Public Works and Utilities Committee Meeting Mon, Aug 19, 2024 · Public Works and Utilities Committee https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/38 == Executive Summary == The City Council discussed the proposed relocation of the Land Use Department from City Hall to a condominium space, a move intended to address severe space constraints within City Hall and improve public access to Land Use services. While the relocation offers benefits like better accessibility and a more efficient workspace for the department, councilors, particularly Councilor Garcia, expressed significant concerns about the lack of a comprehensive, long-term plan for city space utilization, the substantial costs involved (estimated at $1.5 million for this move, plus ongoing lease costs for other departments), and the perceived 'musical chairs' approach to departmental moves. Staff acknowledged the absence of an overarching plan but indicated a presentation on a Consolidated City Services Center is forthcoming in about a month. Despite these concerns, the committee ultimately decided to move the Land Use Department relocation proposal forward to the full governing body without a specific recommendation, passing this motion unanimously. Staff were tasked with investigating potential uses for the vacated City Hall space and exploring options for retrofitting it without triggering extensive code compliance costs. The broader discussion highlighted the critical need for a strategic approach to city infrastructure, as City Hall itself is not code compliant and would require over $10 million to bring it up to current standards if significant modifications were made. == Key Decisions == - Agenda approved unanimously (3-0). - Consent Agenda approved unanimously (3-0), with Item E (Land Use Department Relocation) pulled for discussion. - Motion to move the Land Use Department relocation item forward to the next committee/governing body without a recommendation passed unanimously (3-0). == Motions & Votes == - Approval of Agenda — Passed unanimously (3-0) - Approval of Consent Agenda (as amended) — Passed unanimously (3-0) - Motion to deny the request (related to Land Use relocation) — Failed due to lack of a second - Motion to move the Land Use Department relocation item forward to the next committee/governing body without a recommendation — Passed unanimously (3-0) == Public Comment == No public comments were received during the meeting. == Full Transcript == Councilor Elma Castro, Councilor Lee Garcia, I am here. Chair Amanda Chavez is excused, and Councilor Romero Worth, she's also excused. You have a quorum. Thank you. If we can get a motion to approve the agenda for today. Move to approve. Second. Since we're on Zoom, we'll have to have a roll call. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Councilor Elma Castro? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Moving on to the approval of the consent agenda. Do we have items that were pulled? Yes, sir. Item E was pulled for discussion. Thank you. Is there anything else that the committee would like to hear? Then E, move to approve as amended. Second. Once again, we'll need a roll call. Certainly. Councilor Alma Castro? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Motion passes. And we have public comment. It doesn't look like we have anyone here and possibly nothing on the Zoom box either. That's correct. We'll move on to presentational informational items. We don't have any, and that'll take us to 6E for discussion. Do we maybe get a motion on this item first? We didn't have discussion. We didn't necessarily need a motion. We can have discussion first, that's fine. And I know I pulled it, but I think Councilor Michael Garcia also pulled this for questions, so the floor is yours, Councilor Garcia, unless you want to hear a little bit more information from... Sure, always. This is the first time it's been brought before, so it's always good to get maybe a little more info than what's in the packet here, Councilor. This was an item that was originally included in the large number of one-time expenditures and was pulled out of that group because it was questioned in the transition we had in the leadership of the Land Office. There was a question as to whether the move made sense or not. And so, after some discussion with that department and giving them a full understanding of both the benefits that the move would allow, they are in agreement with the move. So that's why this is moving along independently as opposed to on its own. Other than trying to explain how the space would be used, we'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Randall. And you could just go over some of the benefits, just because I didn't see any in the packet, and that was one of my questions: why are we doing this? What's... Mr. Chair, Councilor, I think there are a couple of specific reasons. One, there's a dire need for more space here in this building in City Hall. Second, another reason would be that the Land Use has really totally outgrown their space. They're currently operating not only from the first floor, but down in the basement, which is not as good a space, and it's not good space to bring our public into. And the third is that we have the condominium space over there that for a variety of reasons we still have after the city basically moved out of it. And this would be a really, it's the right size that's needed for the Land Office to be able to operate efficiently. And it would really provide a better location with closer parking and easier access than their current space, we feel, does here in City Hall. So we solved the City Hall problem, we solved the Land Use problem of not having enough space, and we are able to build out a space that they have designed and agree to. And I mean, it's totally their design, it's not a matter of agreeing to, but it's a space that they feel will allow their operation to be more efficient and to allow them to operate as a single department as opposed to the split situation currently on the two levels here at City Hall. Thank you, Mr. Randall. Is all of the space within City Hall dedicated for Land Use occupied? I mean, I've seen some vacant offices in that neck of the woods. Councilors, there are currently, there may be a few currently unused cubicles inside of Land Use, but rather than just looking at current staffing levels, we're looking at, we look at their total staff levels once they've fully, you know, are fully staffed up, positions they're advertising for. They currently do not have enough space to meet all of their needs, and it's a, you know, it's a common and growing problem here at City Hall. Gotcha. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. And I don't know if you gentlemen have the answer to this. Maybe it's a better question for Acting Director Lamboy in regards to the staffing plan, because we haven't necessarily approved any additional positions. There's currently vacancies, I understand that. And so the growth of the department is what I would like to understand more, if possible. Yes, Mr. Chair, Councilors, it's right now it's a matter of them being able to fill all the spaces that they currently have, but there are some spaces, there are some people who don't have private spaces that should have private spaces that are in cubicles. And so this will provide a total of, I think it's 11 private spaces and 44 cubicles. And they currently need about, I think it's 45 or 46 of the 54 total, 55 total. It'll also give them three different conference rooms so that they can meet with clients in private spaces as opposed to out in the open like they are now. And it will provide some really good security. We've made application to the condominium association to be able to subdivide the common space that's on the second floor, that's the old lobby area, and we'll be able to put in a wall that will still allow the other owners in the condominium to access parts of the second floor that they need, but this will allow us to better secure the space and provide really better overall usable space for the Land Use Department. They're really operating in substandard conditions right now, and I think this will provide a lot better space for them to operate from. My response to that is why not invest here in City Hall? Because that's a, it's a million and a half dollars. That's a great amount of money for a space where, I'll admit, I'm a bit frustrated. We're, I feel like we're playing musical chairs. We're pulling one city team out, now leasing out private space to accommodate these folks. Now we're planning on pulling folks from City Hall to go to this space. I'd like to learn more also, and I don't know if you gentlemen have a plan of what's the plan for the vacant space here at City Hall? Are we going to bring in folks from the privately leased space into City Hall? Because again, I think this is, this is not appropriate long-term planning for us. And we're looking at the money, but not only the million and a half with this proposal, but if you look with what it cost us to move folks out of Market Street, which was nearly a million dollars, that's just up to date. And then counting the leases, I think we have a lease with the Marcy Street spaces for another three years. That's probably going to come to another tune of half a million dollars. I would like for us to have an identified plan with this proposal, because it's definitely not here. I think that unfortunately, the lots and lots and lots of gaps, that's why my first question was what are the benefits from this? Because I think if you look at any department that's here at City Hall, they're making use of the small space. I mean, we're, you've got to understand, this is a very small space in general. And when we're talking about some employees needing privacy, what, which employees would need privacy and why? And I can understand maybe a manager needing a closed setting, and you can have maybe an additional conference room established for private meetings with residents, but the rest of the business is public business. I mean, there, even if we look back at the layout of Market Street previously, it was full of cubicles. And I, I, I just have great concern. So what, I guess, let me jump back to the original, why we have this space open? I mean, didn't we enter into a lease agreement? I remember we entered into a lease agreement with Pacifica, who, you know, at the time, dangled a carrot in front of us, hey, we'll give you, I think it was $600,000 if you move out. And we took that carrot and we moved out. So is Pacifica not leasing? Did we never enter into the agreement with Pacifica? What happened there? Councilors, yeah, that, that is correct. The, I want to be clear upfront, the Public Works Department, the Facilities Division, our role in the process was really focused on helping relocate. Then Director of the Economic Development Office or Community Development Department, Rich Brown, was negotiating with Pacifica, and for reasons, you know, outside of my realm of knowledge, that that lease was unsuccessful. And so there was an extended negotiation with Pacifica, which never came to pass. And so we, you know, we moved out in anticipation of an expected closing on an agreement that did not materialize. So let me ask this question. I don't know if you know the answer, Mr. Burnett. Did we get the $600,000 from Pacifica? I, I can't speak to that with authority. I, I'm not, I'm not certain I can answer that question. Actually, no, that would have been one of the terms for closing the lease, and so since the lease didn't close, it wasn't a term. But Councilor Garcia, I'd like to go back to some of the other questions you started with. You had kind of a really valuable line of questioning, I think. You know, what's, is there a plan? It's really your question. You know, we're doing this, move them here and move that here and move this here and move that there, and it doesn't feel like there's a plan. And I'm sorry that it's a little bit the cart before the horse, but Sam and I are going to bring forward a presentation in about a month