Quality of Life Committee Wed, Mar 5, 2025 · Quality of Life Committee https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/312 == Executive Summary == The Quality of Life Committee met to discuss several key issues, primarily focusing on a significant professional services contract for managing micro-communities for the homeless and the city's preparedness for potential widespread power outages. The committee approved a nearly $2 million contract with The Life Link for micro community management and services, intended to cover two sites over four years. This decision came after extensive discussion about the cost-effectiveness of such programs, the need for comprehensive wraparound services, and the challenges of housing placements. Another major point of discussion was an urgent update from the City Manager regarding a potential power shutdown by P&M due to high winds. The committee emphasized the critical need for proactive and widespread public communication, especially for vulnerable residents, and discussed the city's contingency plans, including setting up an Emergency Operations Center at the police station. The committee also approved an amendment to the Pallet PBC contract to account for a price increase on shelter units, ensuring the city could still access units at a favorable rate for existing plans. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda with amendments, primarily due to a canceled presentation. - Approved a professional services contract with The Life Link for $1,986,338.60 for micro community management and services for two sites over a four-year period. - Approved an amendment to the General Services contract item number 23-35 with Pallet PBC to adjust for a price increase on shelter units, ensuring the city could maintain its current purchase order at the original price. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda as amended — Passed unanimously. - Motion to approve the consent agenda as amended (after items B and C were pulled) — Passed unanimously. - Motion to approve an unspecified item (likely related to micro-communities or operator contracts) — Passed unanimously (Councilors Castro, Chavis, Garcia, Faulkner, and Madam Chair voted yes). - Motion to approve the Pallet shelter contract amendment — Passed unanimously (3-0). == Public Comment == A committee member expressed concern that non-profit organizations are applying for site usage without their boards being fully on board, calling it a "red flag." Another committee member highlighted the complexities of homeless programs and services, acknowledging the challenges faced by staff. A councilor emphasized the need for government subsidies in social services due to low salaries and high burnout. Councilor Garcia stressed the need for an immediate and widespread alert to all residents about the potential power shutdown, not just at 11:00 AM on the day of the event, to allow for adequate preparation. A public comment was also made regarding the lack of a City Council Town Hall meeting and the upcoming City Council meeting. == Topics == - Potential Power Outages - Micro Community Management Contract - Micro Community Costs & Services - Pallet Shelter Procurement - Contract Duration & Funding - Public Communication for Outages - Good Neighbor Agreement - Future Micro Community Sites == Full Transcript == We are live. Thank you so much. Marcel, I am seeing for some reason, I guess there's a Teams notification that someone is waiting in the lobby on the Teams. Okay, okay. But this is on Teams and not Zoom. Okay, let me just double-check this before we get started. I'm just going to join the Teams meeting real fast. It doesn't exist. I'm not sure. Okay, looks like we are good to go. So at 5:02 PM, I'm going to go ahead and call the Quality of Life Committee meeting to order. May I please get a roll call? **Councilor Castro:** But... **Councilor Chavez:** Here. **Councilor Garcia:** Present. **Councilor Faulkner:** Here. **Madam Chair:** Here. You have a quorum. Thank you so much. Moving on to approval of the agenda, and we do have a change. Marcel, if you could walk us through that, please. Yes, item D was initially pulled by... Oh, we're going to just presentation being pulled. We'll get to consent in a minute. Yes, so our presentation for the evening has been canceled due to an unforeseen circumstance, and we will go ahead and make sure that we get that rescheduled as soon as possible. I know that that's a really a presentation of high interest, but Henry has been called into the meetings to discuss potential power outages due to high winds tomorrow. So, with that, are there any other changes from the committee or staff? And if not, can I get a motion to approve as amended? **Councilor Castro:** Approve as amended. **Councilor Chavez:** Second. Motion and a second. We are hybrid, so if I can please get a roll call. **Councilor Castro:** Yes. **Councilor Chavez:** Yes. **Councilor Garcia:** Yes. **Councilor Faulkner:** Yes. **Madam Chair:** Yes. Motion passes. Thank you so much. And moving on to items pulled from the consent agenda. Marcel, at the end, what was pulled from consent? Okay, so items, I'm sorry, items B, C, and D were pulled. Item D has been unpulled by Councilor Castro and by you, by Councilor Chavez. And item C, which you initially pulled, is still on the pulled agenda. So B and C have still been pulled. D has no longer. All right, wonderful. So, anything else pulled at this moment? And if not, can I get a motion to approve as amended? **Councilor Castro:** To approve as amended. **Councilor Chavez:** Second. Motion and a second. Take your pick. We will go ahead for a roll call, please. **Councilor Castro:** Yes. **Councilor Chavez:** Yes. **Councilor Garcia:** Yes. **Councilor Faulkner:** Yes. **Madam Chair:** Yes. Motion passes. Wonderful. Thanks so much. Okay, moving on to our first item pulled. It is Item B: Requests for approval of a Professional Services contract with The Life Link for micro community management and services in the total amount of $1,986,338.60. We have Kristen Woods, our project manager, as well as Director Julie Sanchez here. I pulled this, as well as did Councilor Garcia, so Councilor Garcia, I will send it over to you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, team, tonight. A couple questions. At first, maybe if you want to give an overview of what this contract entails, and just for public knowledge, and I'll go and move over the questions. **Julie Sanchez:** Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, I just wanted to apologize. The captions on both of