Regular Governing Body Meeting Tue, Apr 7, 2026 · Governing Body https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/918 == Executive Summary == The City Council meeting covered a wide range of topics, including the approval of the agenda and consent agenda with some items pulled for discussion. Key discussions revolved around the Fourth of July celebrations contract, a resolution for joint city-county meetings, and the approval of alcohol consumption at a Site Santa Fe gala. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the employment agreement for the City Attorney and City Clerk, sparking debate about salary transparency and the process for setting compensation for city staff. Another major focus was the ongoing discussion about implementing regular study sessions and the impact on existing committee structures, with councilors expressing concerns about efficiency, checks and balances, and the need for clearer procedural rules. The meeting also included a lengthy public hearing and debate on a land use appeal for the Zoro Blanco development, specifically concerning the application of affordable housing requirements and the interpretation of historical annexation agreements and master plans. Public commenters also raised concerns about nuclear weapons production and the city's event permitting process. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda for April 7th, 2026, with item 19B postponed. - Approved the consent agenda with items 9F, 9J, and 9K pulled for discussion. - Approved the professional services contract with Kiwanis Club of Santa Fe for Fourth of July celebrations (6-1, one councilor absent). - Approved the amendment to the Joint City-County Meetings Resolution (unanimous, 8-0). - Approved the Joint City-County Meetings Resolution (unanimous, 7-0, one councilor absent). - Approved the amendment to the Site Santa Fe Gala Resolution (unanimous, 8-0). - Approved the Site Santa Fe Gala Resolution (unanimous, 8-0). - Approved the employment agreement with Geraldine F. Cardinos as City Clerk, Director of Community Engagement, with a term ending December 31, 2029 (unanimous, 8-0). - Approved city-sponsored international travel to the United Kingdom for David Carr, Tourism Santa Fe, Director of Sales (unanimous, 8-0). - Approved the airport grant for runway maintenance (unanimous, 8-0). - Approved a motion related to the discussion on appointment and contract processes (unanimous, 8-0). - Approved a motion to waive procedural rule 4, subsection B, subsection one, for the bill approving the sale of city-owned parcels (unanimous, 8-0). - Approved Amendment C to rename the 'Economic Development Department' to the 'Economic Development and Creative Industries Department' and create an 'Economic Development Division' (unanimous, 8-0). - Postponed the final approval of the department reorganization item until the April 29th meeting (unanimous, 8-0). - Approved the bill for City Attorney and City Clerk authority to correct scrivener's errors (unanimous, 8-0). - Denied the appeal regarding the Zoro Blanco development, upholding the Planning Commission's approval without Santa Fe Homes Program requirements (8-0). - Approved Human Services Committee reappointments: Karen Baldwin (Chair), Emily House (Vice Chair), Jennifer Romero, and Kathleen Tuni (7-0, Councilor Castro absent). - Approved James Johnson to the Economic Development Advisory Committee (7-0). - Approved Shelby Maguson to the Archaeological Review Committee (7-0). - Approved Nicholas Taylor and Kate Goddard to the Santa Fe Public Library Board (5-0, Councilors Castro, Chavez, and Falner not recorded). == Motions & Votes == - Agenda Approval — Passed unanimously. - Consent Agenda Approval — Passed (7-0, with one councilor absent). - Fourth of July Contract (9F) — Passed (6-1, with one councilor absent). - Amendment to Joint City-County Meetings Resolution (9J) — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Joint City-County Meetings Resolution (9J) — Passed unanimously (7-0, with one councilor absent). - Amendment to Site Santa Fe Gala Resolution (9K) — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Site Santa Fe Gala Resolution (9K) — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion related to appointment and contract processes — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Approval of Employment Agreement for City Clerk Geraldine F. Cardinos — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Approval of International Travel for David Carr — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Airport Grant Approval for runway maintenance — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to enter Executive Session — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to reconvene in open session — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to go directly to petitions from the floor — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to waive procedural rule 4, subsection B, subsection one, for the bill approving the sale of city-owned parcels — Passed (8-0). - Amendment C (Department Renaming/Division Creation) — Passed (8-0). - Postponement of Department Reorganization Item — Passed (8-0). - Bill for Scrivener's Errors Authority — Passed (8-0). - Motion to deny the appeal regarding the Zoro Blanco development — Passed (8-0). - Human Services Committee Appointments — Passed (7-0, Councilor Castro absent). - Economic Development Advisory Committee Appointment — Passed (7-0). - Archaeological Review Committee Appointment — Passed (7-0). - Santa Fe Public Library Board Appointments — Passed (5-0, Councilors Castro, Chavez, and Falner not recorded). == Public Comment == Public comments included strong opposition to the increased production of plutonium pits in New Mexico, citing environmental and health risks, with calls for the City Council to pass a resolution against it. Concerns were also raised about the city's inconsistent event permitting process, particularly for protests, and the environmental and traumatic impact of fireworks, with suggestions for drone alternatives. Several councilors also used the public comment period to express concerns about event costs, the lack of a clear city event sponsorship policy, and the methodology for determining proposed salaries for city officials. == Topics == - Affordable Housing Requirements - Zorabano Development Appeal - City-County Joint Meetings - City Staff Employment Agreements - Fourth of July Celebrations - City Sponsored Events Policy - Site Santa Fe Gala - Agenda Approval - Committee Appointments - Meeting Opening Procedures == Full Transcript == Michael, can you please promote me as a panelist? I'd like to call tonight's April 7th, 2026 governing body meeting to order. We will be led by a Pledge of Allegiance by Councilor Fagali, a salute to New Mexico flag by Councilor Bamante, and invocation remembrances by Councilor Garcia. Please stand as you're able. It's I calling to mind that we are La Santa Fe, the San Francisco de Assisi. I'd like to recite the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi. So, Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there's doubt, faith. Where there's despair, hope. Where there is darkness, light. Where there is sadness, joy. Oh divine master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand, be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive. It is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Thank you. Are there any remembrances from governing body members? Seeing none, let's just take a moment to remember those that might be in need of support or healing at the moment. Thank you, everybody. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Barrett. Here. Councilor Bamante. Here. Councilor Cassett. Here. Councilor Castro. Councilor Chavez. Here. Councilor Falner. Here. Councilor Fagali. Councilor Garcia. Here. Mayor Garcia. Present. Mayor, you have a quorum. Thank you. Up next is approval of tonight's agenda. Any changes from staff? No changes, Mayor. Changes from committee members? Motion to approve. Second. I think there is an item we need to potentially postpone. Do we do that in consent or now? Is that what you're talking about? So 19B does need to be postponed to a later date. Okay. Motion to approve as amended. Second. Okay. So we got a motion as amended. Any discussion? Hearing, seeing none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a... Oh, actually, we're all here. So, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Motion passes. Next up is approval of tonight's consent agenda. Any items pulled, Madam City? Yes, Mayor. Item 9F was removed for discussion by Councilor Castro, and items 9J and 9K are removed by Mayor Garcia for amendments. Motion to approve as amended. Second. Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing, seeing none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Councilor Casset. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Councilor Falner. Yes. Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Next item on the agenda, please, Madam City Clerk. Next item on the agenda is 9F, and that is a request for approval of a professional services contract with Kiwanis Club of Santa Fe to produce the city's Fourth of July celebrations in the total amount of $885,57 through April 15, 2030. May we please start with a motion on the agenda? Motion to approve. Second. Motion. And then Councilor Castro pulled it. Thank you. Yes. And I pulled this for two reasons. One, for consistency. I voted no on this throughout the committee process. I'm going to vote no on this tonight. And mostly, I just needed some more information about how much cost the city is spending on public events, how we are sponsoring events, how we're deciding what events we're sponsoring. I am a little hesitant on a four-year contract, although we are going to approve this every year. I wanted to make that clear. This is a contract for event coordinating, and we will have to approve it every year. With that, I yield the floor. Yes, Councilor Falner. Briefly, this came up in finance last night, and we have asked staff to come up with a presentation to kind of explain to the council the different kind of events and what they cost the city in direct and indirect funds. In speaking to staff today, we did decide that this would be a better topic to be presented in a study session rather than just the finance committee. So, there'll be more on that moving forward. Any other discussion? Fagali. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I just wanted to bring up what I brought up in whatever committee that came to us, Quality of Life, which is that I have concerns about this continuing as a fireworks demonstration in the future. I would like for us to have more consideration as to switching it possibly entirely to drones or to something that is not a fire hazard and creating a lot of noise in our neighborhoods and city. Thank you, Councilor. Any other discussion? Just to reflect on Councilor Castro's comment around city-sponsored events. To be honest, there's not a proper process, and that's something we're currently looking at establishing in a proper policy because what the city sponsors, it's kind of, there's no rhyme or reason, so to speak. And so that's one of the things we're going to be working on. What does it truly mean to be a city-sponsored event, almost in the same sense of, you know, your traditional sponsorship level, goal level? This is what it means for the cities to sponsor an event, and this is what comes along with it. And so there's nothing in place like that right now, and we want to make sure that whether it's existing partnerships or new partnerships, entities know ahead of time what a city-sponsored event is. So, more to come on that, hopefully. Any other discussion? Madam City Clerk, can I get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Councilor Casset. Yes. Councilor Castro. No. Councilor Chavez. Councilor Falner. Yes. Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Motion passed. Okay, next item, please, Madam City Clerk. Next item is 9J. This is consideration of a resolution. This is sponsored by County Commissioner Lisa Kakari Stone, Mayor Michael Garcia, and Councilor Pilad Falner. The joint resolution recognizing the value of periodic joint meetings between Santa Fe County and the City of Santa Fe and establishing a framework for conducting those meetings. Okay. So, I will entertain a motion first. Motion to approve. Second. Okay. We got a motion and a second. And I pulled this item because I wanted to introduce an amendment. As stated in the title of the resolution, this is a joint resolution between the city and the county. And the county heard this resolution last week and approved it with an amendment. And so the agreement was that we were going to pass mirroring legislation. So my amendment incorporates an amendment that Commissioner Bamante included in the county's version of the resolution. So that's just to give you some context. It speaks to the action working group portion of the resolution. We can read it if folks would like, and if not, I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve or introduce the amendment. Second. So, we got a motion and a second. Any discussion on the amendment? Okay, seeing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Casset. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Falner. Yes. Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Thank you. Next item, please, Madam City. Vote. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Getting too ahead of ourselves. Can we, any further discussion? Well, I think there's already a motion. Any further discussion now that it's been amended? Hearing, seeing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote on the overall motion? Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Falner. Yes. Councilor Fagali. Councilor Garcia. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Councilor Cassid. Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Next item on the agenda, please. Next item on the agenda is consideration. It's 9K. Consideration of a resolution. This is sponsored by Councilor Alma Castro. It's a resolution approving the consumption of beer and wine during Site Santa Fe's annual gala dinner event on July 1st, 2026 at the Ramada in the Railyard Park pursuant to subsection 23-6.2C SFCC 1987. Motion to approve. Second. Okay. And I pulled this because I think there was an amendment. There is a quick amendment to the day of the week, I believe. Okay. So, is it, I believe it's your amendment? It is my amendment. So I would like to move that amendment. Second. Okay. Any discussion on the amendment? Hearing none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote on the amendment? Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Falner. Yes. Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Councilor Casset. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Any discussion on the resolution now that it's been amended or none? Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote on the item? Councilor Falner. Yes. Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Thank you. Next item on the agenda, Madam City Clerk. Next item on the agenda is 10A. This is action items on the discussion agenda. 