to the governing body about the new Consolidated City Services Center, which has been on the ICIP for four years. It's been, you know, it's often times government's space that they need to operate effectively is a low priority compared to roads and parks and things that are pools and things that are really important to residents, but it's really time because we can't serve the customers very well how we're spread out right now. You'll see in the presentation, we have a little road map of all the places a resident has to go or a person has to go to get something done, and we are, it's a disservice at this point. It's very confusing. I've run into people here at City Hall who've asked me, do you know where I need to go to get blank done? And I'm like, actually, I don't even know. So, so we will be bringing you the bigger picture plans, the departments that will consolidate back into a single building, how we'll be able to serve the customers better. But in the meantime, City Attorney's Office has added a number of staff to deal with the IAs, as you can remember, about every year we've been adding two or three staff to that team. The Finance team has grown, and so those teams need the space that Land Use will vacate. And so the only way to take care of, you know, the core, the two core teams that can, right? You've got Mayor, Finance, City Attorney, and HR in City Hall. The odd one out a little bit is Land. It's the most logical one to move. They'll have a better customer service window, they'll have better security, there'll be easier parking for customers to come and visit Land Use. So we think in a lot of ways, it serves the customers better as well as suiting the staff better. And then that gives us the space we need for to take care of Finance, the Attorney's Office, and HR in the space that they need. I think Councilor, I mean, sorry, Director Burnett can tell you a little bit more about why we can't put a million and a half dollars into City Hall, and that's an important thing to understand in this whole, a lot of moving parts. So do you want to talk a little bit about that? Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Director. Counselors, the main issue at City Hall, Counselor Wheeler's already addressed, really comes down to space. We have staff currently operating out of old closets. As kind of a sign of that lack of space, we also have a lot of deferred maintenance and other issues with the building. Once we start making significant modifications here, we start peeling back the layers of the onion, and rather than just working on space issues, then we get kind of pulled into correcting wrongs from days past, which further complicates the issue. In addition to that, one thing that's come up a few times is the possibility of expanding the building's footprint. But due to archaeological constraints, the shape of the building as it exists today is the end of space allotted on this particular lot. So we have a space, just general usable space in the building constraint. Just to elaborate on that, it was designed originally to be a school. It's not really set up to function well as an office building. You see this in things like the excessive width of hallways, the way the individual rooms are laid out. It's complicated to modify into a more logical, usable space. And so, just kind of a series of constraints that makes it complicated. Understandable. My concern with that is that, and I don't know how much you had involvement with this proposal, but it came to light. There was some discussion and even some design thought about expanding this space. So that's my concern: why is it okay for certain staff to say we need to redesign the council chambers and knock down this wall and have entries into the city manager's office and X, Y, and Z, and when it comes to accommodating the folks at Land Use, that is, and I will admit with you, they direly need the space, but I think we can reconfigure it. I just have great concern around just we're jumping, and it's costing us a lot, a lot of money. Not only did now we lose out, and this is the first time I heard we lost out on that $600,000 that was going to soften the blow of the move for us. We're losing out on the lease that could have been generated. It's been sitting vacant there. And now we're, it's coming at the expense of $450,000 in lease payments for these two spaces. So I think I would urge just to wait until we hear from this plan because I completely agree the consolidation and development of a city service center is needed. This is where I would like to see that million and a half invested into that because it's not going to come cheap. It's going to be a very expensive endeavor for us, and every penny is going to count. And I think if we need to figure out what we do with that space where we're not in the red every month by the loss of lease, I hope that is that part of the plan as well to determine Market Street use as well, or is that completely separate? Is this your presentation more so focused on the development of a brand new city service center, not existing? That's correct. Until we actually get the City Services Center, which we're probably, from the day we say go, four to five years from having constructed and ready to move in. As we get closer to that, we think about disposition of the facilities that would be vacated as part of that move. But for now, it's just focused on the new facility. Okay, thank you. I wish Miss Lamboy was here because these bars are coming forward, either it's by staff's recommendation or from the administration. My next question is, who is pushing this? Is this the administration that's pushing this, or is it Land Use staff that's saying we need to do this? Well, counselors, I would actually say that this bar and this concept actually came out of the Public Works Department and the Facilities Division because of the continued issues we face with trying to accommodate everybody and all the space needs at City Hall and beyond. It was a currently owned city facility that we saw as kind of a way to