Public Works and Utilities Committee Mon, Jul 21, 2025 · Public Works and Utilities Committee https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/301 == Executive Summary == The Public Works and Utilities Committee meeting covered a range of infrastructure projects, particularly focusing on street maintenance and drainage improvements. Jennifer Muro, Complete Streets Division Director, presented an overview of completed, in-progress, and future paving and drainage projects, highlighting challenges with Santa Fe's aging infrastructure and the impact of staff vacancies. Councilors expressed significant concern about the deteriorating condition of Airport Road and the need for clear signage at the St. Michael's and Yucca intersection regarding a new 'no turn on red' feature. A major discussion revolved around a proposed charter amendment (Resolution 2025-XX) that would allow five councilors to suspend or remove the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk, aiming to balance power between the Mayor and Council. While the resolution was moved forward without a recommendation, an amendment is being drafted for further review. The committee also approved a budget amendment for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2025. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda unanimously. - Approved the consent agenda as amended, after pulling items 7I, 7K, and 7L, unanimously. - Voted to move Resolution 2025-XX, concerning a proposed charter amendment for the suspension/removal of the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk, forward without a recommendation to the next committee meeting. - Approved Resolution Number 2025-2, regarding budget amendments for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2025 and requesting approval from the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration. == Motions & Votes == - Approval of Agenda — Passed unanimously. - Approval of Consent Agenda (as amended) — Passed unanimously. - Motion related to removal requirements for city officials — Passed 3-2 (Yes: Councilor Michael Garcia, Councilor Lee Garcia, Councilor Chavez; No: Councilor Romero Worth, Councilor Castro). - Motion to move Resolution 2025-XX forward without a recommendation — Passed. - Motion to approve Resolution Number 2025-2 — Passed (Yes: Councilor Lee Garcia, Councilor Michael Garcia, Chair Chavez; No: Councilor Romero Worth). == Public Comment == No public comment period. == Topics == - Street Maintenance Projects - Drainage Issues - City Manager Removal - Traffic Signal Removal - Bridge Replacement - Vision Zero Goals - Charter Amendments - Budget Amendments - Staff Vacancies - Old Infrastructure == Full Transcript == Are we live? We are live. Thank you. I call to order the Public Works and Utilities Committee meeting. It is Monday, July 21st. It's 5:02. Could I get a roll call, please? Certainly, Madam Chair. Councilor Michael Garcia. Present. Councilor Romero Worth. Present. Councilor Lee Garcia. Here. Councilor Castro. Chair Chavez. Here. You have a quorum, Madam Chair. Thank you. Next is approval of the agenda. Are there any changes from staff today? No changes, Madam Chair. With that, can I get a motion? To approve. I have a motion and I have a second. All those in favor signify by saying, "Aye." Any opposed? See none. Motion passes. Next is approval of the consent agenda. What items did we get pulled today? Madam Chair, items 7L and 7K, the two resolutions for items to go to the in the election. Are there any other items that need to be pulled? Madam Chair, I think it's item I, is it? I can't tell. No, it's a big tall. It is item I. And K, I believe. I, K. Thank you. We have 7I and 7K removed from consent. Can I get a motion? To approve as amended. Second. I have a motion and I have a second. Can I get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Madam Chair. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Meer Worth. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Chair Chavez. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Next is public comment. Do we have anyone in the chambers that would like to come up and speak this evening? I don't see anyone. So, we will then move on to our presentation, Streets Maintenance Capital Projects. We have Jennifer Muro here from our Complete Streets Division Director. So, welcome. Thanks for being here. Thank you so much. Just getting me plugged in here and do we need to ask to Oh, there we go. We are good to go. So, this is the Complete Streets Division. We're going to do a presentation. This will exclude the capital improvement projects such as Guadalupe and stuff. This will be more our rehab projects and such, just so that you know. I want to start by showcasing these pictures. We have on front, you see the picture with the street sweeper in front of the church. And then also on the right side, you see we got a paint truck that we've had that almost a year now and our crews are learning how to use it and they're getting out there and doing a lot of restriping. And then the far left picture is one of our mill and inlay projects. St. Mike's Bike and Ped and Bike Improvements projects started right about the time I got here. I kind of got handed this one. We are right now in final design. We've done the punch list. We're waiting for final completion and final payment. So, essentially, it's 99.9% done at this time. This project included upgrades to the existing traffic signal, making everything ADA compliant, and then we also added pedestrian refuges at all our crosswalks. And this is a great movement towards our