Public Works and Utilities Committee Mon, Sep 15, 2025 · Public Works and Utilities Committee https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/305 == Executive Summary == The Public Works and Utilities Committee meeting was dominated by a contentious discussion regarding the proposed donation of Tract 6A to Homewise for affordable housing. Numerous residents voiced strong opposition, citing concerns about the land's suitability for high-density development due to environmental issues, potential financial risks for low-income buyers, and a perceived lack of transparency and public engagement in the selection process. While councilors acknowledged these concerns, a motion to postpone the donation proposal for further community engagement ultimately failed. The committee then voted to approve the donation, with a 4-1 vote, allowing Homewise to proceed with feasibility studies and master planning. In other business, the committee unanimously approved a professional service agreement with Yearout Energy Services Company for an energy audit and microgrid design, funded by a federal grant. This project aims to enhance community resilience by providing backup power for critical infrastructure during outages and advancing sustainability. The committee also discussed and approved a recommendation to amend city code regarding water fluoridation, opting to cease adding fluoride to the water system while continuing to monitor naturally occurring levels, which are already close to federal recommendations. Additionally, an $8 million transit grant was announced, with further details to be presented at the next meeting. == Key Decisions == - Approved the donation of Los Estradas Tract 6A to Homewise for affordable housing development (4-1 vote). - Approved a professional service agreement with Yearout Energy Services Company for an energy audit and microgrid design for community resiliency (4-0 vote). - Approved the recommendation to amend city code to end the requirement to add fluorides to the water system, while continuing to monitor naturally occurring fluoride levels (4-0 vote). == Motions & Votes == - Motion to rearrange the order of consent items — Approved. - Motion to approve the consent agenda (as amended) — Approved. - Motion to hear item 7L first, followed by 7C and 7M — Approved. - Motion to postpone the donation proposal for Tract 6A to September 29th — Failed (2 Yes, 3 No). - Motion to approve the donation proposal for Tract 6A — Passed (4 Yes, 1 No). - Motion to approve the hazard mitigation grant project for backup power and microgrids — Passed unanimously (4-0). - Motion related to the fluoride discussion (likely to accept staff recommendations to cease adding fluoride) — Passed unanimously (4-0). == Public Comment == Several residents expressed strong opposition to the donation of Tract 6A to Homewise for high-density affordable housing. Key concerns included the land's unsuitability due to arroyos, drainage issues, and shifting soils; the risk of setting up low-income buyers for failure; allegations that a city official previously deemed the land unsuitable for multi-unit housing; questions about the selection process for Tract 6A; and concerns about a lack of public notice, transparency, and community input. Residents requested councilors and the mayor to conduct a site visit and investigate the selection criteria. == Topics == - Tract 6A Development - Water Fluoridation - Watershed Restoration - Transit Grants - Critical Infrastructure Resilience - Solar Energy & Tax Credits - Defunct Grants == Full Transcript == We are live. Thank you. I call to order the Public Works and Utilities Committee meeting. Today is Monday, September 15th. It is 5:02. Could I get a roll call, please? Madam Chair: Councilor Romero Worth. Councilor Romero Worth: Here. Madam Chair: Councilor Michael Garcia. Councilor Michael Garcia: Present. Madam Chair: Councilor Castro. Councilor Castro: Present. Madam Chair: Councilor Lee Garcia. Councilor Lee Garcia: Excused. Madam Chair: And Chair Chavez. Chair Chavez: Here. Madam Chair: You have a quorum, Madam Chair. Thank you. Next is approval of the agenda. Do we have any changes from staff? No changes, Madam Chair. Move to approve. Second. I have a motion. I have a second. Yes, Madam Chair. I know now's the time to move one of the consent items up ahead just because I have to leave and I want to make sure I participate in the conversation, which is item, I apologize, item L. If we can have that be the first item heard during consent. Let's, let's go ahead and approve the agenda and then we'll pull the items from consent and we'll rearrange them then. So, we had a motion. We had a second for approval of the agenda. Councilor Garcia has joined us, Lee Garcia. All those in favor signify by saying "Aye." Aye. Any opposed? See none. Motion passes. Now we can move on to approval of the consent agenda. What items were pulled? Madam Chair, item 7C, item 7L, and item 7M. Move to approve as amended. I think we have to approve the consent agenda before we move it around. We have a motion to approve the consent. Second. And a second. Can I get a roll call, please? Certainly. Councilor Romero Worth. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Chair Chavez. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Next, we are going to public comment. So, I know that we do have individuals in chamber that would like to come up and speak. We ask that you line up at the podium. You will be timed for two minutes. So, you will have two minutes to speak. You all want to form a line. Who's planning to address the committee today? All right, go ahead and come up. Go ahead and state your name and your address. Just make sure the mic is on. Is this working? It should be green. It's green. Okay, I can hear myself. Good evening, everyone. My name is Mory Hensley. I'm the Executive Director of the Santa Fe Watershed Association at 1413 2nd Street. I'm also a resident of District 4. And this evening I wanted to come before the committee to announce that the Santa Fe Watershed Association is kicking off our watershed restoration planning effort. This is the first ever planning effort for the entire Santa Fe River watershed. We are very grateful to the city for their support. We received numerous letters of support from city departments and we are committed to working very closely with city staff among many other collaborators on this three-year project. So, I just wanted to drop off these flyers for all members here. Everyone is welcome to attend. So, the kickoff meeting will be Wednesday, September 17th at the Southside Library from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. But, of course, everyone is welcome to check out more information online and be involved with us however is most convenient for you. Also, on the back of the flyer is our Confluence Santa Fe Water Series happening. So, lots of other conversations about water happening. So, I invite everyone who's here this evening to join us. And I look forward to working with you and keeping you abreast if you're interested as we continue this planning process over the next three years. Thank you. Great. Thank you for bringing the information forward. You could go ahead and give it to Director Wheeler. Thank you, Director. Hi, good evening. My name is Bunny Hull, 812 Cay David. I'm here to speak on the proposed donation of Tract 6A by the City of Santa Fe to Homewise. Our community strongly opposes this plan, not because we oppose affordable housing. We support it. We support 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. On August 8th, 2023, at a community meeting, residents were assured by Mayor Weber and other city officials that the arroyos of Tract 6A would not be leveled. These assurances are important because altering or leveling them could not only contradict the city's commitment to environmental stewardship, but also raise serious concerns about flooding, erosion, and perhaps compliance with the city's own land development code. As someone who has worked directly with low-income families through a nonprofit I ran for 16 years, my greatest concern is for the very people this project is meant to help. We know that the city wants to create a legacy of successful affordable housing that will stand the test of time. Placing first-time or low-income buyers on land with drainage issues, shifting soils, and potential foundation problems risks setting them up for failure rather than success. So, on behalf of our community, I ask that you do not rush into development by approving the donation without considering other options and requiring complete, transparent surveys of the land prior to commitments being made. Santa Fe deserves affordable housing that is safe, stable, and sustainable, not a project that could create long-term hardship. Thank you so much. Thank you. Hello. You're okay. Should I speak or sing? I'm not. You don't want me to sing. Hi, my name is Kevin Pazine. I'm at 1012 Kaya Dorothia and I'm the President of the Santa Fe Estates Neighborhood Association. 