relieve pressure on our other facilities, number one. Number two, we saw it as an opportunity where if we do invest money into the Market Station space, there's a limited availability of office space in Santa Fe in general. We feel like if we were to invest in a property, this seems like a wise investment to us. It helps us address an immediate problem, which is space, and we are doing it in a way that we feel like rather than just, as you were alluding to, kind of spending money without thinking, we're investing money in something that will hold value longer term for the city. So when it does come time to consolidate and look at disposition, we've made a wise investment rather than lease to space or spread people out farther. We're investing in something we own, trying to help build equity as we address that space issue. And I completely agree of how we got a plan, but that's what's missing from here is the plan. Because the other side of the coin, which I do not know the answer to, and maybe you do, is there a plan to get off of the lease at Marcy and bring some of that staff, whether it be here or to Market Street, and eliminate the Market, I mean, the Marcy Street leases? Because I definitely understand, Director Willard, we've got staff kind of growing, so to speak, with the City Attorney's Office and with the Finance Department, but that's not going to take up the vast property that's currently occupied by Land Use. And that's where I think if we can be smart about it, if we were to move back to Market Street, absorb what we need to with Economic Development or Community Services, whomever it is, and get off of that and have both of those different leases be absorbed either through City Hall or Market Street, I would feel a lot more comfortable because that is again in excess of $200,000. I think it was over $200,000 this year. That would show that yes, we're investing, but we're also not having to pay $200,000 a year. So I don't know if that's part of the plan. If it is, I'd like to see it because it would be a better sell for me because right now I can't support this because we're just shelling out money to move staff around and play musical chairs, and especially when it comes to these one-time funds. I'm hearing loud and clear from our community, we need our roads paved, and we need a safe community. I mean, Mr. Randall, we were just chatting last week, where are we going to come up with $750,000 to provide security services for the Cuss Road Corridor? If we looked at it from that perspective, that could provide potentially for a year of services in a direly needed community where our state police have had to come in and help us because that's how bad it's gone. And I just need more plan for this to be in full support of it, and I'm happy to sit down with you all to help maybe provide some additional, I guess, context in what I'm looking for. But for us to just say they're bursting at the seams, we're going to spend a million and a half, and we don't have any long-term plan to get people off of leases, save us $200,000 there. It's, we're throwing money down the drain. It's, I feel like I'm in the movie, what is that movie, not The BPS, The Money Pit, because we're just spending money, and ultimately these are taxpayer resources that can go to a better investment for the residents. Because, you know, things like parking, I don't buy parking. We've got a convention center with two levels of parking that could accommodate visitors. So with that, I'll yield the floor. I wish I could support this, but right now I can't. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Counselor Michael Garcia. Counselor Castro, you've had your hand up a couple of times. You're muted, possibly. Yes, I am. Thank you so much, Counselor. Thank you to the committee, and thank you for directors for being here to answer our questions. I'm a little confused. It sounds to me like we're having the discussion we should have been having on Wednesday. But if we have $1.1 million to invest in armored vehicles, I think that it's shameful for us to say that we can invest it in other parts of our government, in particular Land Use. A lot of my constituents have been very frustrated with the level of service and forward-facing staff, in particular around language access, in particular with, as Director Wheeler mentioned, it's very confusing. I on several occasions have to walk people to different agencies. And I will also advocate that there are things at City Hall that are difficult currently. If we are doing updates, please, please, please, can we have a gender-neutral family bathroom so folks don't have to walk to a different building to go to the restroom? Make sure that we have language access services. I'm currently using the subtitles on Zoom. If we would just turn those on in Chambers, I think that would be really helpful. And if we want to find where we can offset some of the $450,000 a year for the lease program, I would recommend that we look at the $200,000 a year that we spend on gas for take-home vehicles for police officers. Thank you so much. And I see the... Thank you, Counselor Castro. All right, thank you. I guess I have some questions as I did also pull this for some concerns, some of which were covered by Counselor Michael Garcia. And I, I guess one question that I may have is, so you mentioned that this was at one point going to be part of the one-time expenditures. Obviously, it's not. Correct, Mr. Chair. No, it is still from that same funding source. It just wasn't included with the others. Okay, so it wasn't put in with the 20 other ones that we discussed last week and a couple weeks back. So that answers the question as far as where's that money coming from. You know, I, I, I too have concerns around playing what we would, I would consider musical chairs and without having some sort of, not a solid plan, but some of a road map, like was mentioned earlier, in regards to, you know, I look at it as a chess game, where do you put this piece and where do you put that piece so that it all makes