new Vision Zero goal to have these safer crossings for pedestrians. And then this was funded by a legislative grant as well as some of the one-time money went into this that went towards the traffic. And then the operating budget to make sure we had all the finances. Sandoval and Montezuma. This project kind of, so this started out as a project where they were redoing the signal because the signal was failing. In the meantime, MO did a study and they found there were five signals through the city that were not warranted. This was one of them. The other ones are San Francisco and Sandoval, the signal at Grant, Sandoval and Palace, one at Washington and Marcy, and at San Francisco and Old Santa Fe Trail. So, we're looking to phase out those other four as well. But, it was kind of fortuitous, if you want to call it that. The signal went out right after we'd had this study done, and we thought we'd take advantage of it and turn this into a four-way stop intersection. So that'll take some maintenance away and it'll make it safer and a just a nicer feel for downtown as we make this more walkable and work once again towards our Vision Zero goal. The construction cost is about estimated to be $700,000 and the road impact fees will be used to pay for that and we're hoping to start construction within the next month. Serafina Gordo Bridge Replacement. You guys have heard a lot about the Serafina Gordo Bridge. We've had it in front of you. We went to do some studies on it. We had them take some concrete cores to find out what kind of condition it is, if we could do some minor repairs to get us through. And we found out that we couldn't. This became a little bit of a sort of emergency. We, we brought the rating down for the restriction. We restricted it to 15 tons and we are currently in design for this replacement of the bridge. The bridge will be replaced as is. The abutments are in good shape at this time. So that was the most affordable and quickest way to go forward. And we expect design to be done in about 3 months or so. And hopefully by the end of the year, we'll be starting construction on this and have it done by summer of 2026. Rio Vista Drainage. This was one that this, the channel had been sedimented in. There was a sediment pond up above in Michelle Court and that had filled. And so we put about $63,000 into ongoing maintenance. This has become a regular maintenance item on our list to make sure this is kept up. And to date, we've everything's been working as it should. Celia Azul. This was another one of our drainage problem areas right at that corner. And it, there's a drop inlet and the corner is the low spot. So that drop inlet was filling up with sediment and then it would back up the water because the water wasn't getting out. We are going to replace that drop inlet with a what we call a trench drain. It's a drain that goes across the entire stretch of the road. You can kind of see a little bit of the design sheets out of the New Mexico standards. Those are NMDOT trench drain standards and that's what will be installed and that'll give us a lot of capacity at that location. Caya Nepal and Alamita. This was a tricky project because this part of the problem was on private property and prior to the problem was on the city property. And so that we've been working with the private property owners to do a fix on their side and we're looking to do a sediment pond on the kind of north corner there about where that yellow orange area is and that'll help us. Right now we're looking to get right away. Unfortunately, the owner has passed and the property's in probate, but we are still trying to push ahead with getting that right away and moving forward with sediment pond. And Vitalia. This was almost exactly the same as the Zule location. This is another one where the drop inlet was clogging. So, we are going to replace this drop inlet as well with a trench drain and we are going to make a larger outlet to the Asia Hiate Alote. We currently have this one under construction. Sediment has covered the existing culverts. So we are going to, we're relocating the culverts at the current grade of the AOYO. Unfortunately, we ran into some problems with the gas line being exactly where we needed to put our culverts. So we've worked with the gas company to relocate those and we hopefully will have this project done in the next month. Paving projects. These are the ones that were the one-time money that we got done in FY 2025. Rufina from Zeraphino or Zafa Zafurano to Caya Tahoe, that was about 650K. Horno Alley was about $25,000. Solano from Guadalupe to Pa del Peralta, that was about $60,000. Alice from Sheridan to Grant cost us a little over $100,000. Sandoval from Alama to Grant cost us almost $400,000 and Autumn Leaf Lane we did end to end and that was about $100,000. These are the projects that we have in progress that didn't get completed in 2025. Sandoval from Alama to Grant and right now we're coming back and doing the loop detection that needs to be done in there. And then Old Pacos Trail from Cordova to Caya Med. And that was almost $900,000 for that one. Now, the big list. This is what we, we're looking to do in 2026 and 2027. You guys should all be familiar with this list. You approved it when you did the $25 million geo bond. And we're just waiting for that that geo bond to become available to spend and we're ready to go on this list. On top of the asphalt work and the storm drain, we also do a lot of concrete work. The picture on the left is at Alamita and Pa de Peralta. This was kind of a troublesome one because we didn't want