20 months ago, during a Zoom Q&A session for the Request for Qualifications on the development of Tract 6A, Director of Affordable Housing Alexandra Lad said that 6A was unsuitable for multi-unit housing. What has changed since then? Other than that the arroyos on 6A have gotten deeper. The costs of building retaining walls and drainage ditches have increased. The costs of fixing cracked foundations and eroded streets have increased too. Homewise might be good at building high-density housing on flat urban areas, but because of this limited experience, it would be a disaster for Homewise to try to build high-density housing on the designated difficult terrain of 6A. And those who have the least can least afford it would pay the price of that failure. Please hold off on this donation and work with the community to build, for example, more suitable single-unit worker housing on 6A if even that is feasible on this rugged property. Or better yet, revisit implementing the 209 Northwest Quadrant Master Plan to incorporate 6A and develop the entirety. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. My name is Ann Levine. I too live at 1012 Kaya Dorothia. Draw your own conclusions with Kev. I just have two requests before you vote on the donation of Tract 6A to Homewise. First, I ask that all councilors and the mayor do a site visit to Tract 6A with the heads of our neighborhood associations. Many thanks to Councilors Alma Castro, Michael Garcia, for already doing that and taking the time out of your day to come and see what land we're actually talking about. Another quick thank you to Carol Romero Worth for also attending with Alma Castro our July 16th community meeting at the library. We had one week's notice and we had 88 neighbors show up. Not one spoke in favor of donation. My second request, please find out how Tract 6A was chosen. Who chose it and what criteria did they use? As already been mentioned, there are over 700 acres of city-owned land in that area. 500 acres in the Northwest Quadrant project and 220 acres in the recently acquired tracts across from Thornberg. Over 700 acres. How did this 20 get picked? Absolutely the most unsuitable tract of land. And you're thinking of saddling financially vulnerable people with land that developers won't even buy. Please look into that. Who picked Tract 6A? Did they do an analysis of the other 700? What was their criteria and how did it get chosen? Those are my two requests. Visit the site and find out how 6A was picked. Thank you very much. Thank you. It's my first time. Hello, welcome. Hi, my name is Andy Homer. I live at 825 Caya Devid. A number of people have talked and I think you're all aware of the many problems with Tract 6A and high-density development. I want to talk about something else. When I bought my home in 2009, probably the biggest investment I'll ever make, but certainly the largest purchase I'll ever make, I did due diligence. I looked around, came down to City Hall, pulled the zoning and property covenants for all of the surrounding area to make sure that my house was safe, that it would, and by safe, I mean somebody wasn't going to put a bar and honky tonk on the corner. Somebody wasn't going to put a cannery, a slaughterhouse before I bought my house. After that process, I thought it was safe to buy my house. What I don't understand now is how those covenants, that zoning was wiped out with a stroke of a pen, without public notice, without a public hearing. So, I have no protection in my property now. Somebody could build anything they want right now. You're rushing ahead. This whole process seems to me to have occurred secretly behind closed doors with minimal to none public comment. I urge you to table this motion, back away to give it due consideration and provide transparency and community input. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, good evening. Hi, my name is Joyce Roberts and I live at 738 Camino Francisca and I want to comment on Tract 6A. I've been building homes with Habitat for Humanity for 20 years. We have built on some ground which has needed remediation before you can build on it and this is in flat areas out in Oshara. This has required digging down four to six feet and coming back and compacting the earth before you can build a house. This is on level land and it is expensive. I cannot imagine how you're going to do this on land that is curved and unstable. I think it's going to be quite expensive and make it very difficult to actually build affordable homes. And it's also going to lead possibly to having people who are not used to owning a home having very big difficulties and problems with their homes. Thank you for my time. Thank you for being here. Is there anyone else that would like to come up to the podium to speak to us today? All right. I think we will move on. Thank you all for your comments. Next is presentations. We have none. So, we will move on to consent agenda. And I think we might have a motion to rearrange that. So, Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to hear item L first on the consent agenda. Second. So, we will just for clarification, we will hear items 7L, 7C, then 7M. I have a motion and I have a second. Could I get a roll call, please? Councilor Romero Worth. Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Chair Chavez. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. So, moving on to item 7L, request for approval of a donation agreement with Homewise to donate Los Estradas Tract 6A for development as affordable housing. And we have Terry Lease here, our asset development manager. And this was pulled by Councilor Castro. So, I am going to leave it up to you, Councilor, if you want to hear from Mr. Lee or if you would like to start discussion. Madam Chair, can we do the 10-minute rule because I bet we all have questions once I know you're starting with Councilor Castro, but just, yeah, absolutely. Thinking we should all take turns. Thank you. If you're okay, Mr. Elise, if we could just start with questions. I think that we're pretty well-versed on the project. I think some of my questions have to do with the history of this because I'm fairly new to the process, being that this started in 2017. Is that correct? Mayor: Madam Chair, Councilor Castro, to my knowledge, that's correct. I came on board in 2021, and it was in full swing then. Perfect. So, this has been a long process. I want to walk through a little bit of what that process looked like. In particular, when we hear that there is no community input, do you know of other community input opportunities that folks will have after this process, after the donation of the land? I apologize. It's my understanding, again, Madam Chair, Councilor Castro, it's my understanding that Homewise, although Muval is not here to speak for Homewise, they do plan on doing community meetings and community outreach. Beyond that, I don't know their plans. So, just to clarify, what we're voting on today is to donate this piece of land to Homewise, but on no development, just the donation of the land. Madam Chair, Councilor Castro, that's correct. I just wanted to clarify those things, and I will cede my time to my colleagues. Thank you. Councilor Michael Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. Terry, just to continue on with some of the history, and I had the opportunity to work with you when you came on board and we began to work on this project. Can you tell us about the Wilson and Company study that was conducted that really set in place for us why Track 6A was chosen? That was a question earlier, and it was actually a question that I had when we were going through this process four years ago. So, can you help us understand the merits of the Wilson and Company study? Who they are? That way we can determine who's the company, what's the validity of this study, and what was the outcome of the study? Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, yes, sir. The asset development I'm part of, we worked in support of the affordable housing on this RFQ. As part of that project, our role was to help with the appraisal agreements, and we employed Wilson & Company for a feasibility study. Wilson & Company is an engineering firm based out of Albuquerque, with a representative, one representative at least, here living in Santa Fe, very familiar with the Santa Fe area. They did a feasibility study for this property, and I'll just run down real quick. It's dated 1/21 of '23, and they looked at all, they have engineers, architects, and different staff on board to do these studies. Just reading from the table of contents, they searched the project information, the background, legal lots of record, existing conditions including roadways, dry utilities, wastewater, water drainage, open space, development standards. They looked at access and circulation, parking, screening, landscaping, land use development, slope analysis. I heard a lot of talk about the soils out there. While they didn't do core samples and soil analysis, that would be part of the Homewise due diligence to do the core samples and take that step further. Really, the conclusion for Wilson and Company is that, just reading from the conclusion, I won't read it all, out of the 19 plus or minus acres, the available area for development is 12.33 acres. They determined that a total of 86 dwelling units could actually be supported on the property. They recommend an ideal site for multifamily residential. The examination of Tracks 6, 6A for feasibility development follows the regulations of Los Estraas master plan, Santa Fe land development code and zoning regulations, and the Los Estraas guidelines design guidelines. Okay. Thank you. And that study, it looked at all of the tracks, parcels of land that were gotten from the Santa Fe Estates, or just 6A? Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, just 6A, the property that was designated by the resolution for affordable housing. Okay. And so as we begin to look and move forward with this, what is the plan? Should Homewise come forward with a proposal? And I'm trying to think next steps. Should this land be donated? Are there protections in place for the city that would ensure whatever is developed meets the city's merits? And if it doesn't get approved by the city, is there a clause where the city then can take back the property? Because ultimately, I want to ensure that should the city move forward with donation, that the city ultimately has an overall approval of design, placement, etc. Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, that's correct. And it's in the donation agreement requirements. They have five years to develop the property, and they need, they're required to obtain all approval from the development plan from the planning commission, other city entities, also secure land entitlement approvals required for development of the site, proof of funds, other factors such as that. If they don't perform within the time period and the design and the requirements in the donation agreement, they've already signed a deed quitclaiming the deed, quick claim or warranty deed, the property back to the city. So the city can unilaterally reclaim the property if Homewise does not perform. Okay. Thank you. And then I do want to address the comments around transparency because this did pass with the resolution some time ago, right? And a resolution goes through a formal committee review process, governing body review process, etc. There was no backroom deal. It was all done through a formal transparent process that any other resolution goes through. Am I correct in that? Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, that's correct. City staff really followed the provisions in the resolution you discussed, and actually, in this case, it's really unprecedented the amount of information that the asset development and economic development departments provided to the residents of Los Estraas, really above and beyond what we should have according to the procurement code. Okay, thank you, Mr. Elise. And on that note, I know Councilor Castro and I have been talking in regards to kind of continuing that theme of going above and beyond in regards to having additional community engagement before a potential final approval of this land donation. The way that I would foresee that working out is we can postpone this item tonight. That way, Councilor Castro and I can work with staff, as well as the residents of the area, to determine a time, place, location where we can have community engagement. That way, in two weeks, we come back, identify when that's going to happen, and then we can continue this process knowing that there is going to be community engagement built into this approval process before any potential land donation. So, just want to put that out there. So, Madam Chair, I yield the floor. Thank you, Councilor Garcia. Councilor Marworth, and I'm timing, too, so you don't have to worry about it. Okay, good. I reset here. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple questions. And I don't know, Mr. Police, if you, I know we don't have our land use people here, but I know that our land use people have been at the community meetings, have, I think, met with the neighborhood, and I think we have answered questions about how this process works. And I know it's complicated, and especially if it's your first time going through our processes and stuff. But the land, so can you walk through, are you in a position to walk through what happens after a land donation is made in terms of Homewise? I know you mentioned Homewise will be interacting with the community, but there's a whole process by which the concerns that continue to be raised about this site get evaluated and addressed, and a lot more information happens after this donation is made and really doesn't, can't start until Homewise has this piece of property in their control to work with to bring forward a land development plan. Are you in a position to talk about any of that? Madam Chair, Councilor Romero, not really in a position to talk about the land use part of it. But I will add that once the donation is complete and discussions with Homewise, that's when their work begins. That's when they begin employing engineers, architects, the other soil specialists, all the trades involved to really put together the development plan. And I'm not sure if development plan is a proper term, but Yeah, maybe a master plan. This is why we really need the subject matter, but essentially a plan of how they will use the site and what it offers them and how they'll address or mitigate the concerns that the site brings, that any site brings. Madam Chair, Councilor, that's correct. And it's my understanding from Homewise discussions with Lisa Uval, Homewise is that during this process where they're putting together the development plan and bringing in all the experts to do the analysis necessary, there will also be some community engagement by Homewise to them. And I believe they've already met with the residents out there at least on one occasion. And how many, how many, we did a, okay, folks. We did a community engagement session with the neighborhood. It was noted that I was in attendance. Councilor Castro was in attendance. We had an unprecedented number of staff there. It was really great to see them. All the subject matter experts were there. We had the office of affordable housing. We had land development. Heather Lamboy herself was there. Our director, there were a number, I think there were a number of representatives from various city departments at that meeting. Was that the only meeting that we've had with the public? Madam Chair, Councilor Romero, with that, that is the largest meeting. There was one other meeting earlier in the year, I don't know the exact month, actually, with some residents of Las Estraas right here in the council chambers where the land use director was available and many of the other Yeah, and I think we've had some other members of the staff have also met with the various neighborhood leadership teams, and so there has been quite a bit of engagement, as well as, I believe, I'd have to go back in my email, there was a lengthy list of questions that came from the community members that was answered in some detail about some of these concerns and about the process. And I know that community meeting, we spent a lot of time talking about process and at which point in the process different things are addressed. But there is a lengthy