sense? And I do, I do understand and get the thought process about how do we move and strategically put our departments where they are somewhat centralized in order to get, the bottom line is customer service. It's level of service and how well we do that as a, as a, as a city to our community. And I get it, you know, we're an old city, we're an old building, an old high school wasn't set up for, for being city offices in City Hall, and I think we have outgrown this. And so, you know, some of the concerns that Counselor Garcia brought up, from my perspective as well, is that, you know, my level of comfort, and I know this is probably from a financial perspective, which this will go to finance, and I don't, I'm sure there will be other questions about this. You know, we don't want to just mismanage money, not necessarily throwing it away, but it can, it can look like that from, from the perspective of the community. And, you know, what's the next step? Do we move into, into the railyard area and then in two years we're at a community center, a consolidated city center? And so, that's where I'm having a little bit of heartburn on this as well. I don't know if you can speak to that a little bit. The only thing I'd mention is, Mr. Chair, is that as Director Wheeler said, a consolidated center is four to five to six years away in all honesty. And when you think about the need for the planning, the funding, and putting the whole thing together, so keeping Land Use in its current space for even another year or two is not desirable, and it would be, it, it just, as again, as Director Wheeler, that it's the logical department that could operate efficiently. In that space, if there is extra space there, or there's a way in the space that's vacated here to bring back at least the Affordable Housing Office and the Economic Development that's at Marcy, I'm definitely going to look at those leases and see if there's any way to explore that. Because they're a little bit one-off right now, and they're really out of the flow, and they would be much more efficient were they a little bit closer to us here. So that's definitely something that we will look into to see if that's possible, and I would fully support. But land use, it is one of our major touch points that we have with our community, and what we're offering right now is just not up to par. So thank you for that explanation. Have we done any, what type of, are we in contracts with leasing out the Marcy complex? And so Economic Development is in that facility now currently. Mr. Chair: Economic Development and Affordable Housing are in a leased section. I don't know if we have anything other there. I'm not sure. Are you there? In addition, Community Services also operates out of there, Youth and Family, and the administrative team for that department. How long of, go ahead. Are they five-year leases, Sam? I'm trying to remember. They may, yes, they were five-year leases. So what is the buyout of that lease if we were to move them? The counselors, the actual leases were done by the Asset Management Department in Economic Development. I don't remember all the terms related to cancellation. I do remember having conversations while we were working on it that if there was a need to pull out, I do believe there's a way to do it, but I don't remember the exact language. Thank you. And again, I'm, I think I'm coming at this a little bit more from a fiscal perspective because what makes the most sense now? If you take land use out, and again, the whole musical chair scenario kicks in, well, we're spending a lot of money just to move people around. It absolutely does not make sense. And I see how difficult it is from the Land Use Department, from having one area, and then downstairs you have to go down for another area, and you have to talk to somebody else, and that can be difficult from the perspective of the public who are here to try to get a permit or try to get their business license or things of that nature. And I can see how difficult that is. So having one place that they go, kind of a one-stop shop, makes a lot of sense. But now, at what cost level? And then does this change in the year? I mean, obviously, it's only been probably even less than the year that we were talking about the specific deal, and now we're here trying to make another change. And at what expense to the community? It gives you all a whole lot to do to try to figure all this out, sit there and move the chess pieces. But, you know, how do we get to that sweet spot of where we're stable for quite some time? And I don't know if you're ever 100% stable, especially as the community grows. And so I do have a question in regards to what is the input from the Land Use Department? Where are they with this? Are they just saying, "Okay, well, you all have brought this up, but can we be involved with this?" And I want to know what their temperature is and what their asks are because they are definitely a very, very important part of our community and the services that we offer from a city perspective. Mr. Chair: I think I can speak with absolute reliability that they are 100% in favor of this. They had questioned a couple of the things, not as much as to the move, but the plan that was made for the space. And that was misunderstood as questioning the move. And so I've met with them both in some original discussions in the last three weeks, as well as in a planning session, and they have reworked the plan to a point where they feel it would be, they could be very productive out of it, and they are definitely in support of the move. Yeah, and I, counselors, I'd like to add to that. The, when this topic originally came up, former director of Land Use was very, very much pro trying to find a way to address their issues. The plan, the original plan for the move, for building out the new space, was actually developed internally inside of the Land Use Department. That's what we've been using as our planning document. The interim director, as he notes, we've met with them again to further revise the plans with