Quality of Life Committee Wed, Aug 6, 2025 · Quality of Life Committee https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/811 == Executive Summary == The Quality of Life Committee addressed several key issues, including technical difficulties with virtual participation and the postponement of an ice rink status presentation due to these issues. The committee approved a permit for the Zozobra fireworks display at Fort Marcy Park, despite concerns about park capacity and the city's self-insurance policy. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing a proposed resolution to amend the city charter, limiting the mayor's voting power to tie-breaking votes, a recommendation from the Charter Review Commission. This discussion included debates on the balance of power, the potential for mayoral veto authority, and the complexities of the charter amendment process. The committee ultimately passed a motion related to the mayoral duties discussion. Staff were tasked with resolving technical issues for virtual meetings, ensuring presentation visibility for the public, and following up on park capacity information. Additionally, staff were asked to research the feasibility of placing a ballot question on a June primary election ballot regarding charter amendments and to review Article 10 of the charter concerning amendment rules. The meeting concluded with updates on various community events and initiatives from the Community Health and Safety Department. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda. - Approved the consent calendar as amended. - Postponed the ice rink status presentation to the next meeting due to technical difficulties preventing public viewing of slides. - Approved the public fireworks display permit for Zozobra at Fort Marcy Park. - Passed a motion related to the discussion on mayoral duties and potential charter amendments. == Motions & Votes == - Approval of Agenda — Approved - Approval of Consent Calendar (as amended) — Approved - Approval of Zozobra Fireworks Permit — Passed (4-1 vote) - Motion to approve an unspecified item related to mayoral duties discussion — Passed (4-1 vote, with Councilor Casset voting No) == Public Comment == Councilor Castro, while voting against the Zozobra permit, expressed concerns about park capacity and the need for more information to ensure the event's safety. She also noted that constituents would prefer the event remain at Fort Marcy Park with a smaller capacity. No other external public comments were explicitly noted. == Topics == - Mayor's Voting Authority - Ice Rink Maintenance - Zozobra Fireworks Permit - City Self-Insurance - Fort Marcy Park Capacity - Charter Amendment Process - Community Events & Programs - Economic Development - Homeless Shelter Issues - Library Security & Services == Full Transcript == That's why I don't. That's why... Well, okay. So, you guys cannot hear me right now through Zoom, correct? Correct. Okay. Hey, Mike, can you talk me through the call-in thing I'm supposed to do now? Did you hear Councilor Cassett's question? She's an adventure. Oh, no. I can't hear. She's on the Zoom. If you could maybe project the Zoom onto the speakers in the room, that could be... I'm sorry. Resolution. We're working on that. Gotcha. Zoom is up. That's what we're working on. The... You might not be able to hear inside the chambers. We're working on that. I've been craving French for a day. Been craving. I'm sorry. I'm going to hang up. Oh, yeah. Okay. I just need to switch the phone over. Okay, I think I got this. All right, thank you. All right, bye, honey. We good. Okay. Honey, I'm on the screen. Hold on. Hold on. They're super good. Okay, hold on. The burger. Computer audio facing. Okay. 1360. Sorry, honey. I'm not paying attention to you at all. I love you, but I'm trying to figure out what on earth I'm doing. 563. Welcome to Zoom. Your meeting ID followed by pound. So, can we go live then? No. One second. We are live. Enter your partic... Can I get a roll call, please? Councilor Castro. You have entered the meeting. Attendees speak. Councilor Faulkner. Here. Councilor Cassett. Here. She said she's here. Okay. So then can we get an approval of the agenda, please? Move to approve. We get a second. Second. Can we get a roll call? Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Can the committee hear me, Marcela, or can only you hear? Approval of the consent calendar. Is there anything being pulled by staff? I'm sorry. Can you pause the meeting for a second, Marcela? And item H. Anything from council answer for those items to approve as amended? I'm not going to. Second. Can I get a roll call? Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Travis? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. And Marcela, can the rest of the committee hear me or are you the only one that can? Yes. Yes. Marcela, can the rest of the committee hear me or can only you hear me? The answer is yes. Yeah, put her on speaker. So I can be heard on the stream, but I can't be heard by the committee. Now, now you can be heard by the committee. Yeah, absolutely. Jamie, you're on speaker, or sorry, Councilor Cassett, you're on speakerphone up to the mic. So we will just conduct it this way for now, but just so you know, you are unmuted so that we can hear when you need to speak. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That helps understanding what's happening. Okay. So we just did consent of the agenda, the consent. We just did the approval of the consent agenda. Two items were pulled. Jamie, are you... We need to hear your vote on this. I'm sorry. What was that? I can barely hear you. Can you talk in the mic? Okay. So we just had a motion and a second to approve the consent calendar as amended. And we're waiting. We can hear you now. I just need you to speak into the mic. Yes, is my answer to the consent as amended. Okay. So now let's move on to presentations. Good evening, Madam Chair, council. I have a couple copies if everybody needs one to follow along with since we can't. Miss, may I bring one up? Everybody has a copy. Perfect. Going into the second slide here on the slide deck, a 30,000-foot overview, there are six main reasons why our rink is down right now. But again, into deferred maintenance, budget and procurement constraints, geography and location of where the rink is in Santa Fe and New Mexico, specifically rink-specific knowledge and expertise, engineering and design, and staffing continuity and positions that we have in the rink currently. A brief overview, we have five major systems that make our rink work: our compressors, our glycol pumps and motors, our HVAC, our cooling towers, and our dehumidifiers. Each one of these, each one of these are critical to making sure that we have ice. A rudimentary drawing on the third slide. Essentially, we have three loops. One loop is our primary loop. Our glycol gets sent underneath the subfloor, pulls the concrete down, gives us the ability to get ice. Those glycol pumps circle back towards our compressors. And our secondary system, which is our water cooler, works with our compressors as well to cool down the primary coolant and also remove some heat from the glycol as it's coming out of the rink floor. Our third piece would be the atmosphere. How warm the air is, how dry, and how humid it is inside of the rink. All three of these systems, the cooling towers, dehumidifier, and the HVAC are up on the rooftop at GC. The two loops that we're looking at, our primary loop is a glycol and subfloor where they return to the chiller in a continuous loop. And then our secondary loop is our cooling tower and our water. And then our climate, like I said, dry, cool, dehumid air is what we are looking for in the rink. Now if we're looking at thermodynamics rule one and two, heat cannot be created nor destroyed. I just want to pardon for the interruption. I want the council to know that this is unfortunately not at the moment, the presentation is not being shown on the YouTube, so the public's not able to see the slides. So I don't know how that affects what the governing or the Quality of Life Committee would like to hear. Committee, what do we think? Given the technical difficulties, I hate to do this to y'all, but we've got... We've had a lot of feedback from residents on this topic, and I don't want us to keep them out of the loop using the terminology we're going through right now. Okay. That's my recommendation. We postpone this. Is there a second discussion? I'm sorry. What's the motion? Is it to postpone? Yes, it is to postpone. He'll postpone to our next governing or Holiday Life Committee meeting. Marcela, can you... Do we already have two presentations scheduled? Okay. Okay. Okay. So we already do have a presentation scheduled. So just so you all know, that'll be a double presentation meeting if everybody's okay with that. You have a motion. Can we get a roll call, please? Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Travis, Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Motion passes. Right. Can we move on to that next... Oh, and staff, thank you for being here. Sorry for the some technical difficulties. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, council. We'll be ready in two weeks. And can we move on to that next item of business, Marcela? Next item of business is the pulled item F. You... I need to read it. Yes. I'm sorry. Item F, request for approval of a public fireworks display permit submitted by the Kiwanis Club of Santa Fe for the burning of Zozobra on August 29th, 2025 at Fort Marcy Park. Geronimo Grigo, Fire Marshall. And I would just like to make sure that the committee stays on point that this is approving the permit. And I know there's been so much around the trees, but I don't think that's relevant in this discussion. And so as chair, I'm going to try to keep us on point, which is it's about the permit. Of information. Chair, shall we let give a presentation first? Thank you, Councilor. Of course. Do you want to do a presentation first or do you want to go right to questions? Good evening, Chair. I'd prefer to go right to questions if that's okay. Okay, so be it. Perfect. Do I have the floor? You have the floor, Council Cassett. So, I mean, Castro. No worries. So I did pull this item as a request from a group of constituents. We there is some concerns around this permit in particular, and I just want to clarify this permit specifically is for the fireworks and the burning of Zozobra itself. Is that correct? Yes, we went ahead and grouped them together under one permit. So yes, there's fireworks and Zozobra as well. And thank you so much, Fire Marshall. I think most of the questions I actually have are for