these items actually need to be updated. The caption makes it sound specific to Christ Lutheran and SOS, and we actually are going to get those captions updated before Finance Committee and Governing Body. So we're going to clarify the captions a little bit more. We had to submit in a rush, so I just wanted to apologize for that piece. And then just to give a brief overview of the Professional Services contract, as much as I can, because I, I wish legal was here because we can only speak about so much. This was the operator contract for our micro community through the RFP that we had released back in October. And so this outlines the service provider for our future micro communities. Sorry, Julie, can you, can you give us what the updated caption is going to be? Thank you at this time, just so we can have it on the record. **Julie Sanchez:** So, Madam Chair, our updated caption would be "Request for approval of a professional service contract with The Life Link for micro community management and services in the total amount of..." Oh, so this one actually wouldn't be as impacted as the other one. Okay, okay. So this one is still okay. Yeah. All right, great. Glad to hear. Councilor Garcia, back over to you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going through the contract, and this is on page, I apologize, it doesn't have a page number on the page, but four of 23 of the packet, under one subsection, "Operator," it says, "The operator will provide onsite social support services, 24/7 oversight, and provide basic property management services to two micro communities." We haven't determined any locations yet, am I correct on that? **Julie Sanchez:** Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, that's correct. Okay. And we have the hopes of implementing more than two. And so my question is, is this contract only going to cover two, or the broader hope that we're wanting to implement? **Julie Sanchez:** So, Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, right now we're looking at two sites given the contract amount. So, because we can't determine exactly how much funding is going to be used to manage both sites, we're sticking to two for now. I think as we develop the program and bring on board more sites, we'll probably release another, hopefully not RFP, hopefully an RFA. Okay. Out of curiosity, how much does Life Link receive in support for the operation of that site? **Julie Sanchez:** Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, right now the, you mean the overall total that Life Link is receiving for homeless services, or just for, just to operate? Because it's my understanding they're operating the Safe After Safe Site micro community site at Christ Lutheran. They're still the operator, correct? **Julie Sanchez:** Madam Chair, Councilor, that's correct. Okay. So what are they, what are the costs associated with that site? The current site is looking, it ranges between... And we're talking about the Christ Lutheran site, just to clarify. **Julie Sanchez:** Yes, yes, Christ Lutheran. So do you have, so we would have to check, but right now, because of staff fluctuations, and because we're on a reimbursement basis, it goes anywhere from like $30,000 to $60,000 a month, depending. The reason why I ask, I'm trying to see if they're comparable to this proposal, which is in front of us, which is somewhat in that ballpark. I mean, because ultimately, it's looking at a site. Is it over a four-year period? My, how long is this contract? **Julie Sanchez:** So, Madam Chair, Councilor, because it's RFP, we can go up to four years. So what is the plan? Because $2 million is a lot of money, and if it, we can stretch that over four years, it seems implementable. But if it's $2 million for one year, I think that's where we've got to begin to re-evaluate, is this the appropriate contract moving forward? So we don't have a specific time frame. We're not locking into a time frame with this contract, because I, the way I read it was four years. We're, we're moving on with them for four years at this rate. And that's, am I, so can you help me learn more, I guess? **Julie Sanchez:** Yeah, of course, that's my job. So, Madam Chair, Councilor, this rate was what was negotiated and put into the RFP. And so, because we don't have sites selected, we're basically using contract as a pool of funding that could be used for up to four years. Now, hopefully they don't expend $1.9 million in one year. I don't anticipate that happening. But we do have community partners that would step in and kind of help us fill in gaps in services for that particular funding. So we, right now it's $1.9 million over four years. I imagine that there will be, we're going to work with our community partners to fill in gaps, so we won't 100% be funding the two micro communities through this operator contract. So that'll stretch both our money as well as the investment into this project. Okay. I guess what, and can you help me understand in more so the public what services are being provided? Just because this is again, I'm going to use reference of Christ Lutheran, and going off of the numbers you gave me, $30,000 to $60,000 a month, that's costing us for roughly 10 pellet shelters. What services, what, what, why is it at that cost? What services are being provided at that rate? **Julie Sanchez:** So, Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, I'll let Kristen answer that since she oversees the current contract. **Kristen Woods:** Good evening, Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia. The Life Link is the service provider at the current micro community at Christ Lutheran Church. They provide 24/7 onsite assistance or security. They provide meals. They provide case management. They provide services. They also just assist residents with day-to-day needs and try to help them with different life skills, as well as working to place them into housing. So far, they've been really successful at the current micro community at Christ Lutheran in helping people to get into detox, get into housing, get IDs, get social security cards, work through their trauma, and learn life skills that help them move into permanent housing situations. Okay, thank you. Possible, I'd like to get a breakdown of those costs, just because that, that, that is a fair amount of money when you're looking, especially on to even $30,000 a month, that's $1,000 a day it costs to operate that site. And I, you know, look, just thinking security services, meals, case management, is that really come at that overhead cost, $1,000? And, and, and the way I'm