the new leadership in the Land Use Department. So this really is developed by and for the Land Use Department, and really does a good job of addressing their needs. And without foreshadowing too much for our presentation in September, on our side, we're looking at current operation levels. We're short tens of thousands of square feet throughout the city. And so as the Facilities Division, our responsibility to find, to find, develop, and maintain suitable spaces for staff has been really compromised. And so this gives us an opportunity to create a little vacuum. Once we move land use, we have a space that we can revisit and start looking at ways we appropriately use that in the interim to help us address the other space needs we have. And I think raising the issues of lease space is a great place to start looking in addition to those other departments that are having operational issues related to their shortage. Thank you. So we currently, we used to occupy this area down at the Reardon, and are those, is that layout still there, or are we going to do construction? What type of accommodations do we have to, would we have to do for land use other than just the move? Obviously, there's IT stuff that's going to have to be done. There's offices for certain people. There may be a conference room, or there might be. And the second part of that question would be, would we anticipate when somebody does have a land use, a going to the process, will they have a one-stop shop there? Will they have to come to City Hall? Will they have to go someplace else? Counselors, excellent questions. So when we vacated Market Station, the Market Station, the way it was built out, was partially hard office spaces built in on the periphery of a larger space, and then that central space was cubicles. When we made the move to bring people out, we actually recycled the cubicles at Market Station and deployed them at the two office spaces at Marcy and then over at the Public Works offices at the Monica Roybal Center. So what we would do there would be some limited modifications to the hard-built, structural space there, but that would be relatively minor. We would be using existing office spaces, existing conference rooms, and then building out another cubicle office space in the open space out front. So a small amount of construction, but in the scale of this particular plan, relatively minor, and improves the building security, and really is an investment in property we own. So kind of a multiple win there. Thank you. So I guess going back to hypothetically, what does a consolidated service center look like? And where, I mean, I know this is kind of far-fetched right now, but obviously it's something that needs to be incubated at this point. So we're not, I think the reason for that question is so that when members of the public that are seeing what we're doing with this chess game, like, where's the checkmate? Where's the end type of goal? And I know that things will always continue to change, but I think that you got to do it once and do it right to the best of our ability. And so I'll ask that question. Thank you so much, Councilor Garcia, for that question. So as I said before, making an enormous investment in city offices is something that has to come after enormous investment in the public infrastructure that they really need and touch every day: the roads, the parks. I think lately with the $40 million of capital legislative, the legislative appropriations that have been coming through, that now we have our hands on that money, we just did the one-time appropriation, we're talking about a road bond. I think that now there's been critical mass and the investment in the public infrastructure, and it's definitely high time to take a look at the city government infrastructure. This is a significant project. It was carrying about a $40 million price tag a couple years ago. I'm, we're, you know, we're sure it's much higher than that at this point. There has been space evaluations of different locations that we've, Director Burnett has been working with an architect to do space needs evaluation. So the presentation that you'll see in September will show the square footage requirements and the numbers that Director Burnett is providing for how short we are on space. Also, a number of different locations that have been looked at, and what the recommended location is. So there, there has been studies. Another piece of the puzzle that we haven't really shared super clearly is that, and Director Burnett sort of points to it, is that City Hall is not code compliant at this time. And so to make any modifications of this building requires that we bring the whole building up to code, and that's greater than a $10 million investment. So that analysis was also recently done and will be incorporated into the presentation. So the electrical is not up to code. And so we have, we are at checkmate, and it is time to make some real decisions to move forward. And that's why I think we're bringing this forward, all the work that's been done to sort of bring the council up to speed and help us partner on next steps. Just a quick point of information, Councilor Michael Garcia. If it was required, if we did any modifications to City Hall, why were we able to at a sub police station, which was a major renovation, and we didn't have to update anything? Yeah, thank you, Councilor Garcia, for the question. It's levels, it's types of, types of improvements that we make. So if you want to change the HVAC at all, it triggers it, right? So if you're going to make, you know, create offices, that space already existed, it was the training space, right? It was the IT training space. So it wasn't that major of a remodel, but moving walls and those kinds of things is where you're going to run into trouble. We not only moved walls for that project, but we moved walls for the City Manager Office reconstruction. So there's certain levels of changes you can do and certain levels of changes you can't do. So we're definitely limited. Like expanding this room