10A is request for ratification of attorney employment agreement with Marcos D. Martinez with a term ending on December 31st, 2029. Approved. Second. Okay. So, we've got a motion and a second. Any discussion on the agenda item? Yes, Councilor Casset. Thank you, Mayor. So, I have a couple things that I want to discuss regarding this item. First and foremost, I really appreciate that we are looking at making sure that we're paying competitive rates. I know that that has not always been met with as much welcome as I think it needs to be. There's a couple things, though, that I am curious about with the process. First and foremost, I am, with both of these two contracts coming up, understanding where these salaries came from is really something that I'd like to hear more about. The attorney, I believe it's an increase of, oh, roughly, we were paying $158,000 at the end of the previous city attorneys, and now we're looking at, I think it's $172,000. So that's quite a big jump. With the City Clerk, I believe it's about a, it was about a $20,000 jump. And again, I think that it is really important that we be paying our staff. But we've also been talking a lot about tough budget year coming up, fiscal transparency, understanding, you know, what these things look like. So, that's my first question. And then I'll then I'll ask a question on the process. So, I'm not sure who, I think maybe directed to you, around how these salaries were determined, what comps were looked at. You know, this again, this is quite a big jump. I do think we were probably previously underpaying our staff, but understanding how these specific numbers were agreed upon is something that I think is important for us to understand. Sure. Happy to entertain that question. Thank you, Councilor. So these salaries that are being proposed for both this item and the next item are actually below what the previous office holders were making, some in a significant manner. And so what I wanted to do was ensure that we are paying an equitable rate, meanwhile we're allowing room for growth. And so the previous city attorney was earning well over what's being proposed. The previous city clerk was earning well over, I think, in excess of maybe $10,000 than what's being proposed here. And so with this, the first item we're talking about is Mr. Martinez. With the length of tenure that Mr. Martinez has with the City of Santa Fe, I honestly could have verified or justified bringing in Mr. Martinez at the same rate that City Attorney McSherry was bringing. Again, because I want to ensure that we're being cognizant of what the market rate is, but also knowing that we are in budget constraints. That is why I proposed a lower budget for Mr. Martinez and am happy to speak to the item for the city clerk when we get to it. Mayor, I'm looking at an article in the New Mexican that is from February 8th of 2025, updated March 16th, 2026. And I have Aaron McSherry making $158,891. And so I don't recall seeing, I mean, again, I agree paying what people deserve is important. But I just, I don't, I would be interested in getting that information because that's not what I have seen. And we can get that to you. Because again, this was all taken into consideration. I believe the article might be referencing incorrect salary figures because when the salary consideration was being made, again, I did have a lengthy conversation with the interim HR director. And so we can get you the figures of what both former City Attorney McSherry was making and then for the next agenda item, former City Clerk Salazar was making. And both proposals, both salaries that I recommended for both positions, are below what the previous office holders were making, and I can confirm that from staff with you. Yeah, I think that would be very helpful because again, when I was trying to get, trying to understand what the salaries look like, that was not what I was seeing from the previous, previously what I could find. So that information would be much appreciated. Sure. Yeah. And we can work to get you that. I was quickly looking through my email, and it must have been a hard copy that the interim HR director provided me because I again, I clearly remember because it's tough, especially when you have a person in the position like City Attorney Martinez, where they have dedicated nearly two decades of service, and it to me would have been justified to bring Mr. Martinez in at the same rate that the former city attorney was making, and I made a cognizant decision to bring Mr. Martinez in at a lower rate. Well, I might argue that we should, again, this is where this information is really helpful. Because I mean, if those dollar amounts are already budgeted, which they are for this year, then bringing them in at comparable rates, and again, we've been having these conversations around looking at what other city attorneys are making, what other city clerks are making. So again, having that information, I think, is really helpful for us. And understanding where those large jumps came from with the previous city attorney and city clerk probably would inform what's happening here. So I think again, just having that information around how these decisions are being made, the fact that these dollars are already budgeted, and how we come to those determinations. My other question, though, has to do with contracts, and I have not seen contracts with employment agreements done this way in the past. Now, for a while, we were doing contracts for employees, and we would go through an approval, not a ratification process. And then we stopped having contracts coming forward, and these individuals were employed at will. And now we're getting a ratification of an employment agreement. And so I'm just trying to figure out this process, as in the past, I have seen that the governing body had to approve a contract, not ratify it, I believe. But again, this, it has been a number of years. So I don't know, maybe City Attorney Martinez, or actually both of you have been around for this process, might have some more information around when we approve contracts for employees, when employees opt not to have a contract, because that's what had happened for the last few city clerks and city attorney. And then the ability to ratify the employment agreement as opposed to having us approve an employment agreement. And in the past, when we've done this, we went into an executive session, we had all these conversations. This is actually when these conversations around salaries and how we came to those salary amounts would have occurred. So I'm a little confused on this process at this moment in time. Thank you. Councilor Cassid, I'll try to provide a little bit of information to the extent that I understand it. So, I think that there are contracts proposed for the three mayoral appointees, and these hadn't been done in the past, in the recent past. Farther back in time, there were employment contracts with these types of appointees. And so, from one perspective, when the governing body consents to the appointment of the city attorney and the city clerk and the city manager, I think that there's an argument to be made that that is sufficient authority for the mayor to approve these types of contracts. Now, normally the mayor only acts with the governing body's approval. The appointment was made at the last meeting, as you're well aware, and then after that meeting, we executed these contracts following the appointment. But wanting to err on the side of more disclosure, we thought it was probably the better practice to bring these to the governing body so that the public and the governing body would have the opportunity to see them and ratify that decision. So the contracts are not necessary because in the past, as you know, for example, City Attorney McSherry did not have one. The prior city managers, the last couple city managers, did not have them either. There was an additional request and an additional process. I think they're basically covered by the charter provision that with the consent of the governing body, the mayor has this ability to appoint them. But I think, and I agree, that it's appropriate to bring them to the governing body for full disclosure and ratification. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that information. And it'd be nice if we figured out a more standard process because there's, again, I've now seen it done three ways. And that's not fun. And then normally, when we were talking about salaries, I believe that we would, that that was discussed and approved in the budget. And so, that's where we got to have a lot of those conversations. So I think just something for us to think about that as we are moving forward, it would be really great if we outlined what this process should look like. Because I feel like I've just seen it multiple ways and I find it a little confusing that we don't really have that down. And in the future, I think maybe I'd recommend having the contract with the appointment at the same time. Makes sense. Now, since this hadn't been done last time, it's been a while, I think we were sort of figuring it out. Right. Yeah. Yeah, that would be helpful. Okay. Well, I, you know, I do appreciate it. Again, now understanding where the, where the salaries came from. Before I was like, hey, we did a big jump, but now I'm concerned we are not matching what was before. But so again, just the context for me really matters in understanding how these decisions are made. And so I don't, I don't think that we, apparently, I don't know if we have a say here at this point, but I would be interested in understanding all of this information. So thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Castro and then Councilor. I just had a clarifying question on timeline. How, if we were to table this or not pass this tonight, how would that affect these positions and the timeline? Well, I believe the appointment is still valid. It's just that some of the particular terms wouldn't be effective until the ratification is. Thank you, Councilor. So just for the public's sake, in the charter, we are to approve the appointments. The council doesn't necessarily have the authority to make a decision on what we pay people. That is a city manager executive branch decision. And so, what I'm seeing now is what used to be done in closed-door conversations that the public wasn't a party to is now being presented in a format that allows the public to see what people are being paid. I know it's uncomfortable for you guys, but it is public funding anyway. And so I kind of feel like two things. One, we're not paying any of our people enough. It's a circumstantial, substantial situation. It's a little beyond our control in the moment, and we're working towards getting better at this, but we do have to pay at least some kind of competitive wage to keep the employees we have that are awesome. But to the first part of my question, the city council doesn't get to decide salaries. We just get to approve or disapprove of appointments. Correct? Yes. Well, I mean, this is, that is what the text of the charter says. Appoint with the consent of the governing body, the city manager, the city attorney, the city clerk, members of advisory commissions. Okay. So then this is really a case of like more transparency rather than less transparency because in my experience as a councilor, these things were held in executive session and the public never got to be a part of this kind of decision-making or even know that it was happening, like what the numbers were. Yes, to a certain extent, although I think some of the salaries are available through some of the public portals that are available on the city, but yes, the part of this discussion was not happening in open session. Yeah. And so I agree with Councilor Cassid. We definitely need to like pay our team as much as we can to keep our good membership. But I do think that this is a good, this is refreshing in the sense that this discussion is happening so the public can be a part of it where in my experience, and I don't have the tenure that Councilor Cassid has by any means. I have only seen it done one way, which is like in executive session. And just point of clarification, this is the first time that we've seen this type of agreement before, right? I'm understanding this was not happening before. This was happening historically up until the beginning of the Weber administration. Before then, quick, quick correction there, because I came in two years into the Weber administration, and for the first couple of years, we did see these. What happened is there was a pretty horrendous in-public contract discussion for an appointee. And after that, I believe a number of the individuals that could have opted into a contract decided that they did not want to be raked over the coals the way that they were by the governing body at that time and so opted out of contracts. So this, this definitely has happened in the public view, and then, and then after that, the experience that I had seen with these positions is that during the budgeting process, these conversations really came into play around how much was budgeted and allocated for these positions, and there were a number of salary discussions in public at that time as well. So again, this is the third way that I have seen this occur. The first was a contract approval by the governing body. The second was no contracts discussed via the budget process and during the budget approval process, and now we are in a contract ratification. So, various methods by which this has been achieved, which is again, as you know, we said how we simplify that. Thank you. I think that's because it doesn't have to come before us, and that's why it keeps changing. So this is a courtesy of the administration, and that's probably why it looks different. I will say I think the public one that you were speaking of was part of the budget. It was an increase. I remember that being a conversation when I was elected. It was an increase in a position that was all over the newspaper that was very public. It was an increase in pay of a position that already existed, one of our positions. And the increase in pay was very public, and it was horrendous to watch, but it was already an existing position that the person had, and it was a discussion of a raise in budget that was very unkind. But I think the reason why it changes is the fact that it doesn't have to be here in the first place. So it's just as the administration sees fit to share with the public and the governing body after what is clearly drafted as a requirement for approval, which is the appointments. So I think unless we make, unless the charter changes to be more specific about how the rest of the process needs to be defined, it's going to continue to change. It's going to be based on administration. I also will say I would caution us to compare pay when we're talking about individuals and what they bring to the table. I think it's very hard, especially when we are able to experience those in interim positions, and we're able to see an impact they have in a short amount of time. It does leave reason and urgency to be very competitive with pay because we don't want to lose what we already have proof of is working. So I just want us to be careful when we have those conversations, especially looking about how past individuals were paid. Not speaking poorly on anyone's past efforts or anything like that, but when you have individuals in place in an interim situation and you see their efforts, you see progress in a very short amount of time in the work they're doing. I really think that the moment of now is what is essential in determining what that pay should be. So I just want to caution us on that. But it would have to be very specific in the charter for us to get consistency on this end. So the transparency coming from administration as is, and it being a public discussion in front of us today is different, but it is a way, like I said, to have the conversation, to have the discussion, and for the public to be aware. And as administration changes, that will change unless we get it in writing to be a very specific way. Thank you. Any other comments? Councilor Castro, sorry. I do just have one suggestion because we tend to get in the weeds sometimes, that in the future this could maybe be a report out or an informative thing on the agenda as opposed to us having to take a vote. Yeah. Councilor Casset. Thank you so much. I just want to make one more clarification because this is confusing. And again, this is where I am wondering the difference between the process for a contract versus people who are not getting a, and this is I think where a lot of my confusion is coming, is that for, and again, I think the last contract approval, Councilor Chavez, would have been right before you were, I think it was in your election year, was 2021. And that was the last time we had a contract come for us. And so just understanding that, and maybe this is what is something that falls under the authority of like the city manager's contract approval. But I'm, that is where I think the difference is lying where I'm trying to understand a contract does not have to come for an employee, but where does that specification come for, and does it fall under the usual levels of contract approval? And I think that things are really, really mushy there. These positions are not required to have a contract. I think that that is the important piece. We do have a contract in front of us. And that is where the process is murky in my opinion. In terms of whether or not these require approval now under the city authorities contract approval, it is, these are budgeted, which is important. And so maybe this is the way to go, but I think it is, it's fuzzy as to what happens when there is a contract as opposed to simply an appointment. And those are kind of two separate things because the contract comes with different guarantees for contracted employees as opposed to employees who are at will. So for example, if these individuals are asked to step down from these positions per their contract, barring any legal issues, they are entitled to take on their previous position. That is not something that is normal per our, you know, regular employment code. So there are some differences with the contract piece that is not necessarily specified as part of the charter, is not specified in our usual employment rules for those individuals that opted not to have a contract. They did not have those protections. And so we never had the opportunity to vote and say yes, as part of this person's employment, I want to make sure that those protections are in place because they are taking these jobs. So it's not just salary, it is not just the position, but there are some differences from my understanding with these, with these specific positions and what can happen in specific scenarios. So that's why the contract aspect is what I am curious about, and I'm not sure that we do have anything that directs us in either way, you know, what is happening when we do have a contracted employee versus an at will. So I just, I wanted to really make sure that that difference was being called out. And it's, you know, those positions for the last few years, there haven't been contracts to present. So it's not like there was, you know, I'm worried that people think that there was some contract in a back room that was being signed. There were no contracts to present. Those employees did not have contracts. So they fell under the regular employment rules of the city. So we do have some differences here. And that is where the differences lie. It's detailed, it's minute, but it's, I do think it's important for something for us to think about. Obviously, in theory, we will not be doing this again for four years. So we have time, well, not for these two positions. We've got a city manager. But for these two positions, we're not going to be doing this again in theory for four years. So we do have some time to look at this process to make it more clear in the future. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Any other comments? Hearing, seeing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Councilor Casset. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Falner. Yes. Motion passed. Okay, thank you. Next item on the agenda, please. Next item on the agenda is 10B, request for ratification of employment agreement with Geraldine F. Cardinos as City Clerk, Director of Community Engagement, with the term ending December 31st, 2029. Move to approve. Second. Okay, so we've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Councilor Casset. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Councilor Falner. Yes. Councilor Faggali. Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Thank you. Next item on the agenda, please, Madam City Clerk. Next item is 10C. This is a request for approval of city-sponsored international travel to the United Kingdom for David Carr, Tourism Santa Fe, Director of Sales, June 20th through 27th, 2026 for the cooperative sales mission with the New Mexico Tourism Department focused on group tour and travel business for Santa Fe with an anticipated cost of $6,353.71. Mr. Randall. Is Mr. G? I see Mr. Carr coming. Mr. Carr. Mr. Mayor, Council, Council members, Ry's on vacation right now, so I'll be here in his place. Okay, the floor is yours. The state has just, in 2024, has started a large campaign into getting into the international market, particularly the United Kingdom and into Germany. They haven't had a presence since 2009, and this being a market that we're definitely interested in. Really haven't seen much. With this opportunity to participate with Albuquerque, Los Cruces, and the state, we'd love the opportunity to support them and see over the next several years how we can increase the international Santa Fe. Okay. Thank you. Is there questions or motion from Councilor Castro? Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Carr. I just wanted to note that we had had a previous conversation about some potential travel, and we discussed sort of widening our breadth of who we were marketing Santa Fe to. It is not unknown to this council that I think it's important that we market to Spanish language countries, in particular to friends in Mexico and in parts of the country that are regularly coming to Santa Fe already. We had that conversation. This vote doesn't mean that we are not investing in those communities. It means that this is a new market, and it's something that we're working on collectively with the state. So, I just wanted to make sure that that was well known. It isn't that we are divesting from Spanish language or Canada for that matter, other folks that are on our borders, but we are just moving into new markets. Is that correct, Mr. Carr? Mayor, Councilor Castro, that is correct. Through research that the state has done, right now the UK and Germany are the top traveling areas out of Europe into the US, and as those markets, as we can penetrate into those markets, Italy is close, is probably about the fifth largest inbound travel that we see. And so this is the start of a five-year program that the state is really investing a lot of money. Councilor Faggali. Thank you, Mayor. I just have a question. Why are we voting on this? Is this because it's state funds? Oh, it's because it's international travel. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Garcia. Hey, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Carr, for being here. And do we have any data that supports that we are already receiving people? I mean, is it, obviously there's going to be a potential for people coming here. We do a lot with geofencing and people that are coming here. Where are they from? We have a little bit of data that supports individuals that are coming from these areas already. Mr. Mayor, Councilor Garcia, the state's investing a lot of money. We do have, let me step back. We do have data. Right now visitation is about 2% of international travel. And this has been pretty consistent over the last five years. With the new initiative and push, the state has invested in, with a company's working with a company called RMI Marketing that is really watching and being able to track and measure the visitation and the spend coming into not only the state, but into Santa Fe, Albuquerque, and Los Cruces. As we progress and move down the road with the state, we'll continue to see and receive that data. Thank you. I think with being at SMART, this is a territory that was brought by Spanish colonial and the Eastern European coming in. So I think it is very nice to see that we try to get some back in to come and see the areas that were why we exist. So thank you. That's all I have. Any other questions? Is there a motion? **Speaker:** Motion to approve. **Speaker:** Second. **Speaker:** Okay. So we got a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Councilor Barrett. **Councilor Barrett:** Yes. **Speaker:** Councilor Bamante. **Councilor Bamante:** Yes. **Speaker:** Councilor Cassett. **Councilor Cassett:** Yes. **Speaker:** Councilor Castro. **Councilor Castro:** Yes. **Speaker:** Councilor Chavez. **Councilor Chavez:** Yes. **Speaker:** Councilor Faulner. **Councilor Faulner:** Yes. **Speaker:** Councilor Fagali. **Councilor Fagali:** Yes. **Speaker:** Councilor Garcia. **Councilor Garcia:** Yes. **Speaker:** Motion passed. Thank you. Okay. Next item on the agenda, please. **Speaker:** Next item on the agenda is 10D. This is a request for ratification of grant number SAF-26-03 with New Mexico Department of Transportation Aviation Division for Airport Maintenance and consumable items in the total amount of $20,000 for a 2-year term and a request for approval of a budget adjustment request in the total amount of $20,000 to increase Whip Repair and Maintenance Grounds Road using New Mexico Department of Transportation Aviation Division funding for airport maintenance and consumable items. Here to answer questions is the Interim Airport Director, Jimmy Gun. **Speaker:** Sure. Mr. Gun, if you wouldn't mind just getting a little closer to the mic so the folks online can hear you. Is it turned on? The little green light. Now it is. Sorry. Okay. Did you want to give a quick overview of this before? **Jimmy Gun:** Basically what has happened, it's happened with a couple other grants of ours. 28006 is for maintenance and supplies for our runway and taxiway and any other type of asphalt pavement area that we have, basically to fill cracks. When it was sent, it was sent from the actual contractor themselves and it went directly to you, sir, and just signed out of order. We're in the process of fixing that. Hopefully this will not happen again and we'll keep things in the right process. We're actually working on fixing that process too for something of this amount doesn't need to go through the chain of command like that. We could push it forward a little quicker. **Speaker:** Any questions from government body or anybody like to make a motion? **Speaker:** Sure. Councilor Castro. **Councilor Castro:** I'll move to approve. **Speaker:** Second. Okay, so we got a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Councilor Castro. **Councilor Castro:** Since we do have Mr. Gun, I will take the opportunity. We passed a resolution today discussing joint city-county work. I know that there has been some concern in the county about the airport, some of the noise, some of the traffic, all of the redevelopment. If we could just follow up with them, that would be wonderful. Thank you. **Jimmy Gun:** Sure. Thank you. Councilor Castro, we are in the process of working on our master plan right now. The master plan does not include noise ordinance, but it does include the property surrounding the airport and where we can build and where we can't. That is supposed to be completed January 1st of 2027. Our last, our third meeting will be in August. We'll announce that publicly so we can get the attendance of everybody. We're looking at having it at one of the community libraries closer to the airport. I think that's appropriate for that occasion. The noise, after we do finish the master plan, we will work up some type of noise study. That's my goal. That is not usually included in studies other than just a plane. And to be honest, I find those kind of, it looks good on paper, but you really need to listen to what the public has to say and be real considerate of it. I mean, I know the airport's been there probably longer than most of our residents around there, but there are things we can do at the airport to accommodate those houses, the people that want to enjoy their evenings and just not put up with the low-flying jets. I will say we have slowed down some of our military aircraft training there just because we're waiting on for some of our runways, taxiways and everything to get the repair they need to prolong that. So my number is always available. It's on the website. Please call me. We can address those issues with FAA and reroute some of that aircraft. I'm getting calls as far as way as placed of aircraft coming out of our airport. Those are all training and we can work training around property and residents around the airport. **Councilor Castro:** Thank you so much. And I understand there's only so much we can do about the noise of a jet engine. But I do understand that we're trying to work more closely on things like advertising as well. So, I appreciate you. Yeah, we've had our master plan public meetings and our Jaguar extension and most of the questions I get at those meetings are concerning noise. Though, if you want to come to those meetings that talk about noise, I'll take those questions. **Speaker:** I think April 15th is that it? **Speaker:** April 15th. **Speaker:** Thank you so much. **Speaker:** You're welcome. Please come. Councilor, any other questions? None. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? **Speaker:** Yes, Mayor. Councilor Bamante. **Councilor Cassett:** Yes. **Councilor Castro:** Yes. **Councilor Chavez:** Yes. **Councilor Falner:** Yes. **Councilor Fagali:** Yes. **Councilor Garcia:** Yes. **Councilor Barrett:** Yes. **Speaker:** Motion passed. Next item on the agenda, please. **Speaker:** Next item on the agenda is 10E. This is a request for approval of dates for governing body study sessions for the remainder of the year. And if the governing body study session dates are approved, consideration of approving the amended 2026 governing body and council committee calendar to include the governing body study session dates. Deputy City Manager Andrea Phillips is here to answer questions. **Deputy City Manager Andrea Phillips:** Thank you, Madame Clerk. Mayor Garcia, members of council, there are some different options within your packet for some study session dates. We took the liberty of proposing some different options, but there may be other options that come to mind for you. The idea here is to create some predictability for staff. So, in talking with our friends in the Office of Policy and Legislation, when they're drafting legislation, they set a schedule out, as you know, many weeks in advance for the different stops along the way according to our current procedural rules. So, some predictability around that I think would help them in their planning for those schedules as well as for staff. So if there is an appetite to kind of set the date for these on a regular basis, it would be helpful. **Speaker:** Discussion. Yeah. **Speaker:** First, I want to say just everyone in the public, I can only view attachments on my phone. Our City Clerk and her staff have been very helpful in trying to help me figure out why my laptop's not opening attachments. So I am looking at my phone a lot. So, I'm looking at the calendars just so people know. It's the only way I could view attachments. But would you be able to just give us a brief overview of each of the options? I know we have the calendar, but I think it would be helpful to know the differences for the public to hear them out loud just to get an understanding of how they differ. **Deputy City Manager Andrea Phillips:** Yeah, absolutely. So, and I might look to Miss Cardinus to help me out if I'm misstating something here. So option 1A, if you do have availability to see that, provides for the dark purple bluish color is are the proposed dates under option 1A. So starting with April 20th, the reason we're starting with that one is that was the date that at your last study session in March, you had put forward April 20th. That does then assume that we would not have a Public Works and Utilities Committee meeting or we could still hold one if there's business we need to conduct and then convene the study session after or before or whatever works for you all. **Speaker:** I'm sorry, just to like help, if we could just look through each one and see which committee would be interfered with or changed or like what how it would change that dynamic. So option A would make it so that Quality of Life and Public Works lose this many meetings a month. This option means all committees are held, but we like just if we could get an overview like that to understand which committees will be impacted and how how reduction of them meeting would look like that kind of thing. I think those differences would be helpful to highlight. **Deputy City Manager Andrea Phillips:** Okay. Yeah. So then starting in May with option 1A, this assumes that it would supplant the study session would supplant the first Quality of Life meeting of each month. And so option 1B assumes that it would supplant the second Quality of Life meeting of each month. Option 2A is, so this one assumes that on the same or no, on an additional Wednesday. I'm looking at Christine here too because I think you were helped put these options together. So option 2A assumes a joint governing body and a governing body study session. So we would what schedule both and then cancel one if not if we don't need the other one or conduct business during the regular meeting and then adjourn to a study session or vice versa. **Speaker:** Yes. So 2A is the first meeting of the of the month for governing bodies. So we would start the governing or the study session at 3 and then end at 5 so that we can continue with the regular governing body meeting. And then 2B is the same concept except it's the second meeting, governing body meeting of the month. **Deputy City Manager Andrea Phillips:** And so both of those assume a 3:00 start. Okay. Sorry. And that wasn't in any kind of memo or anything. So, and those were just kind of options that we threw out there. There may be, you know, you might decide that you want to be, you know, on a on a different time slot or different day of the week. So, **Speaker:** And so for 1A and 1B, the only committee meeting or committee meeting that's impacted is Quality of Life. Correct. Is there a reason why only Quality of Life is being considered to have some type of impact for this? I think there's a few things. One, the Finance Committee does have more requirements of things that need to go before Finance Committee and I believe that one's also in our charter. I'm looking over at my the dream team over here to correct me, but I'm pretty sure that the Finance Committee is solidified in the charter in terms of review of the budget and some maybe some other items. So it may be important to keep a regular, more regular cadence for Finance Committee. Quality of Life and Public Works, I believe are maybe have fewer items that have to go to them on a regular basis. And I think what can happen is they could be interchanged in terms of if legislation or an item needs to move through. Sometimes, you know, if we can't make Public Works, we could make Quality of Life like one or the other. Okay. So, is there a re Sorry. I just feel like these are like good things to understand as to why there are the these options. So, is there a reason that Public Works should be meeting regularly? Is there anything in charter or anything? Because still that doesn't explain why Quality