to take this tree out. We know that this is a tree that a lot of people take pictures at, that guys might even have your own pictures of family and friends at this location. And so our guys went in and they did a patch as you can see on the right that took out that ADA issue. The crews also do a lot of other work such as new ADA ramps, they do valley gutters, patches, storm drain, drop inlets. Often when we go in to do these kind of like maybe replace an ADA ramp and we're digging out and we come across a storm drain that's rusted out. So, we've had a couple that turned from a project into an emergency, such as we had one at Palace and then one at Deory that both were simple projects that became complicated really quickly. And just here's some pictures of our challenges. There's some really old infrastructure in downtown Santa Fe. It's I think it dates back to the 1800s, possibly even the 1700s. And it's kind of incredible infrastructure. You can see it's holding up. But it really does make our life challenging when we come across these things as we're doing our construction projects. And with that, I'm open to questions. Madam Chair, I'd like to add a little bit to that if I could. Thank you so much, Director Marrow. This will be the last time you see Director Marrow present. She's actually moving, changing positions, and leaving the city. We've been really lucky to have her. As you can see, she's been doing a great job. I wanted to point out that these projects that you see are the ones that constituents have been emailing you about. These are the kind of chronic drainage, you know, trip hazard issues that we that show up in CRM year after year. And you kind of have to, it's not just like run out there and clear the drain. It's actually get an engineer out there, assess the situation, secure some funds like up to $100,000, run the project, get the PO cut. It's a, these are like as she said, a capital maintenance projects and they're really, really important to solving those problems that your constituents write us about because it's not usually just something that you can go out and sweep up. So really appreciate that Jennifer walked in and she picked up a whole bunch of these and we'll try to keep getting them done. The city does complete streets will now have four vacant engineer positions. So all across the board, all of our expertise is really going to be missing there, which will, which will slow us down a bit. I'll do my best. I, I've been acting in Jennifer's position for most of the last 5 years. So we'll, we'll keep it going, but really appreciate your work, Jennifer, and your reporting so that the governing body can see the actions that you're taking to address constituent concerns. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, Director. Thank you for your service and thank you for the presentation. I think this is very helpful. Are there any questions from committee? Councilor Lee Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Director Marrow, for the presentation. And I would not be doing my job as an advocate for District 3 if I didn't plug in some paving projects in our district. But I really haven't seen any that have been done, that are going to be done, or there. I see the Airport Road and I see a few of the other ones, but it's kind of limited and I know there's a lot of streets. But we got to see that Airport Road improve because it's deteriorating really bad. When constituents do reach out about Airport Road, I tell them it's coming. It can't come soon enough. And there are some areas that I even had an email just recently about, areas that need to be paved. And there's bike lanes and there's cracks that are so big. And the bike lane, there's a crack. What's going to happen? They're going to wreck and we're going to have some serious issues if we don't remediate those. So whatever we can do, I know that it is a big city and we have to disperse equally throughout. And that's I think what we're asking for because I didn't see any of those projects that were done or going to be done soon or waiting until funding is happening until next year or whenever. So I don't know if you can address that a little and Airport Road top on the list. There's a few others that are pretty bad in that area. Chair: Chavis and Councilor Garcia, you're correct that Airport Road is in need of repairs. That is the top of our list at this time. We are really kind of chomping at the bit to get that $25 million available to us to start moving forward on it. And that is definitely the number one on our list. Thank you. And again, I don't think it can come any sooner because we hear it often, time and time again, the Southside seems to be neglected and does show that we haven't had any paving projects on the Southside for a while. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Michael Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Director Marrow, not only for the presentation, but your service to the City of Santa Fe. Your expertise will definitely be missed. So, one of the folks that is saddened by your departure, but I wish you all the best in the next adventure that you take on. I'm going to lean on your expertise just to help educate the public. So, you mentioned the upgrade of the St. Michael's and Yucca intersection. And there's a new, there's a new feature to it, so to speak. And so, this past weekend, Saturday, I was heading north on Yucca and we now have a no turn on red red light that's there. And that's a brand new feature to our community. Because I was sitting there at the red light, people were honking behind me, "Go, go, go." And it's like, there's a red light here now. I can't go. Can you help the public understand why we implemented that measure given the, not only the complete street actions, but the, as you mentioned, the accessibility requirements in that intersection? Chair: Chavis, Councilor Garcia, so I have to ask, was there an actual do not turn on red or was it just a red arrow? It was a red arrow. I might have to default to a more professional traffic engineer, but usually if you can't take a right on red, we almost always put up signage that says no right on red. And the red arrow, if we're going to train people differently, we need to put that signage up. So, I think I need to look into that for you and make sure that we sign it properly because typically when there's the red light with the arrow is more that it's a stop, check, and go. And I'll make sure I know that the ones that designed it, if they meant that for it to be a no right on red, and we'll add signage if it was. Okay. And the way I interpret it as a driver, we have some of these other red arrows. St. Francis and Cerrillos, for example, you got the red arrow. You can't go until it turns green. Same thing on Cerrillos going down Airport Road. And so that's the way I interpreted it. But they did incorporate a sign that says new. Whenever there's new signage going up, you'll see a big yellow sign that says new. That's where it kind of caught me because at first I went and stopped and I saw a sign saying new. I said, "Wait, what's new?" And then I noticed the red arrow. And that's because they probably put up a whole new signal that has a green arrow that wasn't there before that goes to a yellow arrow. And then we want them to know, like, we don't want it to just go away. We want them to know that they need to stop and look for traffic. So when you do, when you have an allowed green turn with an arrow, you always have a red arrow that goes with that. So, I just need to check and make sure that the engineer intended for it to be a stop, check, and take a right on red, or whether he intended it to be a, you know, no right on red at this location. Okay, perfect. Well, thank you for again, for all the expertise you brought to the City of Santa Fe and all the best. Well, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Any other questions? Well, thank you for everything that you provided to the city and good luck in the future. Thank you. All right, we are going to move forward and that is going to take us to 7I. 7I is consideration of a resolution number 2025 to be determined, brought forward by Councilor Peter Faulkner, Councilor Amanda Chavez, Councilor Lee Garcia, a resolution proposing a ballot question to be submitted to the City of Santa Fe voters during the November 4th, 2025 regular local election regarding amending articles 6, section 6.02, 7, section 8.04, 04 of the city's municipal charter to allow five councilors to suspend or remove the city manager, city attorney, and city clerk at a regularly scheduled meeting. And we have Marcy here. Oh, there she is, to help us with any questions or comments the committee might have. And we do have the sponsors here as well. I, we are lucky to have Councilor Faulkner here. And so I don't know, Councilor, if you want to kind of open it up. And then it was pulled by Director Willard. Could you remind me who it was? Oh, okay. It was pulled by Councilor Romero Worth. Okay. Thank you. I think the point of this, and I've said this before, is that when we were contemplating a stronger mayor, I don't think we paid enough attention to the balance, the checks and balance that would be necessary from the council so that there wouldn't be an imbalance of power or influence between the mayor and the council. Right. And thank you for joining us this evening. All right. Councilor Romero Worth, I'll turn it to you for your questions and comments. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have any questions and comments. We had a pretty good conversation about this at our last meeting. I only pulled it tonight to vote. Thank you. All right. Councilor Lee Garcia, you are another sponsor on this. Do you want to say anything? Yes. Madam Chair, thank you. My apologies for stepping out for a second. So this is our, there's two of them that we have on here. I think this is, am I correct? Okay. You know, to Councilor Romero Worth's point, we had a pretty good discussion at our finance committee. And I think, you know, it was stated that the reason for bringing this is just kind of to give a little bit more of a balance of power as Councilor Faulkner stated. I think that in order for us as a governing body to be able to work alongside the executive and the administration, many times we are, we look at what powers do we have? It's only in having a policy that we can introduce or things of that nature. And to the point of having to confirm each of these for approval, I believe that it is, it is just as equally that we should, we should have the authority to either remove or consent when either of these positions are being removed. And in this case, having the ability to through a majority vote confirm that through resolution. That's, that's the perspective. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. And I will turn it over for questions and comments, but I am a co-sponsor. I just wanted to say that I agree with my co-councilors. And when this was brought forward to me, it was actually quite interesting because I had just gotten approached by some constituents that had some concerns with leadership, leadership positions being tied to one individual so closely and how they were concerned that it causes, it causes situations within how our city is being led where it's being led based on political agenda. And that is their voice explaining that to me. So I think that they, there are representatives of every single district. And I think that each of those representatives should have say in these very important leadership positions that really drive our city. So, you know, it was brought to me at good timing where this was a solution to that concern that constituents had brought forward. And so I signed as a co-sponsor to it. But we will turn it over now to any questions from committee members, comments, anyone? Yes, Councilor Michael Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. No real questions, just I guess comments because this proposal, we currently have the authority, when I say we, the governing body has the authority to remove the city manager, but that requires a vote of six of the governing body members. This proposal lowers that threshold to five. In addition, this proposal also includes allowing for the governing body to remove the city attorney and city clerk. So with that being said, I do have to say I agree with having the ability to, if the council has the authority to approve the appointment, they should also have the authority to remove. And in the same vein, if it takes five councilors or the five governing body members to approve an appointment, I believe it should be five members to remove that individual as well. So I think this, this, this is a proposal that I could stand behind. Now I, I guess maybe I do got a question because right now there's only authority in the city charter to remove the city manager. Part of this question will be to allow for suspension because I remember when we were debating a couple years ago, does the council even have the authority to suspend because it wasn't clearly written in the charter. This, this is the intention that it will be included in the charter. Am I correct that sponsors? Yes. Do you want to, Marcy, I think you wanted to say something. I saw you from there. Am I on? Can you guys hear me? There you go. Chair Chavez and councilors, can I just ask for clarification for my own self while I'm following the conversation? Are we talking about item I or item K? Okay. Okay. Because I think item I, I think maybe some of what Councilor Garcia was just saying might have been related more to item K, but maybe I just was mishearing. He's asking, so item I covers suspension and removal. And so he was asking if there was some questions about suspension in a previous situation regarding the city manager. And so he was wondering if this would take care of us running into a situation like that again. Okay. Thank you. And so it, it does. I mean, it, I'm looking at the question being proposed. The question is, should the charter be amended to provide that five councilors may suspend or remove the city manager, city attorney, and/or city clerk during the regularly scheduled meeting? Does it need a say? And I guess, Marcy, let me ask you this question. This is more along your lines. Sometimes when there's an issue that pops up, it's more expedient to have a special governing body meeting, especially if there are some implications and time-sensitive matters that need to be addressed. Should it say, should we change it during a governing body meeting, or because I don't want it, right now it's saying it has to happen during a regularly scheduled governing body meeting. The way I interpret that, it eliminates the ability to have it happen during a special governing body meeting. And again, I'm using this as a perfect example. By no means am I insinuating or trying to imply this is happening. But should embezzlement be happening, right? I would not want the city to wait for the next governing body meeting to remove an individual versus saying we needed a special governing body meeting to take action now. **Chair Chavez:** And councilors, I think that's ultimately up to you all to discuss. I think that cuts two directions. I personally might think that you might want to talk about, how's this? Is this better? I'm trying to, okay, sorry. I think that do you want the removal of the city attorney, city clerk, and city manager to happen at a special governing body meeting where maybe not everybody can be there? Or I think that it's possible that one of the reasons why it says what it says is to give it gravitas and make sure that it is at a regularly scheduled meeting where there has been plenty of time to think about it and those kinds of things. I think it's ultimately up to you, though. Okay. I'll chew on it because I'm leaning more towards it needs to be more open. Obviously, we would try to, if such a governing body were to be held and it needed to be in a special type of session, we would do everything we can to alert the public. But again, given, and that was a pure example, I don't want the city to have to wait to take action because something like that were to happen during, for example, we just had a long break between meetings. That could have been a potential three weeks to take action, and that's an extreme example on one end. But in practicality, do we have to potentially wait a week when there are sometimes circumstances where an individual might not want to resign and we say action must be taken? So I'm going to chew on this. An amendment might be necessary for that. **Chair Chavez:** So I think Councilor Lee Garcia has some input. So I guess my question would be, given that