looking at it is, could the money be invested in a manner where we can see a broader impact in the community? Because right now it's $1,000 a day for 10 individuals. And that's, we've, we've got to look at it from that context, right? And so when we look at the outcomes, that's where, when if we can say, well, it's costing us this, but we've moved 100 people through this system, understandable. And I think that's maybe we can have a broader conversation offline in regards to what has been achieved, because I know there's been achievements, because at the end of the day, again, I, I look back at what the ultimate cost is, not only even the thousand, we got to remember the initial investment of purchasing the pellet shelters, as well as the infrastructure needs, because there's a lot of resources that go into just implementing the pellet shelters in general. And so, is there a way to put a cap per year, just that way we safeguard ourselves from spending $1.9 million in a one-year period? **Julie Sanchez:** So, Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, I will say in looking at the original contract, the biggest expense, and I know the city has felt this, is security. So right now, security makes up about, I would say almost close to 50% of the contract amount. And that was something that was negotiated in Good Neighbor Agreement is having security onsite 24/7. Now, that's something we could negotiate as we enter into this new contract as we build and develop these two new sites. But that's going to be based on the community and what they come up with during the Good Neighbor Agreement process. And so the other reason why it's hard for us to cap it is, and we're going through this right now with our advisory committee, and we'll talk more about this next week, is specific populations that we may be looking at addressing in these new sites. So the needs of people who have ADA or physical challenges, those cost of services will probably be higher than individuals who are maybe having pets at the site. Same thing goes for families, right? Like the cost for serving families at a site may be at a higher rate than what we determine, you know, what our current site is. So I'm using a little bit of caution around capping until we get a really clear picture of what those costs are on a monthly basis. And the way I would look at it is, we, we don't have an infinite amount of money, and we, we have to look at it from the context of what services can the city ultimately afford to provide, and where can the city partner and leverage relationship to get, ensure that those services are provided? Because I think at the end of the day, we want to ensure that we're setting up a model for success, but we also want to ensure that we're setting up a model that is going to be an adequate investment of the taxpayer dollar. And at the end of the day, those are the... decisions that we as a governing body are charged with is, is the investment worth it at the end of the day? And having the results been proven helps to justify that. And I think that's where having this additional information is important because it'd be an interesting question to pose to my constituents: is it worth $1,000 a day to have these sites in operation for 10 folks? I don't know the answer to that because I'd love to hear the feedback from not only my constituents but residents across the city because again, that is a significant amount. That's $30,000 a day. That's almost the amount of rent for an apartment. It could be nearing the cost of somebody's mortgage. And is that much more of a sustainable use of the resources? And I think that's when we get down to the brass tacks. We've got to understand how the dollar is being invested. And I hate to put it in that perspective, but those are the decisions we're charged with up here. So that's why I'm asking, are we going to be back here in two years saying we need another $2 million to operate these sites when we've invested, for example, $2 million with locations like Santa Fe Suites, and it's a different type of more long-term support system for housing for residents? And just to confirm, this is only two. We've potentially, I mean, through the conversations, there was three, four, I mean, it was unlimited from what we were hearing in regards to we were waiting for the RFP for private property usage, but there was the proposal or thought of using roughly three city-owned sites. So I guess let me ask that question: where are we at in that process with, I know Director Hammond Paul was going to give a presentation tonight on how we're moving forward with the pallet shelter process, but again, if we've only got two here and there's going to be much more coming forward, what can you help me complete the circle here in regards to what's moving forward? Madam Chair: Garcia, so when we released the RFP, we asked operators, "What can you do with the amount of funding you're requesting?" And I can't get into too many details, but this operator said they could do two sites with this amount of money. And so that's what we're moving forward with. Now, next week, we'll be doing a much more formal presentation to the full governing body about our site selection process and our plans for community engagement. And so you'll learn all about that process, which has been very fun. And then we'll also be able to talk more about the priority populations that we want to see at this site. So that'll all come next week at the governing body meeting. Okay, and as far as locations, I know you might not be able to disclose applicant locations, but how successful were we in process and seeking private locations? Madam Chair: Counselor, oh, you mean the nonprofit providers? Yeah, so somebody that's not providing these services, somebody that's ultimately providing the land or similar to Christ Lutheran. I know we had a second round that we offered up. How many applicants were there in that process? Madam Chair: Counselor Garcia, right now we have two organizations. They are hesitant right now. They have to really bring their board. We have actually quite a few presentations to give boards and their constituency to get them on board with this process. So we're kind of putting those as like, we're thinking about it as like phase three of this project. And with that phase three project, we would probably not be seeking city funding. We would be looking at our partners at the state and foundations to fund those. Okay, thank you for that. I'll just say for the record, it's a bit of a red flag if an organization's applying and they haven't connected