of Life would be the only standing committee impacted. **Speaker:** I think it was, sorry, Councilor Chavez and Mayor, the, there, I think there was a more workflow going through Public Works and Utilities than there is through Quality of Life, right? Thank you. And so for me, option two, like some of us have other full-time jobs, so I don't think option two like For me, I would prefer, I wouldn't prefer that because of that fact. I would make changes if necessary. I also feel like that's a little bit confusing, and just to give my opinion, the work session and governing body split is a little bit confusing in my opinion, especially when we have agendas and possibly not an agenda for the work. I don't know even how that would work. But I do wonder, because I heard from the City Council, the City Attorney's office, sorry, that it would be clearer for them if we had something at the end of our work sessions or study sessions that gave them clear guidelines on exactly what is approved for work to move forward. Is there a way for us to adopt option 1A or 1B where we have a scheduled work session during Quality of Life? However, there is a vote forward on action items that are decided within that work session prior to them being published on an agenda, because that's how it would work, right? We'd know that topic of discussion, but we wouldn't actually know action items to vote on prior to the study session. Yes, Councilor Chavez and members of the governing body. There's a procedural rule that says that the study sessions won't have action items. And so all the governing body would have to do is suspend that specific procedural rule, and then it would be able to take action, maybe give direction to staff for next steps, just something very simple. Perfect. Okay. So in my mind, what makes most sense is option 1A or 1B, where, and I think it's very important that we do end the study session for also the public to understand what we're moving forward on, and that's clearly voted on at the end. So knowing that that's just a simple suspension of rules is really helpful. All right, so those were the questions. Thank you so much that I had. Thank you, Mayor. Councilor Faulkner: So I looked into this in looking over our options. Quality of Life, I'm going to propose first that I don't think any of the three standing committees should be set aside for a study session. I think it slows down the process potentially. Any item that's on that agenda, unless staff can figure out how to move it to another committee and skip Quality of Life or skip Public Works or skip Finance, we could potentially slow down progress of the business of the city. What I did discover is that Public Works and Finance are long-standing committees. A lot of land use issues go through Public Works. A lot, it's all over Chapter 14. Finance committees are all over, both committees are in a lot of spaces that are in the code and somewhat in the charter. Quality of Life is a newer committee, and that's why things aren't flowing, as many things are flowing through Quality of Life as they are through the other two committees. But my concern is we see a lot of stuff move through our committees, and even though it's on consent, it's still moving. And if we were to take Public Works off the table, then those projects are postponed for potentially a month because it takes two weeks to get on Public Works. I mean, we can figure out workarounds, but I don't want to see the business of the city. I don't want to see land use issues, and I don't want to see anything that's pertinent to the city doing its business being delayed two weeks or up to a month because we want to have study sessions. I think the study sessions are awesome. I think we've made a lot of progress as a City Council and a governing body in the study sessions. It's a great place for us to communicate with each other and kind of have a free-flowing thought process on some of these issues. But I do have concerns about replacing standing committees with study sessions. I also believe in checks and balances, and anyone who's talked to me about this issue knows that I'm very passionate about it. We cannot maintain checks and balances if the only three spaces where the City Council can have some say of the agenda, can have a discussion without the executive branch in the discussion. These are important spaces for the council to maintain checks and balances over the executive. And again, I say this every time, it is not about who's in office, it is about maintaining the structure of checks and balances within our government as a city. And so, I'm willing to help however I can, but I do have a lot of resistance on postponing or moving out of the three standing committees. Okay. I really appreciate study sessions. I think that we need them, and I have suggested several topics that I think are important for all of us to discuss collectively. I am a little disappointed that I wasn't brought to the table when we were discussing this agenda, in particular because even though there are really important presentations that we're getting at Quality of Life, we were gracious enough to move back agendas and reschedule presentations now into potentially late June. It is one of the only spaces where we're addressing one of the biggest issues in this city, which is housing the unhoused and the resources that we're allocating to some of those spaces. And a lot is happening very quickly. We were lucky enough during the last Quality of Life meeting to discuss one of the things that was working well and make a lot of connections with members of this governing body to continue to support that work. My concern is without creating those spaces, as Councilor Faulkner mentioned, we are not fully addressing what we feel is a priority in the city. I do realize that we are doing that to some extent through our study sessions, but to Councilor Chavez's point, we haven't figured out how to use those properly, and we have not been able to be effective in our first session to say this is how we're going to prioritize legislation. There were some very clear directives of what we wanted in terms of how to trigger a session or what types of topics might potentially trigger an open discussion, like two legislative requests, for example. We have yet to hear back how that's changing our process. So even though we are making some really significant changes and things that are really important to the city, we also have to be very methodical and thoughtful in how we're changing our structure. And we're about to embark on a charter review specifically about these powers and how we function as a governing body. So, I'm hesitant, as was mentioned by a few of my colleagues, to do too much at once and not know what we're doing, right? So I would agree that I don't want to disrupt the day job that many, some of us have to have because this is not a full-time paid position. I think that we need to explore this more deeply. Councilor Faggali. Thank you, Mayor. So my understanding coming out of the last study session was that we were going to potentially, well, either rotate between Quality of Life and Public Works or have a new set of procedural rules that we would try out and suspend the standing committees with the exception of when they were needed, such as when something had to go to Finance, starting in June, and to have a new process for contracts and resolutions and ordinances that we laid out in that study session that would for the most part require the same number of meetings but in a different configuration. And I thought that we had also discussed the possibility of having one meeting a month for study session and one for the presentations that were then not going to those committees. So, I'm very confused by why we have two different schedules that are only over Quality of Life and not rotating between Public Works and Quality of Life, and none that entertain the idea of suspending the standing committees with new procedural rules. Question. Yeah, yeah, feel free. Okay, yeah, honestly, these are just ideas. We're not trying to say that you need to do it only on Quality of Life evening. You could totally rotate, you could do it another off night. It really doesn't matter to us. I think what we're looking for here is creating a space for you to have the study sessions and discuss those deeper topics that you have been saying that you want to do, and also to provide some predictability for staff. So if we are going to cancel one of the committees for an evening so that we can have a study session, then we just need to have some predictability around that so we can set the legislative schedule. So, you know, I think it's up in the air in terms of when you guys want to have these. Thank you so much, Mayor, and thank you, Andrea, and the team. I know this is taking a lot of conversation. I also was under the same impression of Councilor Faggali, of we were looking at what other communities do and the fact that our committee structure is actually quite an anomaly when you look at municipal government. We had some discussions around staff time, around our time, and also the efficiency of getting things through the process. So, one of the challenges I'm seeing here is that our procedural rules and processes are intimately dependent on our current structure. I would know because I wrote them. And it does create a challenge if we do start to replace committees. It does start to, I think it will actually gum things up more than create efficiencies, which is what we are looking for. In my six and some years on here, I know that with the exception of the budget, I think I've only seen a few instances where something went to Finance because it was specifically called for in the code. I think I can recall a couple times that things have gone to Public Works. So, I think that there is an opportunity to balance those with those committees already being appointed and that they can be called as things are necessary. I think that there is a good balance we can strike there. I think if there's also this component of, like, hey, maybe we want the governing or the City Council at a time without the Mayor, maybe we can have City Council study sessions without the Mayor presentation. I mean, if we feel like that space is really important, I actually, I think I'd prefer to have a Mayor in those because I like the idea of having the governing body, but I do think that there are options for us to look at. I think at this moment in time, we have this question of, do we find this concept of regular work session, study sessions important enough to uproot our system? My concern with replacing a committee is again, I think it's going to, I think it's going to create more problems than solving them. I, you know, the day after this, I spent some time and I wrote up basically like a skeleton outline of my understanding of what, you know, this proposal would look like based on that conversation, as well as taking into account some things that other communities do in order to provide that balance of power for what goes onto the agenda. So, for example, three councilors being able to get something onto an agenda and having that ability for that or getting a presentation or being able to set what those look like. I'm finding a lot of challenges with this. I also don't think finding another meeting date is a possibility. I know a lot of individuals, again, you know, this is a, it's paid as a part-time position. It is not a position, a full-time position, paid part-time. So, I mean, I think when we start to look at hours, I know when we've had conversations with staff, this, this process of talking about the same thing over and over and over again three times and how much money that's costing us. I mean, I do think, and like, I also see some challenges in the allowance of how often we, we let the public really get the chance to digest things and understand them. So, I think that if we really want to take a look at doing things differently, we're going to have to do things differently, which might mean lowering our community schedule and saying, "You know what? Maybe this isn't serving us for the way that we want our government to function," because I'm hearing two different things going on here. I don't really see adding additional meetings as practical. I mean, I think that we do a lot. We volunteer. We sign up. But a lot of us, I mean, all of us, we're passionate about this work. We're willing to do this time. But I'm with Councilor Fagali that I think we should take some time to really put out a different proposal, and then we can decide whether or not we want to go with that. I understand wanting the regular study sessions. I think that this would be really challenging. I think we'd run into a lot of issues with contracts, with people being able to see things the same amount of times, which is part of why we have things set up, is making sure that all councilors have equal access to things. If we start pulling out a committee, those of us that sit on Quality of Life, that will decrease an opportunity to see something, regardless of the fact that we'll see it on the other committee. Those who sit on Finance and Public Works would get two bites at that apple potentially. So, those are my thoughts. I think it's really hard to try to fit this new concept, this very new concept, into our current structure. Our process is highly dependent on this structure, and I'm not sure we could change one without the other. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor: Sure, Councilor Chavis, and then Councilor Castro. Councilor Chavis: Thank you, Mayor. I think what we need in front of us are a few things. I'd be fine with switching with Quality of Life. I'm the chair of Public Works. I think that that is something we can do. But we don't know. We need the information about how these committees exist in code and in the charter very specifically in front of us so we understand. I think we also need to look at the items that come before us and see how those could filter very efficiently if we change the structure of this, right? So, really have an idea of how that would look and also discuss, is there room for these things to be visited in work sessions if there is a timeline that needs to be met, especially if we're able to suspend our rules? So, I think that we just have to look at not so much the calendar options right now, because it seems like we're very far from that, and more so of what does code and charter tell us that has to be done? How is the workflow already existing? And how can we increase efficiency just within the city structure itself, outside of committee? We've already discussed that in work session. How can we make it so the agenda items are less because we have a better structure internally for these things to go through? So, there's not so many hoops, so much bureaucracy. That's what slows down the process in the city for all the community members that ask, "What takes so long?" That's what takes so long. So, how can we make those improvements within the boundaries that we've set within our code? I think that's what we have to look at, and once we have all that in front of us to discuss and truly understand, I think that's the only way that we'll actually be able to decide on a calendar, because it will be kind of moving too quickly without that information prior to committing to dates that we would be actually committed to for this structure. That's my opinion on this. I think we're missing a lot of information, which we brought up in our last session. I think a lot of these things were brought up, but we just need to actually have it in front of us in a presentation with room to discuss and truly make sure we have a clear understanding, a common clear understanding amongst all of us. I feel like that would probably be the next step in all of this. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor: Councilor Castro, and then Councilor Faulkner. Councilor Castro: Thank you so much. So, just another suggestion, and I think that we're all on the same page that we want to have these discussions and that we want to be part of the solution to get these study sessions on the schedule. Maybe it's using some of our subcommittees the way that we had intended in more of a presentation format and coordinating with you on what some of the major topics are. Making sure that we have a calendar that we can maybe publish looking forward, for example, so that we can invite the entire governing body to an already publicly announced meeting. I will just say for myself, I was not on Finance the last cycle, but I was able to come to Finance meetings. The chair allowed me to ask questions. It was very informative. So, there are things that we can do within our current structure that could meet the goals that we're trying to reach. And just briefly, we're saying that the system's cumbersome on most of these standing committees. So much passes on consent, and maybe one or two items get pulled off, and if there's a presentation, it's a little longer. The standing committees are not taking up a ton of time. Other committees are, like the HDRB board. There's other committees that we have that kind of slow things down before it even gets to the standing committees. And so, I also think there's ways we can give the administration the authority to make some decisions so that the council doesn't have to make those decisions. There's lots of stuff we do, especially around land use, for example, that staff could be making these decisions. They're qualified to do so. They know more than we do in a lot of cases. So, let staff make some of these decisions. Let the city manager make some of these decisions. Some of this is, I think, prior councilors trying to control a lot more of what's going on. It's about the balance of power, and I think we have the opportunity through this discussion to strike a balance where we can say we need committees for this, and we need administration to have the authority to make decisions about this. And I think that's something we can talk about. I also want to say we really should applaud staff. It's like herding cats to get us all up to speed on issues as complex as this. So, I really want to thank you, Andrea, for your efforts. I'm here to help however we can to figure out how to make this work. I know this is a heavy lift, and I know that as a governing body, we have a lot of differing opinions, and it's sometimes difficult to manage all of it. So, I really appreciate your efforts. I do, to Councilor Fagali's point about what we discussed in the last study session. Many councilors were under the impression that we could forego the standing committees as a practice of the rules, and it is not. Some of the committees are in the code and in the charter, and you can't just get rid of those with a rule. So, I think that's part of where the confusion came in. I was even confused. So then I looked into it, and some of these things are in the charter, in the code. And so, it's not like we can just suspend the rules and not have to do these things. It's way more complicated. And so, those are my concerns. Mayor: Other discussion? Councilor: Question, what would our motion be? Sounds like table. All right. So, I move to table this item. Councilor: Second. Councilor: A point of order. City Attorney: Yeah. It would actually be postpone. Tabling means that we're pulling it off the table later in the meeting. So, this would be a postpone indefinite, or we could also just not take action. We don't have to take action. Councilor: I like that. Do we have to vote to not take action, City Attorney? City Attorney: No, you don't have to. Councilor Casset, members of the governing body, no, you don't have to vote if you're abstaining from action. Okay. So, we do have a motion on the table that would need to be rescinded. Councilor: Rescind my motion. City Attorney: Who seconded it? Okay. So, now the table's clear, so to speak. Mayor: Any other discussion? Councilor: And I ask a question, just a clarifying question. Mayor: Sure, absolutely. Councilor: So, we had tentatively penciled in Monday, April 20th, for a study session, and it's sounding like we will not be moving forward on that. That one was for housing. So, at this time, just for staff's clarity, we do not have a study session scheduled. Correct. Is that what? Okay. I would be happy to add an additional presentation to Quality of Life if necessary, and we can talk about that offline if you'd like. Councilor: Move to... Councilor: We don't have to make a motion because there's no action. Sorry. I'm all... Councilor: Just for clarification, the 20th was Public Works. So, I just correct. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Councilor: We're all over the place, but there will be a regular Public Works meeting on the 20th, and then we will discuss a housing meeting potentially. Correct. Councilor: The subject of that study session was going to be housing policy, but it sounds like we'll need to find another date for that because we'll have the Public Works committee meeting as scheduled. Is that what I'm hearing? I don't think there's consensus. Is that right? Councilor: Well, I think we're having a discussion right here about if we're going to have Quality of Life, or there is going to be Public Works on the 20th. Councilor: We don't take action on this item. Public Works will happen on the 20th. Councilor: But I think the question is, there was a consensus in our work session that there would be a work session on housing. So, staff does need guidance on when that will occur since that was a request of the governing body at the work session. What I do appreciate about Councilor Fagali and a communication we had is that there is, this is short notice possibly because it would be next Wednesday, but there is an extra Wednesday available for a possible work session. So, I don't know if that's something that could be considered. But I do know that Public Works and Utilities does have an agenda in place that has already been pushed. There's been a requested presentation from the community that has been pushed back numerous meetings that will be presented on the 20th, and that is why I cannot give up that standing committee meeting. Councilor: One more. Councilor: Sorry, one more point of clarification. We do have another important community meeting after Quality of Life coming up this next Quality of Life because we have the fireworks community input session. So, I think this is part of why it's so complicated on the 15th. I think that's why it's so complicated because we have other agendas and meetings. Was I incorrect that we were supposed to have a short Quality of Life meeting coming up because there is... Councilor: We're talking about the 15th. So, next week we don't have any committee meetings. Correct. So, that's that extra, the extra Wednesday, which potentially could be too quick. Yeah. I don't think all of us are available that week, unfortunately. So, to the point that I think that we still have work to do. There's a lot on our plates currently. We're doing a lot of work. I think housing is very important, which is why we all wanted to discuss it. If there's another appropriate time that you feel that we could all get together and publicly announce a meeting about housing in particular, that would be the next priority. Mayor: Any other comments? Okay. So, I think one of the things that at least I'm, and maybe I'm misinterpreting, but hearing consensus is that the governing body would like to have some study session. The challenge is finding the time, and based on our rules, ultimately the City Manager can just call it anytime, or five of us can ask the City Manager to do it. So, what I think the Deputy City Manager was attempting to do was to bring consensus amongst us. And as someone mentioned earlier, it's like herding cats; it's tough. So, I think what next steps might be is just to propose dates, and we move forward with the selection of dates, just because we either have the meetings or we don't. I think the challenge is finding the time because you've got nine different schedules, and then we have to take into consideration if we're having them in the chambers, the schedule of the Council Chambers. We can have them in our conference room or in the convention center, but again, it all comes down to finding the time that works. And I think what at least I heard during the last study session is folks would give up meetings. And I think that's where the Deputy City Manager was kind of taking the direction of, is that meetings would be given up. The Finance Committee meeting would not be given up because the vast majority of the work the governing body sees rolls through finance, and it would create a major backlog. And where the other majority of the work could be heard either by Public Works or Quality of Life, or it could just be heard by Finance. All it has to, all legislation has to do is pass one committee, which could be Finance. I think we spent a significant amount of time looking at restructuring our process with the understanding that there would be a suspension of the current procedural rules, knowing that it would free up a lot of these governing body committee meetings unless there was a priority item that would call for a meeting to be heard. Maybe I'm misremembering, but that was the process. We said we're going to forgo Quality of Life and forgo Public Works and Utilities, start to schedule these governing body meetings, knowing that Finance would be the one that would have that kind of cadence of only being continuously held. And so I think that's where we just need to make a determination because the next step was to formally suspend the procedural rules. And I think that was Councilor Castro's question of what was the decision we were going to make. I think that was where it would come before us during the governing body meetings to formally, during a discussion, say we are going to suspend our procedural rules because we are going to do X, Y, and Z. And so maybe we need to reconvene, figure out the schedule, determine if there still is that appetite to suspend our procedural rules to incorporate study sessions. If there's not, then there's not. I think the challenge is there's not enough time unless we wanted to start having study sessions on Saturdays or Sundays, which I don't think anybody really wants to get into. So that... **Councilor:** They give up the Finance Committee to avoid, I'm just kidding. **Mayor:** Right. But I think that's kind of where I recollect the study session because we had it all out on a whiteboard. I mean, we've got pictures of it. We documented it. So we were trying to get towards a process, as we mentioned, similar to some of our other municipalities follow, or even the county, because the county has zero committees, and legislation at the county level can be introduced at the same meeting it can be adopted. And so we had a broad spectrum of what process do we want to utilize, and we were going to then discuss that while we suspended the rules to formalize potentially a new process. Meanwhile, a Charter Commission is convening and could completely flip everything upside down again. And I think that's where we're in this predicament. So, **Mayor:** Yes, Councilor Faulkner. **Councilor Faulkner:** I would just say I think in the discussion we had in the study session, I don't think the council was fully educated on what we can and cannot do based on the rules. I think there's more involved than just procedural rules. I think at the heart of the matter is some of the standing committees are heavily in the code and the charter, and that's not something we can do as a governing body on the fly. I think that's where I'm cautious about this, is that in doing research and talking to staff, it's not like we can say, "We're just going to suspend the rules and we don't have to do it." There are some spaces, and I don't think all of us are up to speed on what those cases are. And I think before we make this decision, we should get educated on what we can do and what we cannot do. There are differing opinions, and some people write about some things, and some will write about others. But I don't think we're on the same page, and I don't think we're educated enough on what the charter and the code dictate versus what are procedural rules and what authority we have to make a motion to avoid something where it doesn't bump up against the code, like to give up one of the standing committees for a study session. I'm not sure we can do that if there's something on that agenda that the code or the charter requires that committee to vote on. And I think I don't think any of us are educated enough on the charter and the code and how the procedural rules impact that. And it feels like kind of a mess at this time to be making these decisions. That's only my concern is I didn't realize how much the Finance Committee and Public Works were all over the code and in the charter until I talked to staff. And so that's just, I think we need to get better educated before we make decisions. **Mayor:** So Christine, can we have staff, because I know Finance Budget is there. The issue of massage parlor business licenses obviously was in code that had to go through Finance. If we can figure out through code, because it's not in the charter and it's not through our procedural rules, but so it would be in the code, what items have to go to what committees, that would help us really understand how frequent these items actually come up. It might be an item in code it says it needs to come to a particular committee, but in actual practice there's been no legislation or topic that has been heard for a number of period of time, and that would help us understand what particular committees are much more amenable to being swapped out for a study session. **Staff:** Thank you, Mayor. We are currently working on a table. There are several requirements for Finance and Public Works. Like Councilor Faulkner was saying earlier, most of the Public Works are land use issues, and then there is one instance in charter that goes to the Finance Committee, and then those hearings for business licensing. And so we're working on a table. It's getting close to being complete, but we'll get that out to you all once we have it. **Mayor:** Okay. So, why don't we do this? Why don't we get your chart? We can then have much more information in regards to which committees can ultimately be suspended in lieu of a study session. We bring it back to the governing body because again, ultimately the City Manager could say, "I'm scheduling it on X, Y, and Z date." That's not a process I would like us to follow. I would like us to follow a consensus of how we determine our time is utilized. And so we get the chart, we do have a better understanding of what committees might be more open, and maybe we don't schedule it out for a year. Maybe we schedule it out for a quarter, you know, for three months. That should be sufficient time for our legislative team to plan, prep, because things are sometimes come quick and fast and furious, and maybe even planning a year out might be a little too much proactive planning. I love the planning, but maybe we learn as we go. I mean, what are the thoughts from the governing body? I'm only one of nine here. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Yeah, Councilor Faulkner. **Councilor Faulkner:** I like that idea. I think we make better decisions when we have all the information at hand. Also, if I can add to that, City Attorney, could you look into what kind of liability would fall into place if we changed our procedural rules? Like some people had to go through one process, and now this other person has, this other group has to go through a different process. What if someone's in process when we change them and they're following one set of rules? I feel like there might be some liability there, maybe not, but it's a good question to ask. **City Attorney:** Yes, I will look into that. Thank you. **Mayor:** Any other thoughts, Councilor Fagali? **Councilor Fagali:** Mayor, yeah, I think doing a quarterly or somewhere between three and six months out would make total sense. I don't think we need to do the rest of the year, although by the time we get to that, it might be six months till the end of the year. So, you know, I think once we get this chart and we can get something going, I think we have all these really important issues like housing that we really want to work on and talk about, and we keep waiting because we don't have the right instance. So I would, I would suggest that maybe in May we pick a committee of, you know, Public Works or Finance, we can, or not Finance, Public Works or Quality of Life, and we use that for now while we figure out the rest of this so that we don't completely lose momentum on talking about these important issues. **Mayor:** And I would volunteer a Public Works and Utilities meeting if we can plan ahead so that my staff could make sure that the work that needs to be moved through, they're prepared to have moved through if there is a timeline that they have to meet. So, we could utilize a Public Works and Utilities meeting if we decide on meeting one or two. So, I could just make sure my staff's informed because I think the issue is just having enough time for planning. Councilor, any other comments? Okay. Yes, Councilor Barrett. **Councilor Barrett:** I was just going to say that I concur with Councilor Fagali that these study sessions should be a priority. Things like housing, the unhoused. We kind of have these emergency issues going on that I see as emergency issues in the city that we need to tackle. We need to be in the same room together to discuss these issues. We're only here a short amount of time with each other, and we need to take a deep dive on some of these issues that are a priority for the city. Thanks. **Mayor:** Thank you, Councilor. Any other comments? Okay. So, I don't believe there's going to be action taken. I think there's been some guidance given, and we'll reassess. Okay. With that being said, let's go to move on to our next agenda item. Please, Madam City Clerk. **City Clerk:** Next item is 11, Matters from the City Manager. **City Manager:** Mr. Mayor, nothing for me tonight. **Mayor:** Okay. Next item on the agenda, please. **City Clerk:** Next item is item 12, Matters from the City Attorney. **City Attorney:** Yes, thank you. I recommend that the governing body go into executive session for the matters noticed in the agenda. I move that we enter an executive session pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Section 10-15-1 H, subpart 8, for discussion of the purchase, acquisition, or disposal of real property or water rights by the governing body. **Mayor:** We've got a motion. Is there a second? **Councilor:** Second. **Mayor:** Got a second. Any discussion on the motion? None. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? **City Clerk:** Yes, Mayor. Councilor Casset. **Councilor Casset:** Yes. **City Clerk:** Councilor Castro. **Councilor Castro:** Yes. **City Clerk:** Councilor Travis. **Councilor Travis:** Yes. **City Clerk:** Councilor Faulkner. **Councilor Faulkner:** Yes. **City Clerk:** Councilor Fagali. **Councilor Fagali:** Yes. **City Clerk:** Councilor Garcia. **Councilor Garcia:** Yes. **City Clerk:** Councilor Barrett. **Councilor Barrett:** Yes. **City Clerk:** Councilor Bamante. **Councilor Bamante:** Yes. **City Clerk:** Motion passed. **Mayor:** With that, we will stand in recess for executive session. I'll be up all night. I one night. Okay, we will go ahead and reconvene from executive session. Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Section 10-15-1J, I move that the governing body reconvene in open session and state for the record that the matters discussed in the closed session were limited to those specified in the motion for closure. Second. We've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Fagali? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bamante? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Motion passed. Okay, given that we've reached the 7 o'clock hour, I'd entertain a motion to go directly to petitions from the floor with a second. Okay, so we've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll? Certainly. Mayor, Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Fagali? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bamante? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. So now we are on petitions from the floor. If any members of the public would like to address the governing body tonight, now is your time to do so. I would remind folks that we do have a couple of public hearings tonight. And if you are here to speak on those public hearings, your opportunity will be a little later this evening. So with that, go forward to step up, first member of the public, please. Is the mic turned on? Is the green light turned on? There we go. I'm sorry. Okay. My name is Greg Melo. I'm the director of the Los Alamos Study Group, and I live in Albuquerque, New Mexico, although I lived in Santa Fe for a long time. Thank you very much, Mayor Garcia and other members of the council, and congratulations on your election. We wish you the best of success in your efforts to make the city a better place. I want to say that we are very concerned about the out-of-control growth in nuclear weapons being promoted by our out-of-control president. And we have been among those who have not been pushing a personalized version of public policy. But now I'm afraid we must. The problem has become personal with Mr. Trump over the last few days because of his genocidal threats against an entire civilization. I want to say that it's important for there to be dissent. We just came from saying the same thing before the Los Alamos County Council that we are saying here today. In this climate, it is important to dissent not just merely in a partisan fashion, but in a principled manner. And I appreciate the email that Councilor Faulkner sent, which was very helpful. But I have to say, we're very experienced in Washington in converting dissent into policy consideration in Washington D.C. And I assure you that Santa Fe dissent does matter. As my wife would put it, the NNSA and the Department of Energy do not do things where they are not wanted to do them. So, we're happy to work with you and look forward to discussing the content of a resolution as the city has done in the past, which we believe would be extremely helpful in helping restore some sanity to our runaway nuclear weapons establishment. Do I have any time left, or is that it? Your time is expired, Mr. Melo. Thank you so much for the opportunity. Very best wishes. Good evening, Santa Fe City Council and Mayor Garcia. March 2nd, this was released on the Albuquerque Journal. If we could please just get your name. I'm sorry. I may say that first. I apologize. My name is Diana, and I'm a native New Mexican, and I'm here on behalf of the Los Alamos Study Group. And you may have seen on the front page of the Albuquerque Journal dated March 2nd, provided exclusively by the gentleman, our executive director Greg Malow, who was just speaking, regarding the increase for pit production at the Los Alamos Study Group. And if you don't know what a pit is, it is a plutonium pit that are radioactive cores, basically the heart of the warhead. So, in plain language, the federal government is asking New Mexico to double down on being a plutonium bomb factory. While our community struggles with housing, mental health, and I mean, we just have to walk out on the street and we can just see the total breakdown of New Mexicans. This isn't just numbers in a memo. It is more contamination risk, more secrecy, and a deeper dependence on an economy of weapons instead of an economy of life. So I am asking once again that members of the City Council individually and as a collective board sign the call for sanity, not nuclear productions, and put New Mexicans first so that we're not reinforcing a culture of death, but instead a culture of life. Thank you very much for your time and for allowing me to speak. Good evening, Mayor, City Councilors. My name is Roberto Roal. I live here in Santa Fe, District 1. I'm here also to talk about nuclear weapons. As we know, the federal government has designated New Mexico to be a nuclear sacrifice zone. The United States government bombed New Mexico first in 1945 at Trinity Site. Of course, that atomic bomb was developed in Los Alamos, and now they want to continue making more pits. The U.S. government keeps lying to us. First they wanted to build 30 pits, now they're talking 80 pits. And we also have to remember, uranium mining has killed thousands of indigenous people. We have the transportation to the WIPP site, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. They're all over capacity. WIPP was supposed to be open for only 25 years. Now they're talking about 80 years. And now we're talking with the pit production. We see the federal government under Trump. He's requesting $1.5 trillion for a defense budget. Why do we need so many atomic bombs? I mean, it only takes 100 atomic bombs to destroy this Earth completely. Right now, we have 3,000 nuclear missiles in our arsenal, and we're saying that's enough. Let's stop the pit production. Let's get nukes out of New Mexico. Thank you. My name is Shane Brown. I live in Taos, but previously Santa Fe. I'm here on behalf of the Study Group. It's my understanding, as much as I have the capacity to understand, that there was a proposed upgrade, if you will, or addition to the Pacheco Street campus in the way of satellites, and the governing body of 2024, in my limited understanding, took a stance and, as I would interpret it, advocated on behalf of the city and public. And it's not naive of me to be encouraged by that when there's a lot else to be discouraged by. There's a certain complicity, and there's a certain participation in this force that's believed to be some sort of economic driver. There's a wonderful cognitive dissonance in the governing body actually saying something otherwise. I'm here to literally and actually say thank you, and I encourage more and more of it. Now's the time. This thing on the hill is, I believe, at the center of the world right now, and you play a very meaningful and critical role. Again, thank you. My name is Natasha Derell, and I'm here on behalf of Los Alamos Study Group. I have recently seen a statistic and also just numbers and percentages of how much the plutonium pits are increasing, and it is an alarming rate, along with what we saw today of the remarks of President Trump. We are not socially responsible to keep expanding nuclear weapon production. It is irresponsible, and we have a responsibility to make this stop. Environmentally, we should be moving to renewable energy. We should be really reallocating our resources as a state. We should not be known as the hub of weapon manufacturing. It is irresponsible. It is harming our environment. We have not even recovered the damages that have been done to our agriculture, to our soil. There are generations of families here in New Mexico who have cancer because of something that happened before they were even born. This is something beyond our comprehension. This is something that is so important that we stop as soon as possible. There is no more time to waste. We need to treat this as urgently and as seriously as possible. Thank you so much for listening. If there are any other members of the audience that would like to address the governing body, the time is now. Madam City Clerk, is there anybody online that would like to provide public comment? If the members in the Zoom room would like to speak during petitions from the floor, please raise your hand. No attendees have raised their hand, Mayor. Okay. Thank you, Madam City Clerk. With that, we'll go ahead and resume to our regular item of business. Would you please take us to the next agenda item? The next item is matters from the City Clerk. I just want to give a huge shout-out to all the volunteers, city employee volunteers, and the community engagement team for the egg hunt and big truck event. It was a successful event. If you have the opportunity to check out the video on YouTube that was created, very cool video. And that's all I have. Mayor, the next item is communications from the governing body. From Councilor Fagali. Thank you, Mayor. I just have a couple of concerns that I would like to bring up. One, brought up earlier, about the fireworks for the 4th of July. I do have a lot of concerns about us continuing to have fireworks in the city, and near the city, honestly, but in the city is what we have control over. And I would like to see us move away from fireworks as a form of entertainment. You know, we can have drone shows, we can have concerts, we can have gatherings, we can have lots of things that are fun that are not environmentally destructive and potentially traumatic to our humans and animals in our environment. So, I would like to see us consider that and look towards that as a way forward. I also have some concerns with what we have apparently adopted as a new process for protests, which I don't think, at least I was not told about before finding out about it in the newspaper. And I honestly don't understand how it works, how it was decided, how it's going to work in the future. I think there are a lot of concerns I have with how that was done and how it would work in the future. So that is something that I would like us to discuss moving forward. Other than that, Happy Easter, Happy Passover. I hope everyone is doing well, and apparently the world has not ended yet. So, good job on that. Thank you. Councilor Barry. I was just going to say, yeah, we had some amazing community events last weekend. Just a shout-out to the City Clerk and everybody who worked on the Easter egg hunt. There were so many joyful families at that event. It was amazing to see that and participate in that. And it was amazing turnout for the No Kings event, Democracy in Action. So, good job, everybody. Councilor Chavez. I have nothing tonight, Mayor. Councilor Garcia. I have nothing tonight. Thank you. Councilor Faulkner. Briefly, because I believe it would be easier on staff if we kind of knew what we were working on legislatively. I have two pieces of legislation, and anyone in the public who's interested in knowing more, and anyone on the council who would like to co-sponsor. One is to repeal the resolution that directed the city manager to stand down on panhandling. The other is to review the powers and the jurisdiction of the HDRB board. So the community knows, and also fellow councilors, if you're interested, I'd like some co-sponsors. Councilor Castro. My goodness. Sorry, that threw me for a loop. Now I want to talk about the legislation I'm working on, but if anyone wants to work on renters' rights in particular, please let me know. I also want to give us some kudos. In my short tenure on the council, I think that we've been able to accomplish more in the last few months than we've been able to in a long time. I think we've had some really amazing conversations based on even the conversation around study sessions today. I think that we've been able to really do what we set out to do, which was represent our constituencies and our community. I also think it was an amazing event, and we were talking about city events and how to support them better, which is great. If there's anything that we can do to better represent constituents, please let us know. I think that all of us here have made ourselves extremely accessible. Many of us are having meetings in the community all throughout the week, all throughout the day. That being said, Mayor, I really do think this is a full-time position, and we would really appreciate some staff. Thank you. Mayor: Yeah, Cass. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, staff would be nice. I also want to echo what Councilor Faggali mentioned regarding the "No Kings" permitting process. I do have concerns around how that decision was made. The governing body does have the authority, is my understanding, to set fees, to set policy. I believe that in this instance, that authority was not relayed down to the legislative body, which I think is a little ironic given the nature of the protest. I first want to make clear to the public that protesting, we know, is important. I'm in full support of the "No Kings" event. I would have been in full support of it if it was not of my political persuasion, which this one just happened to be. But I do think that we've seen these happen before without permits recently in the last few months. So, there were some other opportunities and options. I do really worry about the lack of consistency. I think some of that is things we have inherited and we are now dealing with. I also think that decision processes were not adhered to, unfortunately, with this event. So, we have it already on our list of conversation of things that we want to work on, of how do we determine events. I've had the plaza fees update on my—I inherited this legislation, I think, from Councilwoman Vigil. So, that's, you know, what, four years now, three, two, I don't know how long, a while. And so we know that there are some really big issues in terms of the city's understanding of how these things are utilized. But I do have some questions that I would like to get information on regarding the process that happened here. And you know what this really does mean for the future. What position have we put ourselves in in terms of commitments to other groups? I know that we've been looking at what Albuquerque does. I've looked at—I got an email from a constituent looking at what Salt Lake does, which is essentially they're like, "Great, you go ahead and protest, just let us know if you can. That'd be nice." And that way, the city is prepared. So, yeah, I'm concerned about that process, and I think that that is something that we really need to get very solid on. On another note, I want to wish my wonderful partner, Marco Cerna, a very, very happy birthday next week, along with his twin brother and his best friend Aaron, who happened to have the same birthday, and his sister Erica, whose birthday is the day after or before. I want to wish them all a very happy birthday. But especially a very happy birthday to my partner, who is wonderful and amazing and has just brightened my life in so many ways, and I am very, very, very grateful to the chaotic little family we are putting together with our three beautiful hurricanes. So, happy birthday, and I love you, and look forward to celebrating with him next week. Thank you. Mayor: Councilor Baramonte. Thank you, Mayor. Just want to take a quick moment to thank our City Manager, Deputy City Manager. They've been very communicative and helpful. We have regular meetings, and those just have been very much appreciated in learning what's going on. So, thank you very much. Mayor: Thank you, ma'am. Right. I didn't have any comments, but since our process for permitting was brought up, I'm definitely happy to bring everybody up to speed because I think there's been misinformation, miscommunication, misunderstanding. We do not have a new process. What we have is a broken process. Our