wording, would it hold us to that? I mean, I know there are many times where something comes up and there's an immediate need to have a governing body meeting. I know it does say regularly scheduled, but as long as it's scheduled, it may not be on our regular calendar, but it could be a governing body meeting. So, **Chair Chavez:** That may be a proposed amendment is we just remove the word "regularly." So it's just during a scheduled meeting. **Councilor:** Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you. I think again, no other real comments. If the governing body has the authority right now to approve with five, that should have been the threshold from the initial start, not going above and beyond. But I wasn't there when these rules were created to understand the mindset. So with that, no other questions, Madam Chair. **Chair Chavez:** If I could just make one comment towards that in regards to, if you think about it, a supermajority is six, which would include more than likely the mayor, who is the appointee, the person appointing the person, which makes it more difficult to get a supermajority. So a simple majority makes more sense to me. **Councilor:** Sounds like it's kind of. **Chair Chavez:** Thank you, Councilor. Any other question? Hey, Councilor Castro, just a quick technical question. Does the current language say a supermajority or six? So, if the amount of folks on the governing body changed, would that supermajority change? **Chair Chavez:** Chair Chavez and councilors, I think it says a number. Hold on, let me just look. **Councilor:** Yeah, Councilor Wagner. **Councilor Wagner:** I think the six is only related to the firing of the city manager. I think for approval of appointments, it's five, I think. **Chair Chavez:** Sure. I was just, in the event that there was a change in the number of people in the governing body, would that change this resolution? And because it says supermajority rather than six, was my question. **Councilor Michael Garcia:** So to answer that question, Councilor Castro, in the charter, in section 8.04, under the city manager removal, it says in item B, "by a vote of six councilors at a regularly scheduled meeting." So, So another proposed amendment could be to change it to supermajority as opposed to that number, or a number which is five. My concern is if this governing body were to change, we would then still be at five. However, I think if the governing body would change, it would require a charter amendment, which would have to come with a change in those numbers as well. So, I think, **Councilor:** So there would have to be a change in the numbers. **Councilor:** Yeah. So I think that would be taken care of in the charter amendment if there was a reduction in governing body members because that's the only way that would occur. And sorry, just a point of inquiry, would we then not have to go back and change these parts of the charter if that were the case? They would automatically change the numbers. No, we would have to go back and change these as well. **Chair Chavez:** Probably multiple parts of the charter if the governing body number of members would change. Any, No further questions. I yield the floor. **Chair Chavez:** Any other questions or comments? All right. Can I get a roll call vote, please? **Councilor:** Oh, we need a motion. **Councilor:** Move to approve. **Councilor:** Second. **Chair Chavez:** I have a motion and a second. Now, can I have that roll call vote, please? **Clerk:** Certainly, Madam Chair. To my list. Councilor Michael Garcia. **Councilor Michael Garcia:** Yes. **Clerk:** Councilor Romero Worth. **Councilor Romero Worth:** No. **Clerk:** Councilor Lee Garcia. **Councilor Lee Garcia:** Yes. **Clerk:** Councilor Castro. **Councilor Castro:** No. And I'd like to explain my vote. **Clerk:** And Councilor Chavez. **Councilor Chavez:** Yes. **Clerk:** Motion passes, Madam Chair. **Chair Chavez:** Thank you. And I'll turn it over to Councilor Castro. **Councilor Castro:** Yeah, just really quickly, as I was alluding to, I do think that it's a very honorable desire for us to separate the powers, and I just think that there are amendments and resolutions and suggestions by the Charter Review Commission that could get to that point through a different means. One that I advocate for is to take the mayor off the governing body entirely. But there are other ways that we could reach that goal. Thank you. **Chair Chavez:** Great. Thank you so much. All right, we are now moving to letter K. Consideration of a resolution number 2025. Councilor sponsored by Councilor Pilar Faulkner, Councilor Lee Garcia, and Councilor Amanda Chavez, a resolution proposing a ballot question to be submitted to the city of Santa Fe voters during the November 4th, 2025 regular local election regarding amending the city's charter to require governing body consent before a mayor can remove a city manager, city attorney, or city clerk. And this was removed by, **Councilor Romero Worth:** Councilor Worth and Councilor, I'll turn it over to you. **Councilor Romero Worth:** Thank you, Madam Chair. I, again, we did talk about this at the last Public Works Public Utilities Committee meeting. I only pulled it to vote. Thank you. Do any of the sponsors want to speak to this? Councilor Lee Garcia. **Councilor Lee Garcia:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Once again, you know, we're, this is initially the thought process were to put all of these together, but it was recommended or requested that we separate the two charter amendments. I know we did have discussion over it, and there