would be a problem. I don't know if Director Burnett wants to clarify, but we have recently just gotten a report of the condition of City Hall and what it would take to get it up to code. Really quick, I don't see Councilor Castro. Oh, she's still on board. Okay, I just was making sure we didn't lose you. Sorry, I make some faces. That's okay. I just wanted to make sure we didn't lose our quorum. Okay, well, I, you know, I can definitely see the need for making changes. Where I, again, I think fiscally, I'm having a little bit of an issue with what this is costing us. Are we, are we, is our intent to get out of the Marcy lease and bring them here to City Hall? I'm not aware of that plan. I haven't read the lease, and I don't know what it would cost to buy it out, but that's, it costs you money to move them, create the space for them. It's not a, I, so we could, if you would like, we could get you the numbers for terminating the lease and building out new space for them and moving the staff. Well, I, I, I think that that would, be needed in the case that that is our intent. So, I guess the question would be, you did mention if Land Use did vacate City Hall, what were the potential departments to come here to now occupy that space? Counselors, the conversation that we've had has been the way we have been talking about that space is to focus first on the move, to build out and move Land Use into a new space, creating open space at City Hall that we can then, once phase one is done or step one, we can regroup and make a plan for how those people internally to City Hall, where short space can expand into that. Or there's no reason why a conversation around the Marcy Street lease space couldn't be incorporated into that. But the idea first was to focus on getting Land Use out, creating open space that's actually usable, because currently with the current staffing levels at City Hall, current available space makes it impossible for us to accommodate additional staff or even current staffing levels appropriately. And so, just trying to find a way to create space using property that the city owned was our objective, and that's how we landed on Market Station. Thank you. And again, I think I'm just going to go back to, we don't have a plan to use that space other than just give us more legroom. It's what it sounds like. And I kind of wish that we wouldn't have gone forward with the, you know, hindsight's 20/20, specific a deal drop. Things happen, I get that. But, man, we really put ourselves in a bit of a bind by moving, I think, faster than and with the hopes that that was going to happen. And now that puts us in, okay, now trying to go off in another tangent. And I'm, yeah, I'm having a little bit more heartburn as we speak, I apologize. But I see the reasoning for it, but I don't see that we have a clear plan as to what we're going to do with that space for Land Use. And I would really like to maybe have some more conversations with Land Use and kind of see what their thoughts are. I want to support them. I think that this is, if we support this and we support the move, which is obviously costing us money, we still have the lease at Marcy, which again, we may go for five years, and then once that's terminated, we'll have a plan at that point. We'll have a place to put them. But we're just adding more layers of costs. And are we really getting the true customer service to our community that we are desiring, that we want to give to the people of Santa Fe? So, I don't know if there's any other discussion from either of the counselors. I think I'm pretty much at the where I, what I want with this. And it may be different from at other committee levels or even at governing body. But I'll ask one last time if there's any other discussion on this item. Okay. Given that, I guess we can call roll on the motion. Can we get a motion? We don't even have a motion on this. Is there a motion on this item? Counselor Garcia, just thinking, we can't really give a motion that gives direction because what I'd love to see is a plan with it, especially given the vacancy of the space. I definitely understand the plan to move Land Use to Market Street, but I don't see the other half of the plan, which is, okay, now that this space is vacant, how is it going to be used? What is that going to cost? And then long-term, which I think then gets to the presentation that will be given to us next month around long-term sustainability. Because I think another piece of this is the Boneyard. That's a piece we haven't even talked about. It's been vacant forever, I think, since its development, right? And so, how does that factor into this? And I think that's, we didn't even unpack that on you, and I'll have to unpack that at governing body. But I'll make a motion to deny this request. There's a motion to deny. Do we have a second to that motion? We don't have a second on that. There's other things that we can do, and I think we can either move it forward without a recommendation. We could maybe postpone until we have more information from Land Use, if that's something that the committee would like to hear. And I don't know if that's something that anybody on this board here would consider. Mr. Chair, Counselor Michael Garcia, thank you. I think as I mentioned, a lot of my concerns revolve around the plan, and I don't know how quick it would take to develop a plan. I mean, if we were to postpone this till the next meeting, is that sufficient time to develop a plan for the use of the vacant, what would be vacant Land Use office space? Counselors, the, you know, it's a famous, unpopular answer, which is that it depends on, I guess it would be helpful to know what kind and level of plan you're looking for. It'd be one thing for us to go through, you know, City Hall, Marcy Street, and generate a list of potential new tenants and numbers of people from here or there that could use that space. Something like that, a theoretical plan based on numbers of people and departments, yes, we could do that. If you guys were looking for a more robust