or got the approval of their board and the board is having a follow-up with that. That's just my comment on the matter. Thank you for the responses. I appreciate it. No other questions. Madam Chair: Counselor Castro. Yes, really quickly, I just wanted to thank staff for the presentation and note those priority populations. I know that you've already presented to us, but it was my understanding that it is veterans and youth. Can you talk a little bit, and you already did talk about the ADA access, but how those populations might be, have some needs that might be a little more costly? Yeah, so Madam Chair, so Madam Chair, Counselor Castro, that's a really good point. We haven't quite, we haven't fully selected the priority populations. We're actually leaning on advisory committee to help us work through that process. But if we were, say, to choose youth and veterans, that population comes with a whole host of needs. When I think about veterans, there's a lot of substance misuse and there's a lot of post-traumatic stress that's involved with that population. And so you would really need comprehensive on-site behavioral health services to be able to support people as they're going through their trauma. And veterans, very interestingly enough, if we had a site that was very quiet and did not have, for example, like fireworks, because that's a huge trigger for people who are addressing PTSD, that would be like a priority population for much more secluded and quiet site. When we think about ADA accessibility, that's both in, which a lot of our veterans have physical challenges. We would have to make sure that this site is able to accommodate both wheelchairs. We would have to get larger units. Like we would have to make sure that, you know, there's not a lot of gravel, for example, that people can trip and fall. So there's a lot of things that we need to take into consideration with specific populations. And so that's the reason why it could become more costly as we these sites and look at priority populations. Thank you so much. And there's also been testimony in this chamber that we have a very, our unhoused population is leaning towards folks that are a little bit older and they are aging. Does that maybe play into some of the extra needs that we might need from our providers? Madam Chair: That's correct. So now you're actually thinking about like healthcare related, so bringing people on site who can do healthcare assessments, helping with medication management. That's a whole another realm of like supporting this population and also a very expensive piece. And so what our operator is going to have to think about is like those expenses, right? Like do we, who do we partner with to bring in those clinical services? Do we need gap funding to fill where Medicare may not be filling? Like how do we support people transitioning from these particular units into longer term care? One of the things that breaks my heart with this population is hospice care. Like what happens when somebody's terminal? Like what are the next steps? Do we provide hospice care on site for people who are seniors? It's a very, it's a very touchy topic that we will have to go over with the operator as we choose these sites and the priority populations that will be residing there. And then one final question, just in my work with some of the case managers, I know that getting folks vouchers is not as difficult as finding them housing. How are we doing with getting folks placed once they do have a voucher? Madam Chair: Counselor Castro, I don't like using the V-word because it's such a complex and intense system that people have to, have to be a part of. And housing case management has been an important part of our current micro community because that process can be so cumbersome, right? You have to do a VDAT, which is very invasive. You have to make sure that there's eligibility criteria that are met for particular voucher. And even though we have a lot of vouchers in our community, there's not necessarily the placements to support people to be in those, those placements successfully. So that's another thing that we've been thinking about. And at some point, we're going to give another presentation around our landlord liaison program, which we're building. So there's a lot of things around that piece because that has been an issue. Great, thank you so much. And I just want to remind ourselves and the public the complexities of some of these programs and the services that we provide. So thank you so much. And I see the floor. Thank you so much, Counselor. I'd also pull this item, so I'm going to just jump in and ask a few. Okay, I am also concerned that someone has either bid for these services or has been a bid who their boards are not on, are not on board. That's concerning. We shouldn't even consider an organization. They don't even have their board. Like, so. Madam Chair: Just to clarify, it's a little bit more complex than that. It's not just that like the board is on board, right? But if it's a church, there's a constituency that's attached to that church. And it was something that was complex with our CLC site, right? Like the, I don't know if they're governed by a board or I can't remember how it is, but they were all on board, but then they had to make sure they brought their constituency on board to support it. And so there were a lot of conversations and a lot of education to help support getting that particular site stood up. So it's not necessarily that the board is not on board, but there's a lot of other complex components that exist in order for a site to be fully approved. Also, just to clarify, the LifeLinks board is not the board that's not on board. So it's not the contract we're approving right now. It's a, that would be the site selection as opposed to the service provider. Thank you. So, so I did pull this item as well. I had a couple of questions. Do you guys have something to say? Need anything over there? No, okay. So I, I also was curious about the decisions on breakdowns on how much is paid in this particular year. You brought it down to two sites. Does the size of the site come into play with these as well? And, and how was that considered as we were, because I know it's, it is a bit of a puzzle piece. I know that this is a pool that we're looking at because there is still a site selection. There's different amounts that can be on there. If we are looking at families, that's going to be a different, you know, combination. So when we, and, and if you don't have this tonight, that's fine. We can have this conversation at