Deputy City Manager, and I was wondering if she'd be willing to come and answer a few of these. I don't want to spend too much time. My particular concerns are around capacity at the park and insurance. And that's why Deputy City Manager could give us a small overview of what it means to be self-insured and what it looks like to be an underwriter for this event. Sure. And Chair Faulkner and Councilor Castro, members of Quality of Life Committee, I will try to answer your questions, but there's still some more information in terms of capacity at the park that I'm trying to get. I don't have that information this evening, but as you identified, yes, we are self-insured. So our general liability has a $5 million limit. We do have a self-insured retention rate, which is like our deductible that we would have to meet first of a million dollars. Now my understanding is that we are additional insured on this and primary insurance is through these Zozobra organizers. And I think in your packet is a certificate of insurance and some additional information about the event and their insurance coverages and levels. So does that... I can definitely follow up with the members of the body here on the capacity in the park and you know what that would allow in terms of special events. But yeah, I'll have to follow up on that piece. No worries. Thank you so very much. And I just want to make it known and sort of make a public statement that as far as the folks that have currently reached out to me, so please if you have other thoughts, reach out to me. They would love to keep this event at Fort Marcy Park at a smaller capacity if that is at all possible. Now, that is a larger conversation that we hope to have with community members and Kiwanis on the 19th. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. And I see the floor. Right. Anyone else on the committee? Shout it out because I'm blind. Jamie, I mean, Councilor Cassett, anything. Oh. Don't worry. I will speak out when I need to talk. Okay, awesome. Move to approve. Second. Second. Can we have a roll call? Councilor Castro? No. And I'd like to explain my vote. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. A motion passes. Sorry. Now on to the next item of business. Oh, sorry. I'm just going to explain my vote very quickly. Oh, sorry. No worries. You're totally fine. I just want to make known that I am a little concerned about the capacity. I would love to see those numbers before us at governing body. And if there's any way that we could really make sure to make this event safe for our community, I would love that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. On to the next order of business. The item that has been pulled is item H, consideration of Resolution Number 2025 dash to be determined. A resolution proposing a ballot question to be submitted to the city's voters during the November 4th, 2025 regular local election regarding amending the city's charter to limit the mayor's authority to vote when there is a tie. This resolution was brought forth by Councilor Alma Castro, Councilor Michael Garcia, Councilor Polar Faulkner, and who pulled the item? I'm sorry. Councilor Jamie Cassett pulled the item. Okay, so let's first go to the sponsors of the legislation. Do either of you have anything you want to add to the conversation? No, just reiterate that this came directly from the Charter Review Commission last time around. Thank you, Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will echo that. And if for the public that's following along, the Charter Review Commission put forth their recommendations, and this can be found specifically on page five of the recommendations under item H, and it is stated, "shall join the City Council as a governing body with voice vote and to break tie votes." So this recommendation, this legislation, is coming straight forward from the Charter Review Commission's recommendations when they convened in 2023. Okay, that's all I got. Thank you, Councilor. And as one of the sponsors, I will just echo my fellow sponsors' comments. And so then, Councilor Casset, you pulled this off the agenda. I'm going to turn to you. Thank you so much. I do not have much to say. I'm sorry, I'm getting an echo, so I apologize if I was a little bit. I pulled this item to vote against it for two reasons. One, first and foremost, I know that this has been a conversation around the balance of powers, and I don't see how this balances the power. If a mayor has four councilors that agree with them, then they have a winning vote. If there are five councilors that disagree with them, they don't have a winning vote. And that is exactly what it is right now. Currently, if five councilors were to vote one way, regardless of how the mayor voted, it does not matter. If four councilors agreed with the mayor, then it would go in the way of which the mayor was hoping that vote would go. So, that's my first reason. But the bigger one for me is I do not think that the mayor should be able to get out of having to publicly state where they stand on issues, especially really tough issues. I think back to our conversations on the Soldiers Monument. I think back to our conversations on interface. Some of these really challenging votes that didn't necessarily go down on a 5-4. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. But I think that it's important that the person who is elected to lead the policy direction of the city has to publicly state what they think about pieces of legislation that are coming forward. At the moment, we still have a hybrid system where the mayor sits on the legislative body. The mayor is able to bring legislation, and I think that the mayor should not essentially be able to abstain from every vote and therefore be able to still be everything to everyone. I think that it is important for people to know where the mayor stands on really, really tough issues. You would hope that a mayor would publicly speak that anyhow, but not everybody will. And I know last time this came up, Councilor Reetta did talk about the history of the change because previously this was what would happen is the mayor would only vote to break ties. And Councilor Reetta did bring up the fact that people wanted to know how the mayor felt about tough issues, about every single issue, how they vote, where they stood. And so I do think that that is important, which is why I am not in support of this proposal. And I apologize that I'm not here because it does not make conversation about this as easy. So, I know we will get to discuss it in coming committees and governing body. Anything else, Councilor Casset? No, that's all. Right. Thank you, Councilor Castro. Yeah, I just wanted to speak to that. This is the second time that I've heard some arguments around the mayor's agenda and making sure that we know what the agenda of that administrator. You guys really need to speak in the mic more than usual with this setup. Sure. I think that it's important that we try to, I think there's also been discussion about depoliticizing and the mayor being an executive. It is. I'm so sorry. And in fairness to Councilor Castro, she is talking very deeply into the microphone. Yeah, that's why this one is my fault. I had the mute button by accident. I'm sorry, guys. I thought I would. Yeah, that's stupid. I'll just be brief. I think that it's important that we work as best as we can to create, as I've heard before on this day, as leaders rather than politicians. And if we can work towards moving away from political agendas and just having an executive that works for the good of the city, I think that that's one of the goals and intents. I would look to the Charter Commission, and we will definitely have testimony from them during governing body. But I think it's important that we look at the reasons that they chose to take some of these recommendations. One of which is that the community really wants to see the City Council leading the governing body as opposed to the mayor. I see the floor. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Castro, Council Chavez, Councilor Garcia. I will somewhat echo what Councilor Castro mentioned. The ideology of having to require a mayor to vote on a certain item to understand where they stand, it's not a form of good governance. I mean, and if we look at other structures of government, whether it's federal or state, that's the same ideology that's saying, well, then the governor should vote with the legislature and the president should vote with Congress. That's not how it works. And there's nothing that prevents a mayor from stating their stance. And I have full faith and confidence that, you know, whether it's the mayor providing their stance or the press going after the mayor to get that stance, it will be there. There's no escaping it. And especially on controversial issues where, you know, those controversial issues where the mayor does have to break the tie, it will be there in record with a vote. But on those issues that are not so controversial, so to speak, that might have, you know, potential of a tie vote, I feel full faith and confidence that, you know, it's the responsibility of the mayor to explain their stance, their policy platform, and be ultimately responsible to the taxpayers. So having a vote is not the mechanism to hold somebody accountable, so to speak, because that's just not how other governments are structured. So with that, I don't, I think that's the fallacy in regards to seeing where a particular individual stands because even in the instance of us as councilors, we can take the stance of abstaining from a vote. You're not telling where the public you stand on that in that type of instance. So what this does is it allows for the council to begin to do the work. Then it also in tandem requires for the mayor to do the work in the instance that their vote is needed to break a tie. The mayor does not just get to kind of sit back and abstain. The mayor has to ride alongside all of the work and be ready to cast a vote in that instance it needs to be cast. And so with that, this is the first of many steps that the city needs to take to begin that separation of powers. And I think this is a step that will begin to build faith and trust with residents that ultimately their duly elected representative for the council is going to be best representing their needs and interests. So with that, I'll yield the floor, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilor Garcia. I will say as one of the sponsors, I continually strive towards striking a balance of powers, and I do feel like it is a fallacy that we will never know what the mayor thinks because the mayor is now the swing vote. I think