plan that included, you know, conceptual or schematic uses of places, associated costs, that's a significant, that is a significant investment, both of time and potentially funding for design work. In the case of Land Use, as an example, it's something that, you know, to get to the point of having plans at the level we're at now, takes a considerable number of months to put together. Gotcha, gotcha. And it was, I would probably be seeking more of the former versus the latter, because I definitely understand the length of time and investment needed for, you know, architectural designs, et cetera. And I think so if that could be incorporated, and then, and if it could be investigated, could the current space be retrofitted to where it doesn't require us hitting the threshold of having to come into full compliance? So, similar to what we did with PD in the city manager's office, maybe move a few walls, do an assessment to see if, you know, hoteling workspace is a possibility, because we live in an environment now where folks get to telework and they don't utilize their office space five days a week. And it could be more cost-effective for the city to develop 10 cubicle hoteling spaces versus 25 cubicles, because I think at the end of the day, I want to make sure that this money is invested the best way we can, because I want to make sure we're looking back and saying, okay, that was a smart move. And I will say, unfortunately, the having a move before specifically the sign that lease, I think put us in a very bad space that was, that, that, yeah, I very unfortunate. If I may, I'll go to Counselor Castro, and then I'm going to have a recommendation. Sorry, I just have a clarifying question, Director Wheeler. Are we scheduled for that presentation already at Public Works or Quality of Life? Counselor Garcia, Counselor Castro, it is going to be at governing body so that all the counselors can hear it at once. And we have approval from the mayor, who approves the agenda, for it to happen in September. Do you know what day it is, Director Wheeler? I don't remember. I know it's the meeting towards the end of September. Thank you so much. And would it affect the project if this money were approved later after that presentation? Counselors, great question. Ultimately, what it comes down to is it just delays the process. Sometimes delays upfront can be day for day on the back end. And other times, in today's economy, with material goods and labor, sometimes delays are more than day for day. And it's until we find ourselves in that situation and kind of start working through the nuances of the impacts, where it's hard to say with certainty, but certainly a day for day delay. Thank you so much for that. And so, my inkling would be a move, move to approve, knowing that that is already on the agenda, and knowing that Land Use is on board. But I will defer to the chair to see what his recommendations are. And if there is the will of the body, I would like to move to approve. So, if you, that's a motion, then we need a second. And I don't think that we're going to have a second, which leads me into either revisiting the motion to deny or move it forward without recommendation. So, we've had one to approve, one to deny, and I really would like to see what other, obviously, the other bodies would have, would like to say about this. I was close to seconding the denial, but I think that I will make a motion to move, move it forward without recommendation from this, from this committee. Second. Do we have any discussion over that motion? A second. Can we call the roll? Certainly. Counselor Alma Castro? Yes. Counselor Michael Garcia? Yes. Counselor Lee Garcia? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you, Director Wheeler. I appreciate that conversation and the thought process that went into that. That moves us into, there's no action items, there's no executive session. Do we have matters from staff? Thank you, Counselor Garcia. I guess one thing that I will say is that, you know, we are working through our paving season here in the summer, as always. And some of the counselors may be aware that there are some pretty poor conditions on Pueblo Royale between Airport Road and the Wastewater Plant, largely because of the giant trucks that go to the Wastewater Plant. That is our next street on the this summer's paving plan and should start by the end of the month. We just completed Pueblo de las Vistas, half of that, from the dog park to the transfer station. And so, we're working our way through the summer paving list, and Royale is the next one. They're actually doing some work right now on South Meadows due to, of course, we have some special infrastructure that we set up over near the school on South Meadows so that the students can walk on a separate multimodal path that has fencing around it on both sides so the students stay safe from the construction and from the traffic. And now our contractors over there doing some work on that project, and then they'll move from there to Pueblo Royale. So, we're slowly but surely moving through, as well as Guadalupe is making headway. Reminder that Guadalupe is a fully federally funded construction for over $12 million, so that's really exciting. The Highway Safety Improvement Program paid for that construction project, and it is making great progress. So, we're moving our way through the road paving season, and I just wanted to give you an update on that. Thank you, Director Wheeler. Any matters from the committee? See no matters. No matters from the acting chair. Sorry, we have a Counselor Castro. Just really quickly, since it is Public Works and I have Director Wheeler, the sidewalks on Christo Rey are pretty bad, and so I've heard from a few constituents if we could put that on the list. Thank you. Thank you so much, Counselor Castro. And matters from the acting chair, I have tonight, that would take us to our next meeting, which would be Tuesday, September 3rd, 2024. And with that, I guess we can be adjourned. Thank you very much, everyone. Good night, everyone.