document of questions and answers which I believe was provided to the community. I know I got it. They all got it too, right? Yeah, Madam Chair, Council, that's correct. If you're classifying community engagement as emails and communications, there's been numerous, and you're right, there was a list with all the emails, all the information that was sent to the residents and so on. Okay. I guess I'm sorry that our land use folks aren't here, but I know, as this moves through the process, they will be here. And help me, remind me where we are on this. We have this committee, and then where does this go? Quality of life and then to the governing body at the end of the month, or what's the, what's the Yeah, Madam Chair, Council, I apologize, I don't have the schedule. Yeah, it's in the packet here. Here we go. So it goes to Public Works tonight. It's supposed to go to Quality of Life this Wednesday. It goes to Finance Committee Monday, and then to the governing body next week. And certainly at that governing body meeting, I think we will have the whole team here to answer questions, and of course, there's public comment at that meeting. My, my, just a couple things. I'm sure my time is almost run, but this is just the beginning of the process, and a lot of the concerns I think that the community is voicing are things that get worked out in the development of the plan. Then the plan has to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. There's public comment there. Those folks, the community, will be able to come and actually interact with what Homewise ends up recommending. It's possible that once they have all their experts look at this site, it may not pan out, and it may be more expensive than they thought, and they may, before they even ask for approval for a plan, they could back out. They could, and as Councilor Michael Garcia has just confirmed, and I know we've confirmed this in other meetings, there is a way for Homewise to say, "Alright, actually, we can't go forward because of whatever reason," and the land would come back to the city. So I think that's an important guarantee. But I guess I would also say that I think our choices here at this committee are fairly limited under our procedural rules. We normally hold things when we need more information. I'm not sure that's the case here specifically because there's been a lot of information on this. If we're waiting for amendments, sometimes things are held. I think our options tonight are, we can move it forward without recommendation. We can vote it down. We can say, "Nope, this committee does not support this." That's a possibility. Or we can approve it, but we can only hold it here under our rules for one meeting. And I think we have to be, I think we have to have a substantive reason other than more community engagement, which I believe that we've had a lot of. And it doesn't stop the community engagement, right? We're going to, it's going to continue to be reviewed by the committees, and there's going to be more opportunities both in the consideration of this particular resolution, which makes the land donation go forward, but also if the land ultimately is donated, the processes that ensue after that fact. I also think that, if it's the council's will, on the 24th, it's possible that in the question and answer and the process and the emails we're getting, that on the 24th we say, "Nope, we don't want to give this land." But I think that would be short-sighted because I think we need to see, we can't begin to do the things that are necessary. Homewise can't begin to do the things that are necessary to evaluate these concerns until they have control of the property. So, I guess I would urge my colleagues to let's move this along so we can get the proper information so we know for sure what can and can't happen or what can and can't be mitigated. But also, I ask for your patience in getting this information forward. And that's all I have, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Lee Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to revisit a couple of things in regards to some of the questions that were asked. So, again, how was or why was 6A chosen? Do you know why was 6A chosen amongst the other tracts that could have been available? Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, I'm sorry. Can you repeat? So, somebody came up and asked the question, how was 6A chosen? Why was it chosen? Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, if the question is how was 6A selected? And why? Yeah. I can't, well, first of all, the original resolution was sponsored by Councilor Garcia and the Mayor, and I can't speak to their reasons. We have met and discussed with Councilor Garcia on site, and to me, as a real estate person, the location of 6A was really a prime factor because it's not surrounded by other houses. There are part of the development is to the south, but the other surrounding area is 599 and vacant land for the city. So there is a sort of a standalone feature of site 6A. The size also, I think, was a prime factor. It is a good size, even though some difficult slopes, the over 12 acres of developable land, I think, is a good size also for affordable housing development. Thank you. I do recall the conversation back when we were discussing 2023-4, the resolution that dedicated this property as a potential site for either donation or sale. And I know Councilor Garcia, you were one of the sponsors. Can you answer to that as to why that was designated? Sure. Sure. And I'm going to just go off of memory. So when we began to investigate what properties of the tracts that the city acquired were feasible for affordable housing, we actually looked at all of them. We went and walked them all. Per the master plan, there are certain tracts that were completely not accessible or some that were identified for specific use like a senior center. I know that I was strongly advocating for the largest parcel to be used for affordable housing. It was through analysis done at that time and from expertise such as Director Lad that 6A was the best suited site. Again, because I know at the time when we were determining what would, which of these parcels would be best suited, I continuously advocated for the largest parcel, which is over 200 acres. Per staff's direction, that was not feasible. And so 6A was the most feasible site for affordable housing, and that's why that site was determined and why we moved forward with it. Again, I'm going off of pure memory. I can dig up emails, etc., that would confirm all of that. But that hopefully that helps. That does. And I, I, I do recall similar conversations that we had over this resolution. And I guess that leads me into another question that I have in regards to zoning. And so I know that'll be part of the process of identifying now as we contemplate passing this donation resolution. Do we have anything in there that states it's going to be residential? Because hearing from again, somebody that spoke in regards to something that's commercial coming in that would be built there or something other. I mean, do we have anything in this resolution, and I apologize if I didn't find it or if it isn't there, in regards to it only being residential? Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, I too, and I haven't had time to look at the resolution again, but it does spell out for an affordable housing project. And beyond that, the submittal from, in the donation, excuse me, the donation agreement, and it actually also spells out affordable housing and specifies number of units, etc. So there's nothing in there that spoke to any other use. Okay. And then I guess, you know, from my recollection that all land such as this is typically zoned R1, which will come back if during the process of looking at a development plan or something that's proposed by Homewise, the developer, you know, they'll have to come back and ask for a zoning change, which typically is going to be R24, whatever it might be in this case. I don't know what it's going to be as far as the, once they do the vetting of what they can build. Yeah, Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, I'm not sure if R1 is the only residential designation in the plan. There may be other residential designations. I'm not sure, but you're correct. Yes, if there's any proposed change of zoning, they would have to come back through the city process. Understand. I guess that being said, I, I, you know, this is definitely something that has gone through initial process in regards to identifying attractive land. You know, as my co-councilor on this in District 3, we've stated, there's a lot of land, and a lot of times the affordability or housing that's being built ends up on the south side of town. And so, you know, I, I, I think I too believe that there's still process going forward. I believe that there are stipulations in there that in regards to the feasibility of actually building on this, and if they can't figure out how to do it, the land reverts back to the city. So, you know, I, I don't know how much more engagement there can be of what other information could come forward in regards to why we shouldn't do this. And I, I want to believe in the process of having an actual study by the developer to say, "Hey, you know what?" And the only way to do that is if they have the property available. So, I'll yield the floor at this point. Those are my questions and comments. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilor Garcia. Councilor Castro. Sorry, quickly. I just wanted, so that was my line of questioning initially was to make sure that folks understand both in the room and out in the community that today we are not dealing or approving any type of development plan. Today we are only dealing with and approving the donation of the land. And so the development plan will have to come along with more community input and more processes. I do want to sort of speak to my train of thought in why I would like for the city to continue to be owners of any land that we own currently, and not just talking 6A, but talking about the investment of government in affordable housing. So, I do hesitate, even though it is a not-for-profit organization, to donate land to developers rather than doing that internally. That being said, we currently do not have the capacity to build, maintain, and manage a huge tract of potentially 700, from what I heard, 700 acres of affordable housing. So, this is a compromise. It is a path of least resistance to get the housing that we desperately need in this city. And to Councilor's point, Councilor Lee Garcia's point, we need to really have more building, more development, and more density in District 1 specifically and on the north side. And so although I am opposed to donating any city-owned land because I would like to see our government take on the responsibility of building for those in need, I do see this as a compromise where we potentially could do both. And I also want to make it clear that the resolution that designates this plot of land for affordable housing has already passed. So this doesn't change that in any way. Is that true? Madam Chair, Castro, that's correct. Perfect. Thank you so much. And I've seen my time. Michael Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think one of the things we have to acknowledge is that at the end of the day, this is currently taxpayer-led. This is land that the public owns. Sure, the city's name is on the deed, but at the end of the day, this is people of Santa Fe's land. So, because of that, I want to ensure that we're acting in good faith. We're acting in the spirit of collaboration, and we're willing to take that extra step to engage residents, whether, and I would hope we would do this, whether it be in this instance, residents of the Los Astrolas community or any other part of our city. Whenever we begin to look at land for donation, we work collaboratively with the residents of the area. There is nothing in our rules that prohibits us from postponing this. I've got the rules right in front of us. And so with that being said, to ensure that we can have appropriate time to coordinate a community engagement session with the residents of the area, I'm going to make a motion to postpone this item until our next Public Works and Utilities meeting, which is scheduled for September 29th. **Speaker 2:** Second. **Chair:** There's a motion on a second, and I'm going to start the discussion because I haven't said anything yet. I think it's great that we advocate for community engagement. I think there has been a significant amount of engagement. I think if we look at history, there's probably been a little more engagement than other donations we've made. So I have an issue with that. We often have communities in our city that are much louder and more available to come and advocate for more, and then we don't advocate for engagement as much because they're quieter, and I have an issue with that. I think if we want there to be engagement, we address that part of the process. So, every time we're looking at donating city land, there's equity and the availability of community engagement. I have a hard time with really how the community presents itself dictating how we offer opportunities for engagement. I find it unfair. And if it's something that we need to address as a city, then we need to address that process and not make a decision to increase because of the loudness of a voice. Everyone's voice is important. There are just some that aren't as available, or there are just some that don't feel safe enough to show up and have their voice heard. So to me, making changes or adding extra when it's not within the process, so it's available to all, is the issue for me. So I won't be supporting postponing. However, I also think that there's been a lot of engagement from the sounds of it, from the communication, from the emails. There's been a lot of engagement, a lot of communication. Now, a lot of the concern is around development. We're not there yet. So, we're not at development. We're at donation. There are a lot of protections within that agreement right now, if approved. Now, when development comes, there's going to be a whole opportunity for engagement, and we will have more information and answers because it's part of a process that has not taken place yet. And, you know, I'm going to reach out to Councilor Casset to see if we could get land use individuals or staff team members at Quality of Life. I know our Deputy City Manager is here, so if she could assist with that as well. But still, the development plan, the master plan, has not been created. So their feedback, just so the community is aware, is going to just be about process, which they were present to talk about process previously during engagement. So right now, we just have process. We don't have details. We don't have very important pieces of information that will only come when this is approved, and we let Homewise kind of run, or if it's approved, and we let Homewise run with its process. So, I just want us to be very careful about a few things, and I guess it was just comments, you know, increasing engagement. Absolutely. I think as a city, we've been talking about that, but we need to address our process and not just make decisions based on who shows up. And we love when people show up, but there is an inequity in our city and how people are able to do that. I also want to say that this is just one piece of a puzzle, and we don't even know where the development will go because we're missing key information that comes with this being approved. Yes, we will bring more information forward through the committee process by requesting land use being here, but I will tell you there is information land use will not be able to provide because we haven't started the process. So, I just wanted to clear up those few points. I don't know if anyone in committee wants to add to the discussion of postponing, or if we want to just go for a vote. Oh, Councilor Garcia. **Councilor Garcia:** Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to clarify around the request, the request would not be for necessarily the city to hold a community engagement session. Councilor Castro and I have been in discussion of ourselves leading that process because having the city lead the process can take quite a long time. I think in discussions with some of the residents, if we were to be able to have an opportunity to have an engagement session before a final adoption of this proposal, it would be very, very helpful. And I think again, our job is to work on behalf of the residents of Santa Fe. And holding this item in this committee for two weeks is not a significant request in regards to delaying of the process. Now, when it gets to the significance of the request in regards to ensuring that community voice is heard, it can really help to build back trust. Trust that's been lost through this process. And it was obvious through the comments some of the community