was also discussion over possibly having an amendment, and I don't see the amendment on here. May, **Councilor:** Yeah, the amendment, well, but I don't know if the amendment's ready quite yet. And the only reason I ask for that is because I know there was a lot of discussion, and there was, that was the main reason as to why it's back at this committee and wasn't voted on at the previous committee, or was, we had some a bit of a discussion over how do we move forward with this because it didn't, it was asked for denial, that didn't pass. It was asked for approval, that didn't pass. And so we, we postponed it, or we postponed it to this next meeting, which is today, with the thought that we were going to have an amendment. So I'd like to know what that was introduced, and I'd like to see it. **Chair Chavez:** All right, I am going to, who do I turn it over to first? Marcy, I'll go ahead and give it to you for an update, and then Councilor Michael Garcia, I'll give him some time to explain that amendment if he'd like. **Marcy:** Chair Chavez, councilors, we have an amendment. I might suggest that the folks who requested it should take a quick look at it before it's actually in play. And I can either, we can do that tonight, and Aaron would be prepared to sign the version. I don't know if that's something you want to take on this evening since it's kind of coming in hot under the wire, or whether you want to take it up on Wednesday at the Quality of Life Committee. **Councilor:** Madam Chair, I guess my question is, I haven't seen the amendment. I wasn't a sponsor on it. I said that I would support it if it was written in a specific way. However, the, the people, I think Councilor Garcia was one of the proposed sponsors of that amendment, and I believe Councilor Faulkner may have jumped on that as well. So I don't know if we can get, **Chair Chavez:** Yeah, let's give you some time. Councilor Garcia, Michael Garcia, I'll turn it over to you, and then Councilor Faulkner. **Councilor Michael Garcia:** Madam Chair, we don't have the amendment in our packet. I haven't even seen it yet. **Councilor:** So I could speak to that. **Councilor:** I think our amendments by rule are supposed to be written and in front of us. And so, as mentioned by some of the colleagues, we did propose an amendment, and Marcy's been hard at work on this. So, thank you, Marcy. And, with that being said, I know that I have not seen the final version of it. And with that being said, I'm okay with potentially us moving this forward without a recommendation just because I know that getting the amendment crafted in a manner that meets the needs that we explained during the previous Public Works and Utility Committee meeting, it's very critical and important to me. And so, I'm not somebody who likes to work on the fly, so to speak. And thank you, Marcy. I just saw something pop into my email inbox. But I, I, I would be a lot more comfortable having some time to review what you wrote, then if there needs to be any fine edits, et cetera, where we move forward with the intention that everything is crafted and signed by Aaron in preparation for Wednesday's meeting. So I guess, Marcy, do we think we can meet that deadline for Wednesday? **Marcy:** Yes, absolutely. **Councilor:** Okay. **Marcy:** As long as everyone's comfortable with what I just emailed to the people who requested it. I just to be real clear, it's not in front of anybody else at this point because I wanted to make sure it represented your ideas. **Councilor:** So, so with that being said, Marcy sent it just to the amendment sponsors, which is myself and Councilor Faulkner, and then we'll get our heads together to make sure it meets our needs and the intentions, and with the hopes that it's ready, prepared, and ready to go on Wednesday. So, with that, happy to hand it off to Councilor Faulkner. And if not, I'm happy to make a motion as well. **Chair Chavez:** All right. Are there questions, comments? Okay, I have a motion. A motion to move forward without a recommendation. I'll second that because I do want it to move forward. And I'm hoping that that will be ready. I would have liked it to be ready tonight. I don't know when it was submitted and why it hasn't been approved or signed yet, but I'll make the motion to second that to move forward with our recommendation. Right. I have a motion and a second. Could I get a roll call vote, please? Certainly, Madam Chair. Let's see. Councilor Castro. No. That ma'am, that was a no. Thank you. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Romero Worth. No. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Chair Chavez. Yes. Motion passes, Madam Chair. Thank you. We have no discussion or action items today. We're going to move on to introduction of legislation. So we have consideration of Resolution Number 2025-2 to be determined. A resolution approving budget amendments and associated New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration local government division schedules summarizing the fourth quarter amendments and requesting that New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration approve the City of Santa Fe's fourth quarter budget amendments for fiscal year 2025. Next, we are at matters from staff. Are there any matters? No matters from staff, Madam Chair. Director Roach, any matters? No matters from utility staff either. All right. Thank you. Matters from the committee. No matters from the committee. Matters from the chair. Our next meeting is in two weeks on a Monday. Is that August 4th? Yes, I think. All right. Thank you, guys.