we have councilors who will be here even with the newly elected mayor who will hold the mayoral position to account. I know that I certainly will not shy away from allowing a mayor to not be held accountable for their position, but I do think that this is a place where we again contemplated a powerful executive but did nothing to contemplate how the legislative branch would then deal with the executive to strike a balance. And so many of these things, we need a short-term fix to balance things in the short term, but we definitely need to do a bigger review of the balance between the council and the mayor. But the legislation that I have helped sponsor are pieces of legislation that address the short-term need to get the checks and balances in place while we contemplate the larger, bigger concern around checks and balances. And with that, can I get a motion? Oh, Jamie. Thank you. Dr. Casset. I do need to point out a very key difference in other executives that cast a vote, which is that they either have to sign or veto legislation. So, they do have to publicly go on the record. We do not have that structure. We do not have a system in which the mayor can veto legislation or has to sign legislation into action. So I just, we do, that is one of the challenges around us is that we have a very hybrid system, and so we make this, you know, scenario where, unfortunately, people are going to hedge, they are going to hem and haw, and I don't believe that we would never know where a mayor stands, but I think that it is important. I would want to know as somebody who does vote in the mayoral election and who will not always be sitting on this governing body and therefore having insights. I will want to know how a mayor would vote on some of these issues. But I think that that's, you know, that is a key difference, and it is one of our big challenges is that we do not have a complete separation of powers. So there is not the opportunity for the mayor to either sign something in or veto, which is a very public display of disagreement and for a council to override a veto. Again, these are the things that I think we need to explore, which again, Councilor Faulkner, why you and I are looking at that larger, larger review of the balance of powers. But I think at the end of the day, I just, I do not think that this is one, I don't think it makes a difference because when you stack the votes, when you count the votes, when you do whatever with the votes, it all comes down to do four councilors agree with the mayor or not. And that can go either way. But what this simply does is it just allows the mayor to not have to cast a vote, or maybe not get to, you can go either way with it, but does not make them have to cast a vote, especially when there are some tough issues that I think it'd be important to hear the mayor's stance on that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. So that is half correct. The mayor has to sign every piece of legislation. Now, the mayor does not have veto authority. So, Marcy, I got a quick question for you, and I'll take some time and filibuster while you get down here. I'm in full favor of putting forth a veto authority with the mayor. That was actually something we had tried to figure out initially. So, with that being said, if we were to amend this proposal to not only allow the mayor to have the tiebreaker vote, but include veto authority, which could be overridden by the supermajority of the council, which would be six, could that amendment be proposed, would it slow it down to the sense where we could not consider it for adoption and put up for a vote to by the voters? Because I'd be happy to bring forth that amendment. I'm in full support of giving the mayor veto authority because it does then create that full separation. Councilor Garcia, as far as the question about whether this would slow the legislation down, and it is, you know, it is important that this one keep moving along because it will be, should it pass the governing body, it would be due to the clerk's office on the 26th of August. And so we are tight on time. I do believe that this would change the caption of the resolution. The last time, just recently, we had another amendment that did actually change the caption. We asked City Attorney McSherry what the rules were for that, and she had you all discuss it amongst yourselves, and you decided to, I think, go ahead and we would change the caption on the agenda and notice it that way and still adopt it on the same date. But we could confirm this and probably should confirm that with our City Attorney. So, just a point of clarification, Mr. Ian, I'm going to repeat and make sure I understood. So, if we have the change in caption before the next meeting and we publicly notice it correctly, we potentially could have an amendment, but it is very unlikely that we're going to get that change in caption before the last governing body, or there is absolutely no way we can repost that. In order for Chair Falner and Councilor Castro, in order for the caption to be changed on the meeting agenda, you all would have to approve an amendment first. So, we would propose the amendment, you'd vote on the amendment, and then should that amendment pass, then the caption. And when I say caption, I feel like we use that term interchangeably a lot. In my office, the caption is