members made tonight. Now, I'm not somebody who wants to look back and say, "Well, we did this in the past." We're looking forward. My process, my plan is to say how can we do better and how can we move better in a more collaborative manner and by allowing for us to bring this item back? I mean, and as I was quickly going through my emails, there was a reference to a feasibility study that was done in 2022 that I think that the public needs to see because that document was the guiding document that helped us determine why 6A, why that, you know, that golden question of why this parcel. And I think that's a document that should be public in the sense it's a public document, but it should be part of this process because it helps to address the questions that are being asked now, and it really is relevant with the donation question. So I think there still is work that could be done. We can come back here, finish the work, move forward. It would delay this process by two weeks, but the benefit would be great in regards to the community engagement, the more information that's provided. In addition to that, I think we can ensure that staff is here, whether it be land use. I know that, you know, we can't have former Director Ladd here. But I mean, City Clerk Salazar was the attorney on the case. She was a city attorney with the land use staff at or with the attorney's office, but she was assigned to this matter. Again, I remember we walked that land, and there was a reason why we chose 6A, and we owe it to the public to be as transparent as possible with that process. So, again, I don't really see a problem with holding this for two weeks, then we move forward with the process because then that community engagement can happen, go through the committee process, and we are able to catch many fish with one pole, as they say. **Councilor Lee Garcia:** Thank you, Madam Chair. What does postponing mean? I mean, in regards to the donation, what does it do to the process? I mean, are we, we have deadlines or what, what does it, what does it hold back? **Chair:** Madam Chair, or Councilor Garcia, there's no timelines per se. So certainly, governing body, it has been a process, been going on for quite some time, as it's been discussed here, and that's the only. **Councilor Lee Garcia:** Yeah, I mean, I'm on the fence here with postponing because I don't know how much more information can be proposed. I do take the words that Councilor Garcia has just stated in regards to, you know, being able to see that feasibility study. One of my questions that I asked is that why was it chosen? You know, how do we determine that this tract really does meet the standards of being able to build on? However, I don't know that that changes anything for this whole, for this moving forward in regards to this body and the fact of us whether donating or not donating. And so I am kind of leaning on not postponing because I again, I don't know what more engagement does. Those feasibility studies will come forward within the process of approvals, and so that's, that's kind of where I'm, I'm leading right now. I'll yield the floor. **Chair:** Thank you. And I just want to say a few more things. So, this would alter the schedule if approved because it would be pushed back to the governing body meeting on the 8th. Right, yeah, the 8th. So I just want to point that out. I also want to point out this is a process for this purpose, right? That comes to committee. If we need more information, we ask that it's at the next meeting. So, land use will be there, feasibility will be there. The whole point of it going committee to committee to committee is because we want to address all the issues as they come or concerns. If we didn't have a committee in front of us before, we have two actually. If we didn't have two committees in front of us, it would make sense to postpone possibly for me. I have a different understanding or belief on increasing engagement more so. But anyway, it would make more sense if I was on that side. But there are still multiple opportunities for new information. There are multiple opportunities for discussion. There's a lot of time for the community to come forward and email or contact any city official or staff that they need. And at governing body, there will be an opportunity for public comment. So, postponing is not necessary in my opinion because there's still so much opportunity ahead of us because we're the first committee right now that is hearing this. So I just wanted to be clear about that process. Any other comment? Okay. Can we get a roll call on postponing? It would be postponing this to September 29th, and then it would also move the governing body meeting where it would be heard, it would be heard governing body on October 8th. **Speaker 2:** Certainly, Madam Chair. Councilor Romero Worth. **Councilor Romero Worth:** No. **Speaker 2:** Councilor Michael Garcia. **Councilor Michael Garcia:** Yes. **Speaker 2:** Councilor Lee Garcia. **Councilor Lee Garcia:** No. **Speaker 2:** Councilor Castro. **Councilor Castro:** Yes. **Speaker 2:** Chair Chavez. **Chair:** No. **Speaker 2:** Motion fails, Madam Chair. **Chair:** All right. So, now moving on to voting for, we had a on the floor. We had a second. Could we get a roll call on the original motion, please? **Speaker 2:** Was there a? **Chair:** I don't have a recording of move to approve. **Speaker 2:** Second. **Chair:** I have a motion, and I have a second. Could I get a roll call vote, please? **Speaker 2:** Certainly, Madam Chair. Councilor Castro. **Councilor Castro:** No. And I'd like to explain my vote. **Speaker 2:** Councilor Lee Garcia. **Councilor Lee Garcia:** Yes. **Speaker 2:** Councilor Michael Garcia. **Councilor Michael Garcia:** Yes. And I'd like to explain my vote. **Speaker 2:** Let's see. Councilor Romero Worth. **Councilor Romero Worth:** Yes. **Speaker 2:** And Chair Chavez. **Chair:** Yes. **Speaker 2:** Motion passes. **Chair:** Thank you. And I will give the floor to Councilor Castro. Thank you so much. So I did take this vote specifically on the idea and the principle that I do think we need to keep these assets in our possession. It does help us sort of evaluate and better work with the land that we have. I would like to keep it in one contiguous, I'm learning the lingo, piece of land. But I definitely think that we need affordable housing, and I am happy that we are going to start development. Thank you. **Councilor Michael Garcia:** Thank you, Madam Chair. As the primary sponsor that brought forward this whole proposal, I'm quite disappointed that we couldn't take an additional two weeks to hear from the public when this proposal took years to put together. Not one year, not two years, three years we worked our tails off on this. And to say we couldn't wait two weeks to engage the community is quite disappointing. All right, so let's move on to our next item. Thank you so much, Mr. Atelis, for being here. We will be moving on to 7C, request for approval of professional service agreement with Yearout Energy Services Company LLC, DBA, Energy Systems Group Southwest, in the total amount of $500,827, including NMGRT, for an investment, grid audit, and microgrid design for community resiliency for a term of 18 months. I pulled this because Director Wheeler brought the importance of it to my attention, and I did want everyone to hear more information about it. So, thank you for being here, Kyle. **Kyle Morgan:** Hey, thank you for having me. Can you hear me all right? Hey, it's on. We've been working with Director Wheeler and her team. Sorry, first I'll introduce myself. I'm Kyle Morgan, I'm the interim director of Emergency Management. **Councilor:** Kyle, can you speak right into the mic? You can put it up on the side there, so that it's right at your mouth. That'll be better. Yeah, there you go. **Kyle Morgan:** All right, we'll try again. That sounds better. Our team has been working with Director Wheeler and other directors and senior staff at the city over the last few years to really start putting our citywide hazard mitigation plan to work. This plan was developed in 2020, and among other things, it did an intensive hazard analysis of the city. The working group involved with putting it together identified high-priority projects and initiatives that would benefit from hazard mitigation funding from a variety of sources. So, this grant is being funded by a now defunct, but still usable for us, grant program called Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities. This