finance. But, but again, you know, understanding how, how those dollars are allocated and how that is going to be billed would be extremely helpful. Do you have any additional information on that at this time other than what you've already said? Because I, you know, to go into that. Madam Chair: Counselor Cassett, the sites that we're looking at bringing on will house up to 50 units, but it depends on the size and layout of each site, which is criteria that we're taking into consideration with our advisory board. I will add that, you know, having more units per site is much more cost effective. So our 10-unit pilot project is not, it's, you know, we, we could, a lot of the things that we're able to do there, we could do for around the same price for a lot more impact. Okay. And so that, that will also come into play in terms of how we are, or maybe it doesn't, because you're saying it's more cost effective. I don't know if there's specific ratios. You know, I always think about it with childcare that the bigger you go, you have like the specific ratio that is state mandated. Is there a ratio of staff recommended per number of pallet shelters on a specific site? Madam Chair: That's a great question because every single site that we have visited has a different ratio. Okay. And again, it also depends on the population. So folks who are seniors, who may have physical challenges, may require more oversight than say single individuals. Yeah, it's just really hard to tell. And even when you have families involved, there's going to have to be a specific ratio for folks just for families and children. So. Okay, so it sounds like as we select sites and move forward. with those. That's going to be an area that we'll be able to do the deep dive into of really understanding what the staff intensity and therefore what the cost is going to be. Yeah, and so if I'm also understanding correctly, this specific contract for operators, so this is more if, now correct me if I'm wrong, the operation contract, there might be some supplies in there like consumables, but this also goes towards salaries for LifeLink staff that would be manning this. Madam Chair: That's correct. Okay, all right, thank you. I appreciate that. And I know this has been, this is a really big challenge with, you know, the social services, and somebody who came from the social services, the fact that we are not in a money-making business, and so we don't get paid very much. And so I understand some of the hesitance around how expensive these are. And it is one of the big issues. And again, back to childcare, we have seen the fact that government has to subsidize this because otherwise you can't pay people enough for them to be able to live. Individuals who work in the social services world, this is constantly a challenge that because it is not a profit-driven sector, it often is not one that comes with very high salaries. So I know that that does get challenging in terms of how much this is going to cost us and our partners. But I do always want to bring it back to that perspective, is that to provide these services, one, these are really hard jobs, very, there's high burnout. You do actually have to have a good amount of education. A lot of people have master's level education that are doing this work and therefore dealing with student debt. And still, I'm assuming, I would assume that the salaries that they are provided are, they're underpaid. We know that they are. And it often is a, it is a work of service, you know, that when people are taking this on, it is public service. I also know that we've had a lot of conversations, and maybe we'll get into this with the presentation or maybe not, but we frequently spoke about how much the city was spending to not solve homelessness. Do you happen to remember that number? I know we did some calculations a couple years ago that had to do with calls for service, with cleanup, with the parks, and it was a pretty hefty number. Do you have that recollection? Madam Chair: It's funny, in my head, I have so many numbers floating in my head these days that I want to say it was 14 million. That's what I have as well, so I'm, it could easily be million. Yeah, and that was a while ago. That was actually before we started doing a lot of this work. So it would be interesting, you know, as we think about that. But that is also something, you know, and I spoke about this the other day with the, and you and Johan and I spoke about this around, you know, how we start to analyze some of these social programs. And that what's really difficult is how do we analyze not just the success based on the results, but what would the problem be had we not done the intervention to begin with? Which is, it is such a challenging, it is a challenging evaluation. And we do talk about this in the public health sector quite a lot, but it is an important one for us to do as best as we can, or, you know, any of the social sciences, to try to quantify because that number does matter in terms of what that investment looks like as opposed to what the scenario would be. And it also does help us target interventions a bit more as well. You know, that if we know that there's a specific intervention that, well, you know, it has this result, but it has prevented, from what we can tell, this other scenario from occurring, how we can invest those dollars. So, I again, would just ask that, and I know that you, that the three of us will be having this conversation and hopefully be having a presentation about how we can do that. But as we think about both Christ Lutheran and as we are analyzing the success of these programs, that we look at that as well. The other piece that I always bring up is that for most social programs, public health programs, it takes a number of years before we actually get to see the full success. I know that one of the reasons we are looking at these extremely, they're very cost-intensive models, is that, you know, there was the whole housing first model that didn't work because it turned out that if you just gave individuals housing and not provide the wraparound social services, that we saw a lot of, a lot of individuals reverting back to, you know, old behaviors, whether that would be substance abuse, whether that would be crime, or just, you know, finding themselves homeless once again. And so it was not a very effective program. So we really have almost, we've grown in our philosophy of this field, both just not just looking at housing first models and finding a stable place, but really understanding that the wraparound services that come with