literally the capitalized title that appears at the top of the resolution. And then you'll also hear the word caption used for what's appearing on the governing body agenda to notice the item. And so when I say we would change the caption to reflect, we would be changing the caption on the agenda to show the change that was approved by an amendment. Perfect. And I believe Councilor Garcia still has the floor. Garcia: So, with that being said, I know we're time-limited to have this to the County Clerk by the 26th. There's nothing that, and I'm just trying to think out option A, option B, option C, etc. is if this committee were to postpone this item until the next Quality of Life Committee meeting, which means we can bring forth such an amendment, which would then we would call for a special governing body meeting to hear this item given the time constraint. Special governing body meetings can be held because this legislation won't come back, would not have the opportunity to come back before a regularly scheduled meeting, which would be the 27th, which is the day after. So if looking at the time, it comes back here the 20th, then it goes to Finance the 25th. There's nothing that prevents us from hosting a governing body meeting on the 26th, but that puts us in a very, I'm just trying to think options, and at this point, we can add the veto later. I think it's Councilor Garcia, could I just offer another, there's two other options. One, we can add the amendment tonight because the only rule is that the amendment is provided in writing. It is a way, I see it, is it's a small change, probably like a sentence, unless I'm not correct. Marcy, It's that because what happens is it impacts several parts because it's not, we're not just, like right now, this is proposing to update the mayoral duties of the charter. And what a veto update does is it then adds an additional power that the mayor has, which is the veto power. But then you got to add the additional power to the City Council or the governing body section that says the governing body has to vote minus the mayor, right? Because that's where I think we were kind of getting hung up last time because of the way the charter is written. The governing body is the legislative body. And what we're trying to slowly do is dissolve the governing body, which pulls the mayor out and completely separates the mayor and the council, and there will be no more governing body. And this is why this step is kind of the first step to pull the mayor out from voting, and then we can work on the legislation to update the veto. I mean, it's because it has that whole impact, right? You want to completely dissolve the mayor and have that separation. You also have to pull the mayor off of the governing body. There's that portion of the governing body consists of the mayor and the council. So that's another change in the charter that needs to be made that dissolves that, right? So, it's multiple. That's what we ran into was like the ripple effect that it's not just like one question, it's like six questions. And that's where I think that's where we got hung up because what happens if the ballot question to not give the mayor or the tiebreaker authority only fails? But what happens if the veto authority passes? Right? They're not in alignment. And that's why we have to take it step by step. And that's now it's all rehashing in my memory when we had these long discussions in 2023 and why we have to piecemeal it out and put it in front of the voters because it's not as easy as putting a slate of questions in front of the voters because you have to take step one, get that approved, then take step two, get that approved, then take step three to get that approved because if you don't do it in that order, it will truly not align with the way the charter is written. And so this really helped me untangle everything. So with that, I think an amendment would need to come at a future vote. And there's nothing that prohibits us. And maybe Marcy, this is what some research we can do. I know we have an election coming up next June, which is the pre-primary elections where between the, you know, Republican candidates, Democratic candidates that are running for mayor, all those offices. I guess the question is, could we put a ballot question on that ballot in June? So, we're now working between potentially November and whatever time frame the County Clerk needs because it's not going to be June. For example, the June election, I mean, November election requires these questions to be in by August. So June election is probably going to be required something to be in by March time frame, I'm assuming. Councilor Falner, and or Chair Falner and Councilor Garcia, thank you for the question. We would want to, and I am bringing up the charter review section of the charter. And in that one, it, that, that article is called Charter Review and Amendment. That article of the charter talks about how the charter is amended. A portion of that I can quick. Oh, so it's Article 10, and it's called Charter Review and Amendment. And that article has two sections, 10.01, and it's called Charter Review, and then 10.02. And I'm bringing it up because I want to make sure there are not rules about what, when we would put, because I think we might need to put it before a regular election, local election. So 10.02 