was a FEMA program established in 2018, I think, and was a big help to a variety of jurisdictions throughout the nation. So, this particular grant, or this effort, is a planning effort that allows us to do two good things at once, which we always want to be doing. It's going to improve community resilience by identifying key resources and critical infrastructure in the city that would benefit from additional backup power capabilities. And then simultaneously, it'll advance some of our sustainability measures that are ongoing here in the city. I think everyone understands that keeping the lights on at our critical infrastructure is good, especially in the face of newer hazards like public safety power shutoffs that we're continuing to reckon with and plan for. With that, I'll turn it over to Director Wheeler to talk to some of the specifics. **Director Wheeler:** Thank you so much, Kyle. As Kyle said, we've been working together for about four years on this project. The grant application alone took two years. We're really excited to be undertaking this. This project builds on the city's significant solar resources. They already have installed over six megawatts. The last project that we just completed was a $15 million project that installed three additional megawatts. And Yearout Energy, the same company, performed that project. So, they're becoming very deeply knowledgeable about the city's facilities. And they were actually approved by the Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, who defines this process and does the procurement for it and gives us the contracts and certifies the design that will be produced. Energy Minerals allowed this contractor to give us a discount because they are familiar with some of the facilities we'll be going back again to look at. So, like Kyle said, what our goal is here is to power some facilities at the city so that we can offer our community essential services when power is out. Everything from water at your tap to wastewater out of the toilet to a shelter place to if you need to go take a shower if you don't have power at your house. It's a really big deal. We actually started this grid, this grant application, before there was a power safety public safety power shutdown, and now we're going to lose power for significant periods of time. And so it's really exciting that we're undertaking this. Like Kyle said, this will not only endeavor to power those essential facilities through the power outages with our own generation resources, we add batteries to that, and we add logic to that, and then we can disconnect from the grid and power our own facilities with our own little microgrid. That's what it's all about. But it'll also potentially save us money when we're connected to the grid because what happens, say for instance, at Genoveva Chavez Community Center, they have almost a megawatt of solar there on that carport. And if you are connected to the grid and you have batteries, when some big generator that's trying to cool the ice rink or suck out the humidity out of the air turns on, it uses a lot of energy, and that is called demand, instantaneous demand, and the grid charges you a lot for that. In fact, it's probably more than half of the bill at Genoveva Chavez, which you can just imagine what that utility bill looks like, more than half of it. So, we can both power ourselves for the power outages, but also continue to reduce our energy costs with batteries. So, this will be the city's first foray into batteries as part of our renewable energy portfolio and as part of our Sustainable Santa Fe plan. A lot of people are doing microgrids. The military actually has an executive order to be able to function their bases for five to 15 days without power or water. And so they've already built a bunch of microgrids at their bases so that they can take care of their people and their operations. California utilities have actually even built microgrids outside of towns where their grid is unstable. And hospitals are building microgrids so they can run through power outages. Of course, they've always had banks of generators, but now they're adding the renewable microgrid. We may add generators, may be a recommended part of these microgrids. If you really need to be providing water to the city and we're not going to have quite enough solar, and we add the batteries and the logic, and we need a generator, or there's one already there, it'll be part of the logical microgrid that'll serve that facility. So, and then I mentioned already that Yearout did a really good job on our solar project. And not only did we, it's funny, we didn't even know the public safety power shutoff was coming when we applied for this grant with our solar project. We didn't know Biden was going to pass the Infrastructure Jobs Act, and we ended up getting, we're going to end up with about $2 million of tax credit out of those Biden initiatives. So, we didn't know that when we went in and did the solar project. So, who knows what the situation will be when we build these. We may be eligible for tax credits. There may be other incentives. PNM may come in and partner with us heavier than we expect because they'll be looking at how can we stabilize the grid overall. But this is just a really exciting project, and thank you so much, Madam Chair, for giving us an opportunity to share about it. **Councilor:** No, thank you, Director. I have a few comments, but any comments from the committee before Councilor Worth? **Councilor Worth:** Just a quick question, Madam Chair. And the infrastructure tax credits are still in place, or did we already get those, or what? **Director Wheeler:** Madam Chair, Councilor Romero Worth, those went into, they were good for anything that was installed after 2023. So, we ended up with about almost two megawatts of installed solar, about a megawatt and a half that get the credit. So, we already got one $1.2 million check. Most of it went to utilities because it was the BDD array and a water array. But we're also submitting another one this year, which we'll get, and the airport got some of that last one, and then we expect about another 700,000 out of an application this year. The credits are in place right now, but we don't think they're going to last long enough for us to get to our building construction. So, the construction will probably happen in two years, we'd start construction. So, we'll have to see what the landscape is at that time. **Councilor Worth:** Okay. So, just to make sure I understand you. So, we've already received some, and we're positioned to hopefully get a little bit more before changes are made. **Director Wheeler:** That's correct. **Councilor Worth:** Thank you, Madam Chair. **Councilor:** Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Lee Garcia. **Councilor Lee Garcia:** Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I heard a word, "defunct grant." Can we just elaborate on that a little bit because what does that mean? Does it mean that the funds are exhausting? Does it mean that we have X amount of time to utilize them? Give me some background on that. **Kyle Morgan:** Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia. So, the grant program as a whole at the national level has been canceled, I guess would be the right word. Our funds are encumbered, so they are safe. Once we're underway with this contract, the contractor will bill us, we'll pay them, and that'll be the end of it. **Director Wheeler:** Madam Chair, if I could add to that, Councilor Garcia, it means you can't make any more applications. And that is unfortunate because this will be, you know, like maybe a $20 million construction project, and we were really hoping that that 75% FEMA funded, but there's other ways to fund this, and there'll be other grant opportunities that we'll keep our eyes peeled for. And so that's really the downside of the defunct is that we were really looking forward to having it, it was called BRIC, fund the construction. **Councilor Lee Garcia:** Thank you. I guess that just, you know, again, we got to make sure we're not getting partial funding and then we stop. And so it makes us sharpen our pencils and things together. So, thank you. **Councilor:** Thank you, Councilor Lee Garcia. And I just want to say, so I think this is very exciting because for the power shutoff, we learned something very quickly. And so what was brought to us at public safety was we were not prepared. And so I wanted to see if you could just add to that, like the