that housing is the key for this actually being something that can make a sustainable difference in somebody's life as opposed to not. And therefore, just throwing away money, even though we might get more people housed all at once, it doesn't necessarily have the longevity. Do you have anything, I don't know if you have anything to add for that? That's my own waxing poetic. Madam Chair: I think one of the most important things just to clarify is that these micro-communities are actually the most cost-effective measure. So rather, so rather than keeping folks unhoused or keeping folks in even motel conversion programs, which are very costly and take a lot of time to set up and implement, these micro-communities in the short term, and we're talking short term, like three to five years, that it's actually much more cost-effective for cities. And I have a number of evaluations that have been done across numerous states that show that. When you guys do the presentation, can you, can you dive into more detail about that? I don't know if that's already planned, but I know that that'd be something I'd be interested in, and I would imagine other members of the committee would be as well. Thank you. Appreciate that. Any other questions or comments? And if not, do we have a motion? Move to approve. Second. Motion and a second. May I please have a roll call? Councilor Castro: Yes. Councilor Chavis: Let the, yes. Councilor Garcia: Yes. Councilor Faulkner: Yes. Madam Chair: Yes. Motion passes. Thank you so much. Are moving on to item C. I'm going to read the caption as is, and then Julie, if you can correct it, that would be wonderful. This is request for approval of amendment number one to General Services contract item number 23-35 with Pallet PBC in the total amount of $1,466,100 to adjust for price increase with no change in total compensation and extend term to June 30th, 2026 to provide shelter units and facilities at the safe outdoor space at Christ Lutheran Church. And we have Kristen Woods, program manager, and Julie Sanchez here as well. Before I pass it over to Councilor Garcia, who did pull this item, if you could give us the correct caption and provide some explanation as to the differences between what the captions say and what this item actually does, I would appreciate it. Madam Chair: Thank you for that. So the caption, and again, I apologize, should read, "Request for approval of amendment number one to General Services contract item number 23-35 with Pallet PBC in the total amount of $1,466,000." Oh my gosh. "To adjust for price increase, no change in total compensation, and extend the term to June 30th, 2026 to provide shelter and facility units." Period. So striking "at the safe outdoor space at Christ Lutheran Church." Correct. As the caption reads, it sounds like we are expanding the Christ Lutheran Church, which for the record, we definitely are not. Thank you. No, I appreciate that. That was very confusing and thank you for clearing that up. Councilor Garcia, I will pass it over to you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So just to clarify, this is only extending the agreement that we have with them. But as noted in previous meetings, after July 1, the cost of these shelters are going to raise. Am I understanding that correctly? Madam Chair: Councilor Garcia, the, um, this amendment is going through in order to adjust to price increases that Pallet PBC has already put into place. Um, this is a standard contract amendment to extend the contract and adjust for price increases. Um, we are, we can do nothing about them having increased their prices except for, you know, try to preempt that and plan ahead. Gotcha. And so let me ask this question. We, you know, there was a big rush of why we needed to get that money allocated a couple weeks back. Um, and we were going to make the all these purchases before the price went up. Why not just let the contract expire? I mean, we're not planning on buying anymore in the immediate. And if we do, we can go back out to bid because we don't know if there's going to be any other entities that might be able to provide them at a lower cost. I mean, I think it's, let's let the market see where they're going to be at. So is there any reason why we're just not letting this contract expire given we're going to get the product we need from them before it expires? Madam Chair: Councilor Garcia, that's a great question. And I think right now it's just to give us the option for another year. Now, given what's happening at the federal level, we're preemptively trying to plan for the cost to basically increase across the entire entirety of these type of units. And so, um, that's really why I think we want to go with Pallet for the time being. The other piece is the ITB process. Um, we would have to go back out to a pretty intensive procurement. And so this just allows us to be effective with staff time. Understandable. Can you help me learn more about the, the price increase? Madam Chair: Councilor Garcia, uh, tariff. Uh, a lot of the units that, um, they're created with aluminum and other products from overseas. And so because of potential, you know, or because of the price of those, those actual goods, um, Pallet has had to do an increase. And we may be looking at another increase, um, in the next couple of months. Understandable. And I apologize, let me rephrase the question. The price increase in this contract, not, not necessarily any potential tariff increases. The price increase that's associated with this because we have a set price that's going till the end of June, and then July to June of 2026, there's a price increase. What does that price increase look like? Madam Chair: Councilor Garcia, apologies for not being clear, but the price increase has already happened. So the price increase took effect, I think, beginning of February, if I'm not mistaken. And so this contract amendment is just to adjust for that price increase. So again, let me ask the, what does that price increase look like? Madam Chair: Councilor, I think it's five per 10%, something like that on each unit. Okay. And so should we want to purchase more beyond, have we, have we begun the process to purchase, I know what, what we allocated a good deal amount to, where are we at with that in regards to ensuring that we purchased them with that previously locked in rate before the rate increase that you mentioned that took effect in February? Madam Chair: Councilor, as you will know, we did a BAR, um, and that BAR actually helped us lock in the original price before this increase took place. Right. But