says, "This charter may be amended or repealed as provided by law. The City Attorney shall review and render and publish a public opinion as to the legality and form." So that doesn't say anything about it. I'd want to research actually, just so that I'm not reading on the stand and trying to interpret it while we're, you know, we might want to look into it. But I do want to point out, we have a Finance Committee meeting. This one goes to Finance on the 11th. Versus Monday. Okay. No, I think talking through it really helped me understand why there, it's got to be in steps. Yeah. Because if we put multiple questions, some questions could pass, some can fail, and it really would complicate The charter. And that's not that, that's where untangling or taking, doing, undoing something such as what we're trying to do, it's going to take time because you can't just do one blanket approval because it's multiple questions. Right. So, Councilor Garcia, I just, thank you for that. And I, I guess I would also just say, I think the, if you remember when we did this ballot measure question the last time, this one is, is one part that we were able to pull out and sort of isolate amongst a whole bunch of other changes that the Charter Commission recommended. And I think you're right. I think the reason why we isolated this one is that it was able to come out and be before the voters without having to do a huge restructuring of how the government functions actually. So yeah, I think you're Thank you. Anything else? Councilor Garcia, That's it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Marcy. Councilor Casset, any words from you? I would say is that, you know, we've had all these conversations around that. May as well put it on the ballot and let the voters decide. At this point, it sounds like we're deciding and feeding it to them piecemeal. Which again is why I really think that we need to, this is a big one. It is hard to pull out. As mentioned, this was, you know, one piece that just kind of cleanly pulled out. But the complexity around this, again, I don't think it, that's where we're trying to go, or where we think we should go, but maybe, maybe the voters do want a scenario in which the mayor can vote and the mayor can veto and the City Council can override. I, you know, we don't know that. But again, that, I think the bigger picture is that these are complex issues to understand. And they are complex issues to put together. And there are some, you know, as, as we discussed last time with determination that I think are a good proposal and worth looking at right now. But this one in particular, I think, you know, there is all this complexity. There are all these pieces that are changing. And if essentially what we are wanting to propose to the voters is a separation of the legislative and the executive, then that probably is going to come as a package, and it'll be really interesting on how we do present that to the voters. But what I'm hearing right now is that this is part of something that is part of a larger proposal that still needs a lot to be fleshed out. And to Councilor Garcia's point, there is an election in June. We had a question on the ballot last November. So, I mean, we, we have the ability to put questions on the ballot. This is not our last chance. And so I do not think that it is a lost opportunity if we take the time to look at something like this that, you know, I, I don't think any of us believe that the current power structure is working. So I, I, I, one, I don't think this proposal works in our current structure, and our current structure is where we're living right now. And two, I can really hear, you know, as we've all struggled, how do we take our structure and turn it into something that is going to provide a better balance of power? And I simply don't believe that this, this will do this. This feels like a red herring to me. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Casset. Council Castro. Yeah, just really quickly, I think it's interesting that we've heard today that this doesn't do anything, but it's really important and makes a lot of change. And I'm, I just want to point out that this is a ballot measure, and if folks feel that the way the structure is working currently, they are welcome to vote against this ballot measure. We will find out how the community feels about it. Is there any more discussion, or I will make a motion. Councilor Chavis. No discussion. I was going to call a motion to go ahead. Move to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. Can we get a roll call, please? Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavis. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Faulner, Yes. Councilor Casset, No. Motion passes. Right. So, I do want to note that Councilor Amanda Chavis is leaving, but she is excused. It does not look like we have any action items for discussion. Doesn't look like we have executive session. Can we get matters from staff? Thank you. Thank you, counselors. This evening from 5:00 to 8:00, we have an annual Canyon Road Summer Walk. If you haven't made it out there this year, we will only have one more next September, or this September, next month. Tomorrow, August 6th, we have a show opening at our community gallery near the community convention, at the community convent, near the community convention center downtown. My apologies. This is a real interesting show. It is featuring large-scale portraits of contemporary indigenous people by a young Santa Fe-based artist named DC Allen of the Crow Nation. There will be an interactive video component as well. The show is called "Faces of Our Land: Decolonizing Urban Identities." It will run from August 7th to August 30th. And there's an opening reception, free to the public, tomorrow evening from 5:00 to 7:00 at the community gallery. This Saturday, August 9th, Site Santa Fe is hosting a drive-in movie event at the Midtown campus. This is also really interesting. The last time I went to a drive-in in Santa Fe was at Yucca Theater. This is part of the 12th Site Santa Fe International "Once Within a Time," curated by Cecilia Alammani. The event is hosted by Radio Tomada, and the film is called "It's Not Just Here Sister, What Do You Call the Moon?" So again, this is at Fogson Library, August 9th, Saturday, from 8:00 to 10:00 p.m. It's free to the public. No RSVP required. This Tuesday, August 12th, we have another Native American Business Roundtable hosted at the Santa Fe Business Incubator. This is from 10:00 a.m. to noon. August 16th and 17th, we have Santa Fe Indian Market hosted by the Southwest Association for Indian Arts, or SUIA. This event is also free and open to the public downtown. Tickets for associated SUIA events, fashion shows, the gala, and screenings are available for purchase on their website. August 25th, we have the Office of Economic Development Office Hours at Del Norte Credit Union. That is from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. August 27th, we have our fourth annual Thedia Southside Outdoor Family Celebration. That is from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. at Ortiz Middle School. August 27th, that same day, at 6:00 p.m., we have Bikes for Business, the August edition, and they're going to be starting out at the Vara Winery and Distillery. They'll be riding in the summer of bikes with the group's going to meet at Capitol Cole. Oh, they're going to end at Vara. So, they're going to roll out 6:15 p.m. sharp. It's wonderful to see this love for Guadalupe Street. We have a couple calls for applications. Join our Economic Development Advisory Committee. The deadline to apply for this is August 22nd. You can find out more information about this group. It's a volunteer group that supports entrepreneurs, advises on policy, and helps grow opportunity in Santa Fe. Additional information on the City of Santa Fe Office of Economic Development website. And then I also want to flag that we have another deadline coming up on August 24th. This is the Santa Fe Community Foundation's 2025 Fall Grant Cycle. So, go to the Santa Fe Community Foundation's website, learn more about opportunities available in our community, and the deadline to apply is August 24th. Thank you. Anything else from staff? Madam Chair, counselors, a few updates from the Community Health and Safety Department. You all should have received an invitation for next Thursday, August 14th, for the ribbon cutting for the Meg renovations. You'll see the new recreation area there, exercise area, pool hall, and some other facilities, computer lab. Very exciting and excited to have folks there. For recreation, there's a back-to-school bash on the 15th. And then with regard to the libraries, there was a summer end-of-summer reading party at the GC where there were 285 children and their families participating. At Main Library and Southside, they've received funds to install exterior cameras, and they are now doing that project. That was thanks to some midterm one-time funding that the governing body allocated. And then the library, in coordination and partnership with the Office of Economic Development, has relaunched our laptop lending program. With regard to the Human Services Division, the transition at 2801 CROS happened last Thursday, or yes, last Thursday. The facility was temporarily shut down to address some public health concerns regarding bed bugs. And a huge thank you goes out to the Salvation Army, Consuelo's Place, and Urban Alchemy for helping accommodate the sheltering of the guests there. We've been using Warehouse 21 for some guests. And we should be reopening the facility shortly. So with that, no more updates. Thank you. Thank you, staff. I have one thing. Okay. Counselor Casset asked me to let you know that she had to jump off the meeting at 5:53, and she just wanted it noted. All right. So noted. Any matters from the committee? No. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. All right. I would just note that we had our back-to-school bash on the Southside, and approximately between 1,400 and 1,500 people attended. It was a super success. We were very delighted in that we did not see kids on their cell phones. They were too busy trying to win some prizes and do some of the activities that we had planned there. I'd like to thank Counselor Mike Garcia, Counselor Amanda Chavis, and Counselor Lee Garcia for attending and also for helping get this lift done. And I would like to thank Chief Moya, Fire Marshall Ggo, Roland Jones, and Aiden Lopez for all the extra work that they put in to make this event happen. They were spectacular leaders. And then our next meeting is Wednesday, August 20th, at 5:00, and we're adjourned.