realization of, well, we have a need that needs to be addressed if we would have some type of emergency shutoff or we had a cut off for a long period of time to our resources. I think it became very clear when we started planning for that that we weren't prepared as a city. **Kyle Morgan:** Madam Chair, thank you for the question. So, I think to start answering this, I would say that all disasters are resource problems, and the way we overcome that is to be better resourced. So, if we can keep the lights on at our critical infrastructure, that's one less thing we need help to do. That's one less hurdle we need to get over, and we're going to get on the road to recovery much faster if we even have to get there at all. So, I guess that's largely what I would say. **Councilor:** Great. And I will say, and I'll just have you confirm this, is addressing a need that we did identify though when we were faced with the shutoff, the potential power shutoff. **Kyle Morgan:** I think we identified the need for additional backup power at city facilities during the hazard mitigation planning process. You know, like Director Wheeler said, we applied for this grant before public safety power shutoffs were even a thing. So, this isn't done purely in reaction to having public safety power shutoffs be something that we could experience here, but it certainly makes us more resilient to them. **Councilor:** Absolutely. So, that's very exciting. Thank you so much for being here. Councilor Castro. **Councilor Castro:** Yes. Sorry. Just quickly, Kyle, I just want to thank you so much for rolling with the punches and bearing with us. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Kyle. Thanks for being here. And did we have a motion? We did. No. Move to approve. Second. A motion and I have a second. Could I get a roll call, please? Certainly, Madam Chair. Councilor Romero Worth? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Chair Chavez? Yes. And Council Michael Garcia has left. I'll make a note of that. Motion passes. Okay, moving on to, thank you again. Moving on to item 7M, consideration of Bill Number 2025-17, adoption of Ordinance Number 2025 to be determined. Sponsored by Councilor Carol Romero Worth and Councilor Jamie Casset, a bill amending SFCC 1987 Section 25-1.8A to require the City of Santa Fe to continue to monitor the naturally occurring fluoride levels in its water system of representative sample locations and to end the requirement to add fluorides to the system. And we have Director Roach here to address any questions. And this was pulled by Councilor Castro, so I'll turn it over to you. We'll start with a motion to approve. Second. And just for discussion, so I got a couple emails from constituents regarding this issue that wanted a little more information. So could you, Director, just tell us a little bit about the naturally occurring fluoride and some of the changes in the recommendations? Madam Chair, Councilor Castro. Sure. We in the city have naturally occurring fluoride levels in our source water, and it's not removed by our treatment plants. Mostly, as you may know, we focus on using surface water, which means river water. We have two surface water sources, which is Santa Fe River and the Rio Grande. And those surface water sources make up about 80% of our total water portfolio. We have sampled fluoride from the treated water at each of those plants. And in general, the Canyon Road Water Treatment Plant water, which comes from the Santa Fe River, averages around 0.3 parts per million. And the Buckman Direct Diversion water averages about 0.6 parts per million. Samples taken in the distribution system tend to average about 0.5 parts per million. And then for context, currently our code asks us to target one part per million in the water, a range between 0.8 and 1.2 with a target of one part per million delivered. And that code is out of date. Current federal recommendations from the Center for Disease Control is 0.7 parts per million. And so the fact that we have naturally occurring background levels that are fairly close to that federal recommendation, and that it would be relatively expensive for us to implement the type of equipment we need to really accurately add that small of an amount to the water, leads us to recommend as staff that we hold off on adding more fluoride to the water and we more completely characterize the background concentrations. We continue to monitor and characterize the background concentrations in the water. Thank you. We appreciate that. And my understanding is that the fluoride, at least in powder form, is corrosive and could be dangerous for some of our staff members. Is that true? That is true. No further questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Romero Worth. Yeah, and I guess I want to underscore, and Director Roach, I'd like you to maybe spend a little bit more time about this. One of the things that this resolution does call for is monitoring of the system. And we'll learn more as that monitoring continues. And, you know, there's nothing that says we can't come back and revisit this once we have some more data and we know more about it. And maybe if there are changes in the Center for Disease Control or other emerging science that provides us direction, that that will be something that, you know, we can consider. And we'll have more monitoring as well. Am I correct in that? Madam Chair, Councilor Romero Worth, we do fairly actively monitor, but I don't think we've done a good job of really summarizing and reporting on that. And so, this bill does call for that monitoring to be included in our annual report each year that the Water Division does. So, I'm not sure we'll be doing extra monitoring because we already are required, but we will ensure that that monitoring is brought to a meaningful sort of summary in the annual water report. Yeah, and I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I didn't mean to suggest you were doing anything additional. It's just that I think that that's the perfect way, and I will refer to it that way, that the summarizing and reporting of it in that annual water report that the city does will be helpful in so that everybody can kind of see what we have and that'll be important for work going forward. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilor. Any other questions or comments? Right. I have a motion. Did I have a motion? Because I keep saying I do and I don't. Yes. Thank you. I have a motion. I have a second. Could I get a roll call vote, please? Certainly, Madam Chair. Councilor Romero Worth. Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Chair Chavez. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay, moving on. We will go to matters from staff. I will turn it over to you, Director. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I did want to take a moment to highlight some really thoughtful and innovative work coming out of Public Works. There is a $4 million match grant for transit. So I don't know if you're aware, but the state launched this federal grant matching program about a year ago, and we got, we actually matched our other FEMA grants. Kyle matched his disaster preparedness grant with a grant from the state. Zoe has matched a couple of stormwater projects with grants from the state. They turned me down for the microgrids because mine was too old. And then Gabrielle Chavez, our Director of Administration of Transit, had the brainchild to apply for a matching grant for a $4 million transit grant, and she got it. And the unusual thing about this is that usually transit grants are matched by our operating budget. So we don't have to like go find money. It's just that we're paying salaries, so they'll pay the other half. But in this case, the federal FTA will pay half our salaries, and then the state will pay the other half. So, it's $8 million altogether. So, I'm asking Gabrielle Chavez, the Transit Director of Administration and the Interim Director of Operations, Andrew Baca, to make a presentation at our next meeting so we can recognize them here in the room. But I just wanted to highlight that's on our agenda and there's really fantastic innovative work to bring in more money. Thank you so much. It's great news. Thank you for sharing. Director Roach. Nothing from me, Madam Chair. Thank you. Matters from the committee. No matters from the committee. Okay. Matters from Chair. Our next meeting, Monday, September 29th. And with that, we're, thank you. Lee, are you going to the Southside Library?