where are we at with purchasing them? Because it's March, and before you know it, it'll be June. And from what, from what we were told is that we had to have these all purchased by June. So how long do we have for the lowest, you know, the first initial price to expire? Madam Chair: Sir, um, I think it's trying to th I think if we have a PO in place, I believe we do, locked in with that previous price, and we use the BAR to do that. But we don't plan on purchasing any more units because that was our full budget for this project. I'm getting confused. I'm sorry. We, so we did the BAR because, and the big push is why we needed to get all the money out now, even though we had some sitting in storage, was because we were locked down, locked in at a lower price, and that price, that lower price was going to expire. And so the question is, where are we at with the process and purchasing the units at that lower rate? When does that lower rate expire? When does this new rate that kicked in for the rest of the world, that kicked in in February, when does that kick in for the City of Santa Fe? Madam Chair, Counselor, it's been a long day, so I think I got it. I think I've got it, but please correct me if I'm wrong. So with that BAR, we issued a PO to hold those units for us at that price. So we had $2 million that was allocated, and we executed a PO to hold those price, hold those units for us at that low cost. You are correct in that starting in June 1st, if we do, or June 30th, if we do choose to buy more units, they're going to be at the new higher cost. So, and that PO for that BAR expires on June 30th. Gotcha. Okay. And last question, I apologize. Should we want to explore more kind of micro-community style housing outside of Pallet, this does not prohibit us from doing that, right? Locking into this contract, do we solely have to go with them, or if we say, "Well, we've done our order with the PO, we spent, you know, the 2 million, and we're in a position where we, there's a new different type of Pallet, and we want to maybe see if they can give us a better deal," does that prohibit us from exploring those any additional lower cost-saving opportunities, or are we solely, we're locked in and this is our only supplier for the till the end of this contract? Madam Chair, Counselor Garcia, we can explore other options should we have the funding and the staff capacity. So maybe you can write it for to issue an ITB, and it is a long process. So we would have to, you know, get all the determination scopes of work, we would have to post. I mean, it's a pretty long process, but yes, we could do that while we are under contract with Pallet currently. Okay, thank you. Just wanted to make sure we're keeping our options open. So thank you. No other questions, Madam Chair. Thank you so much, Council Castro. Thank you so much to presenters. I did pull this because I was concerned that we were expanding our current community, but I do want to take the opportunity to talk a little bit about the other products that Pallet offers, just so folks understand that it isn't just the home, but there are some other products that we might be able to purchase from Pallet at a lower cost. What might those be? Madam Chair, Counselor Castro, that's a good question. So Pallet offers a very large array of units, everything from, which I think are really cool, laundry units. They also offer, what do you call, hygiene units, but they also offer like a shared community space, so almost like a community unit. Common area. Thank you, Mr. City Manager. And those are different types of products that they offer, and they're also looking at doing, I think it's some sort of solar investment in some of these units, which is also new. So they do have quite a catalog. They're amazing ADA accessible units as well. But yeah, they do have quite the catalog. And my understanding is they also have a project management component to some of the work they do now, where they didn't when we initially bought these. Is that correct? Madam Chair, Counselor Castro, that's correct. Okay. So just to be clear, we are not looking at buying any more units currently. We are looking at just locking in the price and giving ourselves the option if we want to buy some additional products, not just Pallet units from Pallet. Is that correct? Madam Chair, Counselor Castro, that is correct. And we are not expanding CLC also again on the record. Awesome. Thank you so much. No further questions. Thank you so much. Just to note, Counselor Chavez did leave at 5:47 PM. So if we can add that to the meeting minutes, that'd be wonderful. Are there any other questions or comments at this time? I know Counselor Faulkner is out of the room, but we do still have a quorum. And if not, can I get a motion to approve? Second. Motion and a second. May I please have a roll call? Counselor Castro? Yes. Counselor Garcia? Yes. Madam Chair? Yes. Motion passes. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Okay, that is the end of our business for today. Let's go ahead and move. Thank you both for being here so much. Really appreciate it. Moving on to Matters from Staff. Any Matters from Staff today? Absolutely. City Manager, you are staff. Please, please go right ahead. Is your mic on? More trouble with it. It isn't there yet. Hold on. I wanted to stop by and give the four of you a little bit of an update on the information I provided earlier today. Assuming this qualifies as quality of life, and I think it does. We had, the community has been advised that with the big wind incident that's expected tomorrow afternoon, that P&M was considering, and they still haven't decided for sure, and they probably won't until 11:00 tomorrow, but they are considering a power shutdown because obviously this, this day and age, with the experience with fires, that there's always the concern utility companies, electrical companies will, will, will cause fires. So they're, they're very seriously considering doing that tomorrow. The earlier reports up until a couple hours ago were that it would incorporate almost all of Santa Fe, kind of thing. The revised report is that big part of the city in the pretty much the middle of the city, including downtown and all the way to Airport Road, would be not included. So that's a big change for us. It, it makes our Emergency Management response much better than the scenario before. But it's still, it still means there's big parts of the community that could be affected. And the challenge that affects this is that they're not, they've never done this before, and they're not sure they can