. I don't have anything tonight. Thanks, Mel Cassid. Thank you so much, Mayor. First and foremost, I just wanted to say, "L'Shanah Tovah," happy new year to anyone who celebrates. It is the Jewish New Year. I know I talk about this every year, but I will do it again this year. The one thing I love are the 10 days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, which is the New Year and the Day of Atonement. You can get a lesson online if you want it. But the important thing is that within these 10 days, you are supposed to settle your debts. These could mean financial, but it also refers to emotional debts or just making peace, trying to find ways in which you have been in the wrong, where you've hurt somebody, and do what you can to rebuild those bridges. So, I just always think that this is such a beautiful opportunity each year to think about your own actions critically and look for opportunities and how you can make amends with individuals and see where you have done wrong and try to make up for it. So, I encourage anybody who is interested in partaking in that to do so. It's, I do think it's a very beautiful tradition. And then the other thing I have is I want to wish my father a very, very happy birthday on the 29th. I have no idea how old he's turning. I'd have to do some math. But as you all know, my father is one of my absolute favorite people in the entire world. And I very much miss him as he has moved over to Georgia. But I want to wish him a very happy birthday from Santa Fe, where many still remember him fondly. So, happy birthday, Daddy. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Romero Worth? I don't have anything, Mayor. Thank you. Councilor Falner? Okay, I've got a lot. You got a list. It's a whole. Go for it. You. No, I have nothing. Slides from your vacation. Not, not a Councilor Lindell. Mayor? I just give a thank you to the community for the support that I've held in the last number of weeks. Appreciate it. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Michael Garcia? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to, I guess, give an update as one of the commenters earlier mentioned that I've been working with some community members on bringing forward a resolution condemning political violence, not only here locally, but nationally. So, that's coming forward. And then happy birthday to our little guy, EJ. He turned four yesterday. Oh, happy birthday. Thank you, Mayor. So, Councilor Cassett and I have a lot in common. We both graduated in '03. We were right above each other in the yearbook, and our dads' birthdays are a day apart. So, my dad's birthday, Elisio Chavez, he turned 76 on Tuesday the 30th. And my dad is, well, people know I'm obsessed with my father. He is the most wonderful human being. I feel like all of his family, like we're his fan club, because he is the kindest, most giving, most genuine, shows up no matter what, wonderful human. And he refers to me as his life every time I see him. And no one could say anything about Pompa, or the kids will fight for him. So, everyone has his back because he's just that wonderful. He deserves the world, and we try to give him what we can, but it will never be enough because he's given us so much more. So, happy birthday, Dad. I love you. And I also wanted to thank you, Mayor, for the proclamation proclaiming this Saturday New Mexico Fight for Life Day. New Mexico Fight for Life is an organization that helps with suicide awareness. It also supports families who have lost loved ones to suicide. We are in a crisis around suicide. We are not talking enough about it. We have lost three people in Tel in three weeks to suicide. And there are so many more lives lost that we're not talking about or aware of. So, Ashley, I thank her for her work. I hope, I believe most of you got an invite to the gala on Saturday. I hope you can come and just learn more about everything that they're doing to just try to really shine light on the state we're in around losing lives to suicide. It's, it's a real crisis. So, but thank you for your support, Mayor Weber. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Castro? Yeah, thank you, Councilor, for that. You know, just to underscore, in the last 10 years, 27% risen in the Hispanic community specifically. So, it's a huge problem. Thank you, Councilor, for pointing that out. Also, on Saturday, there's a fundraiser for La Familia and for Contigo Immigrant Justice at Tumble Route. A couple of your councilors might be performing, so check it out. And also, Wine and Chile. So, September 24th to the 28th. And just to remind folks, Bishop's Lodge Road will be closed to through traffic. Thank you so much. Thank you. And I'll piggyback on that. Wine and Chile is coming right up. Behave responsibly, enjoy it, but remember that enough is enough sometimes. A couple shout-outs for things that continue to mount up in terms of the awards, recognition, and specialness of Santa Fe. Excuse me. Our friends at Los Pablanis were ranked number five in the nation for this cute little former gas station home store. Fifth coolest home kitchen decor store in America. I just, it blows my mind to see how many things come our way. And then, of course, our dear friend Arthur Sze was named the Poet Laureate for the United States of America. Arthur and his wife are both poets. Very distinguished. Arthur was the first Poet Laureate for the City of Santa Fe years ago. And as of about a week ago, he was named Poet Laureate for the United States. It's an amazing honor, and it's an honor to have him and his wife writing poetry and living in the city. And these things just continue to add to the luster and the sense of real specialness of Santa Fe. And congratulations, Arthur. We're very, very proud of you. What's next, Madame Clerk? Introduction of legislation 16A, consideration of Resolution Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Councilor Jamie Cassett and Councilor Carol Romero Worth, a resolution updating the water offset requirement fee chart or more accurately reflecting the current market value of water rights. Move to approve. Move to approve. I think it's being introduced. Yeah. Oh, I'm so sorry. I don't know where we are. Thanks. Introduce this part. However, anyone who wishes to speak as a sponsor can explain why this is such a great bill. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for your support, Councilor Castro. So, this, this bill, this was actually brought to my attention by a constituent that the City of Santa Fe had really been charging way below market value for water when developers have the opportunity to buy water rights from us. So, this is correcting that issue. We are supposed to be updating it on an annual basis, and right now we do not have a mechanism for that you automatically to be calculated. So, something for us to continue to work on, but this will at least bring us in line with what the county charges so that we are not missing out on that important revenue when it comes to such an important resource. Thank you. Councilor Romero Worth, not, not, she's giving me a waggle of her finger. I, I, I think Councilor Cassett explained it well. Thank you very much. Next item, Madame Clerk. 16B, consideration of Resolution Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Councilor Amanda Chavez and Councilor Carol Romero Worth, a resolution directing the City Manager to direct city staff to identify and apply for federal and state funding sources for city water, wastewater, and other water-related projects, including submitting water trust board applications. Identify a state legislative priority list for water-related projects and approve New Mexico Water Trust Board applications submitted here to speak to that. I will just say I think we're all aware that we are needing as much funding as possible around this. And so this is directing staff to start working towards getting as much funding as possible. Councilor: Mayor Weber. Mayor: I don't have anything to add. Thank you. Thank you. Take us to the next item then, please. 16C, consideration of Bill Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Mayor Alan Weber, Councilor Sydney Lindell, Councilor Par Faulkner, Councilor Michael Garcia, a bill related to the Santa Fe traffic operations program, amending Section 24-4 to remove the requirement for Police Department oversight, provide the use of cameras that detect vehicle noise violations using an automated compliance enforcement system, and impose a fine for system-detected vehicle noise violations. I think, notwithstanding some of the typos, it's pretty clear that what we're doing here is moving forward on our use of technology to improve safety and reduce noise violations on the streets. It's part of a three or four-part program to get that moving forward. And that'll be coming through the process along with, I hope, a response to the RFP that we're waiting for as well. I would also point out that Councilor Lindell is not actually singing us, as it says in the caption. She is not that on fire. Councilor, would you like to speak to it? I thought it looked weird, but I was going to read it. Right. Any of my co-sponsors wish to speak on this item? We're good. Councilor, thank you. Take us to the next item to the best of our ability. 16D, consideration of Resolution Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Mayor Alan Weber. Resolution requiring a micro-community in every city of Santa Fe. Councilor: Every city of Santa Fe. Yeah. Councilor: Council district by January 1st, 2027, or if that timeline is not met, a presentation explaining the barriers to meeting the timeline and recommending how and when the goal of a micro-community in every district can be achieved. Mayor: Well, I think the caption speaks for itself. Next item. Final action on legislation, public hearing, 19A. Consideration of Bill Number 2025-18, adoption of Ordinance Number 2025-TBD, sponsored by Mayor Alan Weber and Councilor Carol Romero-Wirth. A bill amending Chapter 22, Exhibit A, by removing location of service as a criterion for determining sewer service charges. This is a public hearing. I don't know if anybody on chat on Zoom wants to speak to this. Chat GPT first. Can let's get a motion before us. Second. Mayor: There's a motion to approve and there's a second. Is there anybody in the Zoom room who wishes to speak on this? It is a public hearing. There is one person in the Zoom room. Would you like to speak on this matter? I'm not seeing a hand raised. Mayor: Okay. Is there discussion on this? Madame Clerk, can you call the roll? Councilor Romero-Wirth: Yes. Councilor Cassutt: Yes. Councilor Castro: Yes. Councilor Chavez: Yes. Councilor Faulkner: Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Councilor Lindell: Mayor Weber. Mayor: Yes. Motion is approved. Mayor: Thank you, Madame Clerk. And finally, I believe we have appointments. 21A, appointment to the Mayor's Committee on Disability, Amarissa Montoya, appointment to fill an unexpired term. Term ending January 2029. Move to approve. Second. Mayor: There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Could you please call the roll, Madam Clerk? Councilor Cassutt: Yes. Councilor Castro: Yes. Councilor Chavez: Yes. Councilor Faulkner: Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia: Hi. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Councilor Lindell: Councilor Romero-Wirth. Councilor Romero-Wirth: Yes. Mayor Weber: Yes. Motion is approved. Mayor: Very good. With that piece of business concluded, we have completed tonight's agenda. Thank you, everybody. We're adjourned.