turn the power back on in a hurry. In fact, they think it could take a full 24 hours to get the system inspected and turned back on. So we could have a big part of our city without power for a long period of time. We've made lots of efforts today working with a lot of different parties. In fact, at 6:00, I've got to go get on a phone call with the state about what their reaction to all of this may be. But I wanted to give the four of you an update, and I will be communicating to the entire City Council by email both tonight and tomorrow as to what's going on with this. We're, we're, I think as organized as we can get in such short order. I think our team has done a good job preparing to try to get communications out, trying to make sure we've got backup generators. We've had to secure backup generators for, I think, five different locations to make sure that we're up and running. Our EOC interestingly doesn't have a backup generator, so we are, we are using the police station tomorrow for that purpose. I'll send suggestions to all of you as to, as to how you can help us. If, if you need to be reached, we need to be able to do that. And we probably would want to assemble here at City Hall because the City Hall should not be in the area that goes down. We should be up at City Hall. And so we'd probably ask that, that the Council, if you're interested in being involved, to come to City Hall and we operate out of here. You don't necessarily need to, but I'll be in touch with you to let you know if we have. Anyway, I just want to give that update since four of you were going to be here. And I'll communicate with the rest of the City Council by, by email updates, and we'll keep you informed tomorrow. Wonderful. Thank you so much, Mr. Scott. Of course, we can't do questions from us, but if the public wants to get up-to-date information, where should they go? The information will be provided on all of our social media, our website. Keep an active running communication on that. And hopefully P&M is going to do a better job of communicating what they need to communicate. Up to this point, it's been, the information's been a little bit scarce, but they did a press conference 3:30. They did commit that they'll make a decision by 11:00 tomorrow. The, the worst of the storm, the, the winds are is expected between 1:00 and 7:00 tomorrow afternoon. But the, the downside of all of this, if they do decide to turn it off, and they may not, but if they do, it could be off for quite a while for those who are affected. So that's what we're really, some people have special needs for that electricity in their homes, and everybody's trying to, to reach the people that need to know so that they can make arrangements. We're much happier right now. We were three hours ago. We thought three hours ago the whole city would be down, and now it would. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Really appreciate you coming to give us that update. Thank you. Thank you. Anytime. Yeah. Okay. I've got to go get on the 6:00 call, but can. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. So you have to be on a 6:00 call. Okay. So any other matters from staff if we can pop through those quickly if we have some? Madam Chair, I have a list, but in my understanding, keep it short to provide comments for Mr. Scott. Yes, absolutely. Because, because it sounds like when we get to Matters from the committee that there are some comp. Got it. I'll, I'll yield my time, ma'am. Okay, great. To Matters from the committee. Counselor Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Scott, we, there should be an alert going out to folks whether or not they're going to cut power off or not. We should be sending out an alert to every single resident in the City of Santa Fe letting them know that this is a potential, and that way folks can appropriately plan because we don't want to be alerting folks at 11:00 that, hey, at 1:00 PM the power might be going out. We want to give them as far advanced notice as possible. Schools have been informed, hospitals, and we're using all of our communication method. Police, Public Safety got those alerts. They do. We're using all of those tools to let people. Okay. Well, I haven't received any communication on my device, and, and we, we need to let every single person with one of these devices throughout the entire city know. And even reverse calling. I know, check with PD. We, PD has the ability to reverse call, reverse call every single person that's in the potential affected area letting them know that it is a potential because the last thing we'd want is for somebody to say, "We didn't know," and somebody not have power for their oxygen machine, somebody not have power to all the vital ride to get out of their home when their cell phone might have died and they can't charge it. And it's better for us to be proactive and be safe and say, "Well, we're prepared in the instance that it did go out, didn't go out, enjoy your power." But I think you'll be getting something very short back. They're working on. Okay, thank you. We do not have a City Council Town Hall meeting today. We have a Quality of Life Committee meeting that will be finishing up in about two minutes. We have a City Council meeting next Wednesday, March 12th at 5:00 PM in this, in this room. Director Nelson can go ahead and help you. Thank you, sir. No problem. Counselor Faulkner, did you have some comments? I would also make the comment that if, if we know which counselor's districts are going to be without electricity, I would like to know so it's mine. I can handle my constituents. I'll send out the map. I will tell you that the map is very difficult to be precise. A lot of talk about that. Mr. Scott, I think you need to get more, more into the mic, please. We're not actually, we're not entirely sure, um, that P&M is entirely sure at this point. where it will be. They've been very cautious about being precise because I don't think they really know. But I'll send out the map that was displayed at their press conference at 3:30, which was the first time we learned that a big part of the city was not going to be. Thank you so much for alerting us. Thank you. Any other comments from members of the committee? Matt Matters from the Chair. You covered the big issue right now, so looking forward to more of that communication and just getting it out to the public any which way that we can. So thank you. Really, really appreciate you being here. Thanks. No problem. Thank you. Our next meeting will be Wednesday, March 19th, at 6:00 p.m. We are adjourned. Thank you all.