staff takes into consideration a request for a permit, and it's the responsibility of staff to respond to that particular request. Sometimes it's a permit to rent out a park for a birthday party. Sometimes it's a permit to request to close many streets where the applicant is saying 8,000 people are going to be in attendance. It is the city's responsibility to respond appropriately and accordingly to every single unique request that comes forward. So, in this instance of the most recent "No Kings" protest permitting processes, there was an original applicant that came forward that said, "We want to hold a protest. We want to close down some streets, and we're going to have 8,000 people." And so when that happens, there are steps that must be taken, especially when it is a significant amount of people. Police get involved. And so, at that point in time, police did what their responsibility is, is to ensure that they are working to serve and protect the people. And one of their very much proactive responses that they were proposing was to not only have protection in place for the permit holder and all the attendees, but also to have an additional support system that could be on standby. That is the $25,000 quotation that has been floated around. Now, when it came to executive management's attention, we determined that that was a cost that should not be passed down to the applicant. And so, that was immediately off the table. But for some reason, that $25,000 quote continued to linger on when it was no longer an option. Now, with any permit request, as I mentioned, there's a process. There's a cost of whatever the individual is wanting to utilize space for, in addition to any additional costs if you're closing down streets, etc. So, through that conversation, the original applicant determined they weren't going to move forward. And a new applicant moved forward and determined that those costs were still not feasible, and they weren't going to move forward with a march in general. Then what happened was the original applicant came back again and asked for a permit, and we began to work with them knowing that there was not going to be a $25,000 cost. It was just going to be the cost of typical road closures, which any applicant would incur. That's the city's responsibility. So that is all option one, right? The permitting process. What many entities, even an entity that conducted a protest today on the plaza, folks will choose option two, which is no permit, and still the city will have the responsibility to ensure our public is safe, and dependent on the gathering of a particular body, our police will respond and ensure that folks are safe. We've done this many times throughout my tenure in my very short three months. So, what we need to do on the city side is firm up our processes because what entities like the City of Albuquerque do is there's a clear process, a clear menu of costs, etc., that somebody is well aware of before they even apply. And dependent then on the use of the space, utilizing Albuquerque as an example, certain fees are waived. That doesn't mean it comes at no cost. Certain fees are waived. And so the city is exploring the Albuquerque model, but one thing is certain: we are going to firm up and fine-tune our processes because we want to ensure that one, we're equipping our city staff, whether it be our special events team or our police team, with clear-cut direction on how we're to move forward with the permitting process. But more importantly, to allow for the public to understand how the public can go about a permitted event or folks want to go the route of a non-permitted event and what that ultimately means. And so again, I want to reiterate, there's no special plan that was made. It was a decision that was made by myself and the City Manager because as I mentioned, there was that third request that was made, and it was at that point in time where we were so close to the event that we deemed it was the priority to ensure that there were public safety measures taken. And so that's why we made the executive decision to close down the road, just as we've made the executive decision in the past to ensure there was police presence at tonight's protest to ensure folks were safe and nobody was in harm's way. Just like we've deployed police to ensure that when students, whether it be at Capital or Santa Fe High, have protested and walked out of school, we've made sure police were present to ensure that they were safe, just like we did when there was a major protest the opening day of the legislative session where there were again a good number of people, probably over a thousand folks that protested at the plaza and marched to the Roundhouse. All those examples I just gave did not have permits, but we ensured that there was police protection in place to maintain public safety measures. That's the priority of local government. So, I hope that brings about clarity. I'm happy to work with any of my governing body members on this process. A lot of it is internal, just policy change, not necessarily law change, but happy to involve any of the governing body members on this. Again, these are decisions that do not require governing body approval. It's the City Manager's decision to deploy police when he feels that there are public safety measures that need to be taken. So with that, if folks have further concerns, feel free to reach out to myself or the City Manager again because we live in a day and time where we are seeing much more engagement from the residents of Santa Fe. And it is my responsibility to ensure that city government is not prohibiting that engagement, that we are working to ensure that folks are willingly able to express their First Amendment rights, but more so have confidence that their local government is going to ensure that they are safe and protected no matter what the topic is. So hopefully that brings about some clarity because again, there's been a lot of miscommunication, especially around the costs, where there was some confusion around costs, and there still is to this day. With that, Madam Chair, Madam Clerk, let's move on to our next item, please. Next item is item 16, introduction of legislation. 16A is consideration of a resolution. This is sponsored by Mayor Michael Garcia. It's a resolution repealing City of Santa Fe Resolution Number 2000-11, a joint city-county resolution which sponsored and supported an annual marching parade on Airport Road in celebration of Cesar E. Chavez. I think this one speaks for itself. 16B is consideration of Bill Number 2026-10 and adoption of an ordinance. This is sponsored by Mayor Michael Garcia. It's a bill approving the sale of seven city-owned parcels located in Las Rias in the northwest quadrant within the City and County of Santa Fe, New Mexico, to Santa Fe Housing Trust for a total of $4,490,000. With that, I'd like to make a motion to waive procedural rule 4, subsection B, subsection one, that specifies that public comment must happen at a governing body meeting. And my request to waive this rule is because the proposed purchaser does have a timeline that we must meet. This has been a negotiation that has been in place for quite some time, and we want to make sure that we continue forward with this proposed land sale. Second. We've got a motion and a second for the waiver of the procedure rules on this one. Just a point of information. There will be opportunity for public comment at all of those subcommittees. Correct. So, it is scheduled to go to Public Works and Utilities on April 20th, where there will be public comment. It is scheduled to go to Quality of Life Committee on April 22nd, in which there will be public comment. It is also scheduled to go to Finance on April 27th, where there is public comment, and then it would be up for final adoption as a public hearing on May 13th. Confirmation. Okay. Any further discussion on the motion? So there's more opportunity this route than if we had done it the way we had done it traditionally. Now that the standing committees have public comment, without that, it wouldn't be more, it would be less, but because of that, it's actually more opportunity. Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Councilor Casset. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Motion passed. Okay. Next item, please. Next item is 16C. This is consideration of a resolution. This is sponsored by Councilor Ana Castro and Councilor Paul Bamante. It's a resolution repealing Resolution Number 2003-33 and adopting new records information management and retention policy. Councilor Castro. I just want to make a point, and actually we were discussing this in Finance around the airport. Councilor Garcia was asking about some of our property and how we dispose of it and how we account for that. This is the beginning of that. We also had a tour of the library. We're going to have to deal with how to dispose of some of those materials as well. Councilor Bamante. I think Councilor Castro covered it. Thank you, Mayor. Next item, please. Madam City Clerk. Next item is 16D. This is consideration of a resolution. This is sponsored by County Commissioner Lisa Kakari Stone, County Commissioner Adam Fulton Johnson, Councilor Ana Castro, Councilor Patricia Fagali, and Mayor Michael Garcia. It's a joint resolution directing staff to bring forward an amendment to the settlement and annexation phasing agreements to terminate Phase Three of annexation, to waive the city's right to challenge Santa Fe County's designation of a traditional historic community of Awafria, and to convene with the Santa Fe County the extraterritorial land use authority and to make any necessary extraterritorial land use ordinance changes to effectuate the city and county's decision to terminate Phase Three of annexation. Councilor Castro, and I will defer to my co-sponsors as well, but I just want to make clear this is the beginning of a process. We have not decided on what the changes are going to be. This is just to direct staff to make the changes that we have agreed upon. We will be seeing this again for a final vote. Fagali. Thank you. Yes. I think you basically summed it up, Councilor Castro. This is to get the process started. This is what we are proposing, assuming that both this governing body and the county governing body agree to this resolution. And with that agreement, we will then have staff move forward to actually amend the documents that will do the thing that we are proposing in the resolution. So this will come back as a final. Thank you. And I just want to say thanks to Councilor Fagali, Councilor Castro, Commissioner Kakari Stone, and Commissioner Johnson on all the work that went into this. I know, you know, there were conversations between the city and county. There were conversations that were held in public meetings. There were site visits that were done. So, lots of work went into this and look forward to working with our county colleagues as we move forward with this proposal. Next item on the agenda, please. Next item is 19. This is final action on legislation. This is a public hearing. 19A is consideration of Bill Number 2026-3 and adoption of an ordinance. This is sponsored by Mayor Michael Garcia. It's a bill relating to city administration amending Section 2-8 SFCC1987 to reorganize certain city departments, creating new sections of code to include 2-8.10, 2-8.11, 2-8.12, 2-8.13, 2-8.14, and 2-8.15, amending Section 2-8.1 SFCC1987 to include a general provision section and Exhibit A to Community Services Department and to include Youth and Family Services and Recreation and to remove the Office of Emergency Management, amending Section 2-8.3 SFCC1987 to eliminate the Community Development Department, amending 2-8.4 to establish the Office of Emergency Management and changing the name from Office of Emergency Management to Emergency Management Department, amending 2-8.5, creating a new department, the Economic Development Department, and to include the Arts and Culture Division and the Film Division, amending 2-8.6, creating a department, the Land Use Department, and to include the Affordable Housing Division, amending Section 2-8.7, creating Tourism Santa Fe Department, creating Section 2-8.14 to include a new Regional Airport Department, creating Section 2-8.15 to include the Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency and renaming it Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency, MRA Department, repealing Sections 2-14, 2-15, and 2-20 SFCC1987, repealing Exhibit C of SFCC 1987 City Organization. Thank you, Madam City Clerk. This is a public hearing, so if any members of the public would like to address the governing body on this particular matter, now is your time to do so. Okay. I'm not seeing anybody in the chambers. Is there anybody online, Madam City Clerk? If anybody in the Zoom room would like to make comment for this public hearing, please raise your hand. No hands have been raised, Mayor. Okay. With that being said, I will go ahead and refer to the governing body for any questions or discussion. Motion to approve. Second. Okay. So, we've got a motion to approve. Councilor Casset. Thank you so much, Mayor. I unfortunately, actually, back to our earlier conversation around changing our study session process. I unfortunately have not had the opportunity to discuss this in committee because Quality of Life was canceled then, and I had two sick children and nobody to help me with them. So, unfortunately, I did miss Finance. When we did a reorg before this, I learned a lot about reorgs, and mostly that I am not an expert in this area. So that has been something that I know that we've been discussing a lot around how do we give more authority to a city manager that they don't have to come through the governing body to request a reorg, because I truly believe that a city manager should be able to organize and run the city in the way that they feel is going to best move them towards the goals of the current governing body, which of course may shift and change. And then of course with the city manager, I imagine that they would have their own ideas around where things should move and how things should move. And so, Mayor, I understand that is something else that you are currently working on. And I would love to be a part of that because I think that that's a really big change for our organization to make us more nimble. My current concern, I have a few concerns right now with this proposal. The biggest, and I actually didn't even realize this, I was speaking with one of our former city councilor colleagues who was recalling the previous change, and one of the conversations was around, I guess there was the city, gosh, this was a city manager that I don't believe I even worked with, so a long time ago, was speaking with Bloomberg around how do we organize a city, and they had talked about, you know, the number of direct reports for a city manager and how, you know, we don't have, now we do have a deputy, thank goodness, because we know that there's a lot of work that goes through that. There are some things that I don't necessarily agree with, but I will say last time there are things that I thought were great that didn't work out well. Things that I didn't think were going to work well at all that worked out wonderfully. So, as I've said, I'm really not an expert here. My biggest concern is that we do not currently have a permanent city manager in place, and Chief City Manager Moya, as I like to call him, has been doing a phenomenal job and has also been clear that this is not going to be his permanent job that he is planning on taking or working towards. And my concern is that we're going to get a new city manager in in the next four to six months who is going to have a different idea about how they would like to organize the city to get this work done. So I am not going to be supporting this this evening, not because I have any specific aspects of how this is organized from my own perspective. Again, I am not an expert in this area, but rather because I think that whoever does come in and is going to, you know, land in the city manager position and taking it on for the long haul, should be part of the conversation of what the organization of the city should be. I have some questions about affordable housing after some discussions there, whether or not land use is the appropriate area for it. I know that we often associate affordable housing with development, but when we were talking with Director Chavez the other day, there's a lot of, a lot of it is, you know, moving of dollars and a lot of it is contracts, and, you know, does kind of align with community services or perhaps even finance, or, you know, maybe economic development, maybe not. They seem to share a funding source, so that might be part of it here. So, but again, I just, my biggest concern is we will be getting a permanent city manager in. And again, this is not to say that Chief City Manager is not doing a phenomenal job, but has been clear that this is not going to be our permanent city manager. And I would feel more comfortable with a city manager having conversations around how their city is going to be organized. And again, Mayor, I would love to work with you on the work that you're doing to make a city manager have the authority to actually be more nimble in that regard. So with that, I will yield the floor. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Any other comments? Councilor Chavez? Oh, sorry. Any other, sorry, sorry, I apologize. Not seeing any other, happy to address Councilor Casset's comments. I definitely thank you for the comment around this not having a permanent city manager at the moment, but what we do have is a permanent mayor, and the mayor is the city manager's boss. And so I get to direct what I think the government would look like and how it would efficiently operate. That's what the people elected me to do. Now, when it comes to affordable housing, these are conversations. As with any reorganization, we could have moved many departments into areas, many divisions around. And this move came in consultation with staff that it would be the best fit for right now. What this proposed reorganization does is it sets a baseline. Because ultimately we want to understand what our department baseline looks like. Then it would allow for a city manager to come in and move around divisions, which ultimately affordable housing will be as a division. So if it doesn't work out, then a city manager can move the affordable housing division to a different department. This is phase one of a reorg. There are going to be other changes. We are going to be moving other entities within city government. That is not going to require governing body approval because that again, that is the administrative's authority. Now, when it comes to the laws that require governing body approval, it does require governing body approval to do certain things such as this. We are exploring removing that prohibition, but the city councilor in me says, "Hey, there should be checks and balances and especially in a major reorganization." Because that's ultimately a decision I feel that should be made holistically. And this is why this proposal in front of us is just basically level setting, establishing what are the departments, and then it will be the city manager's authority to determine what departments sit in the city manager's portfolio, what departments sit in the deputy city manager's portfolio. Not every single department is going to be overseen by the city manager, or at least not during my administration. My directive is that the city manager is going to be developing a portfolio. Meanwhile, a portion of the portfolio is delegated to the deputy city manager. Every administration has their own vision, their own idea, their own way of they want government to operate. This is how we are moving forward with my administration in regards to trying to create less bureaucratic bloat, creating less layers of bureaucracy that, for example, in this proposal, it's allowing the Office of Emergency Management to directly report to the city manager versus having to report to a department director, the department director then going to the city manager, similar to the way we unraveled police and fire. We have to ensure that appropriate folks can quickly connect with executive leadership. And so what this proposal before us is, is in essence, doing that. It's also doing some consolidation. For example, we're taking a department, which is the Arts and Culture Department, and consolidating it into a division under what is proposed going to be proposed as the Economic and Creative Industries Department, where we want to try to create consistency because part of this also is this change is we're eliminating the quote-unquote offices that we had, right? Because you had Office of Economic Development, Office of Affordable Housing, Offices of Emergency Management. It does not allow for a person who is not well in tune with government to understand the hierarchy of authority. So when we begin to label things as departments, we will now know those are, that's the top of the hierarchy change. Then you go into divisions and so on and so forth. And so that is the overall intention around this. There was one fix that we do need to make because as we created the Economic Development, and it's we're proposing, we had some consultation with city staff and we wanted to blend in the incorporation of arts and culture as well as film into the title of that department. So this is where staff came up with that term, Creative Industries. It's not new. The state has their own Creative Industries Division as well. And so part of it is allowing for staff to brand themselves as well. Meanwhile, we have to call them a department. That way we can respond accordingly, whether it's internally bureaucracy process or external. So with that, I do have an amendment that I would like to bring forward if there are no other discussion. Mayor: I have some comments, Mayor, but I can hold it till after the amendment if you'd like. No, I'm happy to entertain. I just, since we're going down that path, I want to thank you and address Arts and Culture. I was the chair of the Arts Commission when we started having these discussions because the department wasn't actually in code. It was very complicated on how we were supposed to allocate certain funds and who had the authority. So, this is a fix that has been coming for quite a while and I know has been impulsed by staff. That being said, I've heard from this council that we need to move more quickly. We are moving at 100 miles an hour in reorganizing the city. I think this is a big step. So I share Councilor Cassid's hesitation. I feel like this is very fast for what I've experienced on city government and is sorely needed. So, thank you so much. Thank you, Councilor Faul. Yeah, I would concur. I've said this before. I do organizational development consulting and the way the city was organized prior to these changes was nonsensical in my opinion. It made it confusing for the public. It made it confusing for staff. It created these three trunks that had everything going through one person, which slowed everything down all the time. And so I think what the Mayor has done is actually what I would have suggested if I were consulting for the city for the most part. So I, this is refreshing to me. I already feel a lot of stress going away for myself and I think hopefully for the public and for staff. This is just a more concise and better thought out way to organize the city. Yeah. Hearing none, I'd like to go ahead and move Amendment C forward. What this does is, and it does change the caption. So, if this does pass, it will postpone the final approval of this item to our April 29th meeting because it will, we will have to allow appropriate time to re-notice the new caption. But in essence, it's taking into consideration staff's input and changing the name from the Economic Development Department to the Economic Development and Creative Industries Department. In addition, it creates the subdivision of the Economic Development Division because that was, we didn't do that during this first step and we wanted to make sure that the Economic Development team had their home as well, which is their division, similar to Arts and Culture Division. So this amendment makes those two changes in essence. Second. Okay. So we got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Councilor Faggali: I have a procedural question. If this needs to come back again to be noticed, are we voting again at that next meeting? Yes. So if we would vote on the amendment, if the amendment passes, then the caption would change, which would mean that we would have to ultimately postpone final approval until our April 29th meeting. But, We don't need to go back to committees. No. Great. Thank you. Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Fagali, Yes. Councilor Garcia, Yes. Councilor Barrett, Yes. Councilor Bamante, Yes. Councilor Casset, Yes. And I'd like to explain my vote. Councilor Castro, Yes. Councilor Chavez, Yes. Councilor Falner, Yes. Motion passed. Okay, Councilor Cassid. Thank you, Mayor. I still believe that we should wait until we have a permanent city manager in place. That said, I had also had an amendment that I think was almost exactly the same by the request of staff. And I can count to five and so I know that this is going to pass and I do think that it is important that this department does better reflect the actual nature of it. So, while I am still believing that I would prefer to wait for a permanent city manager to really have an in-depth discussion around this reorganization, I do want to make sure that when it does happen, this department reflects both the desire of staff as well as what is actually happening. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Madam City Clerk, next item on the agenda, please. Next item on the, Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. We have to, sorry, thank you, Councilor Faulner. Okay, so we've got a, I'll now entertain a motion to postpone this item until our April 29th meeting. So moved. Okay. So we've got a motion in a second. Any discussion there? None. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Councilor Casset, Yes. Councilor Castro, Yes. Councilor Chavez, Yes. Councilor Faulner, Yes. Councilor Fagoli, Yes. Motion passed. Okay, now we can go ahead and move on to our next item, please. Next item is 19B. This is consideration of Bill Number 2026-4 and adoption of an ordinance. This is sponsored by Council. City Clerk, we have postponed this to our next meeting. We did. That's, I'm sorry. We're moving on to 19C. So, this is consideration of Bill Number 2026-7 and adoption of an ordinance. This is sponsored by Councilor Jamie Casset. It's a bill creating a new Section 2-2.10 of SFCC1 1987 to establish city attorney and city clerk authority to correct scriveners' errors. Move to approve. Second. Okay, got a motion and a second. Any discussion on this? Oh, public hearing. Hearing, Any members of the public? Sorry. We're all confused. Sorry. My apologies. Don't, everybody run forward at once, please. Okay. Anybody online? Madam City Clerk, If anybody in the Zoom room would like to speak to this public hearing, please raise your hand. Mayor, no hands have been raised. Okay. Governing body. A motion made. Yeah. Just making sure we're checking in all boxes because we're, I know we're all waiting for the land use case. We're, okay. With that being said, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Barrett, Yes. Councilor Bamante, Yes. Councilor Cass, Yes. Councilor Castro, Councilor Chavez, Councilor Falner, Yes. Councilor Fagali, Yes. Councilor Garcia. Motion passed. Thank you, Madam City Clerk. Now on to our next item, please. Our next item is Item 20. This is a public hearing. This is for land use cases, appeals, and other items required to have a public hearing. 20A is Appeal Number 2025-11633-AL of Case Number 2024 N-9320. Adjoining property or owner Tiara Quenta Corp. appeals the Planning Commission's October 16, 2025 decision approving a development plan by Zidico LLC for a 7.9 acre parcel affordable housing guidelines of the Santa Fe Homes Program SFCC Section 14-8.11D3A. And Assistant City Attorney Frank Rubalid is here to present. Mayor, before we get started, I'd like to call for the 10-minute rule on this. Okay. Thank you, Councilor. I will keep time. Okay. So, since it's been quite some time that a case like this has been before the governing body and we actually have two new members. Just want to go through the whole process because there is a much more formal process with these land use appeal cases. So first thing there will be any disclosure of any pre-hearing communications regarding the merits of the appeal and if there was the recusal of a member of the governing body if they can't be fair and impartial. Then we will go through the process. There will be a summary of staff report no more than 20 minutes. Then there will be opening statements by the appellant no more than 20 minute presentation there. Then we will have sworn public comment. After that, the governing body will be allowed to ask any questions. Then if there has been new evidence arisen, the appellant will have the opportunity to ask additional questions. Then the same thing for the city staff. Then the appellant will be allowed a closing statement. We will then close the actual public hearing where the governing body will then discuss potential motion on whether to grant or deny the appeal. And then there will be a vote taken. So with that being said, do any of the governing body members wish to disclose any pre-hearing communications regarding the merits of the appeal? Hearing none, we will go ahead and turn it over to city staff for a presentation. Thank you, Mayor Garcia and councilors. This appeal was from a decision made by the City Planning Commission at its regular meeting on October 16th, 2025. The commission's approval was for a 7.9-acre parcel located at 7205 Plaza Centro, which is commonly called the Zoro Blanco development. This and the surrounding lands were all part of an annexation agreement that we're going to call the Tierra Contenta annexation, which took place in 1994. This was the Zoro Blanco tract, which was Tract 51. To show you where this, the Tierra Contenta annexation, falls on the city map there, as you can see, to the far left side is the Santa Fe Municipal Airport, where the little airplane just took off. And over to the right side is Cerillos Road. And then up at the top to the north was Airport Road. And as you can see, the Tierra Contenta annexation sort of wraps around the Santa Fe Country Club to the south. The sole dispute here is whether the Santa Fe Homes Program and its affordable housing requirement and the density bonus that wanted a claim is set forth in the Santa Fe City Code applies to this application. So the question is, does the SFHP, or Santa Fe Homes Program, apply here? To show you where this, a little bit more detail as to where this falls, if you see the red blotch there, the red kind of trapezoidal figure there on the western area, the Tierra Contenta annexation, that is the 7.9 acres that the Planning Commission approved for the Zoro Blanco development. This is a replat of what was formerly Tract 51 in the annexation agreement master plan, which we'll look at in a moment. There you see the US Highway 599 right-of-way there to the left, Lot 10. Later on, that lot was redrawn, and that's now Lot 9 and 10, but Zoro Blanco development is on Lot 10. And this is what that Zoro Blanco development plan looked like. The applicant requested approval of a plan for up to 165 multifamily market-rate rental units, in addition to some other accommodations: a clubhouse, a swimming pool, and so on. The property is zoned C1, which allows for a density of 21 dwelling units per acre, but the proposal was for 165 units on 6.9 acres, which exceeds the 21 dwelling unit per acre density restriction. So the proposal from Zidico, which owns the Zoro Blanco development, is to add an acre, making it a 7.9-acre development, and then the 165 dwelling units on 7.9 acres would fall within the 21-unit density restriction. All of this is controlled by an annexation agreement which went into effect in 1994. Here's the cover page of that restated annexation agreement. There were eight landowners involved in that annexation agreement, all of which agreed to it: the City of Santa Fe, the Tierra Contenta Corporation, who's the appellant in this case, and then six other landowners. But ultimately, Tierra Contenta Corporation, or TCC, would end up owning more property than all the other six landowners combined. Ultimately, they would end up, Tierra Contenta Corporation would end up owning almost 900 acres. The city approved this agreement in a duly called meeting on February 23rd, 1994. The City Council voted to approve it. So that was early in 1994. Then later on, this master plan was developed. And the master plan outline is shown there on the right side of that slide. And again, you see the red trapezoidal figure that is the Zoro Blanco development, which was on Tract 51. And all the landowners approved the master plan. So each landowner knew exactly where its land fell into that master plan and what the zoning was for each parcel. And then ultimately, when the city deeded it, the property it wanted to sell to the Tierra Contenta Corporation, those 883 acres are outlined in purple there. The white areas are owned by the other landowners that weren't bound by some provisions of the annexation agreement, but this was formerly the Wolgamood subdivision out in the county, and Tierra Contenta Corporation ended up with 883 acres. And then, as you can see, as the parts that are outlined in purple there, Zoro Blanco falls within the area that was owned by the Tierra Contenta Corporation. The blue stripe along the western edge of the master plan area is the right-of-way for US Highway 599. This annexation agreement had a provision regarding affordable housing which bound the Tierra Contenta Corporation. It required it to develop 40% of affordable housing. That was in Section 7 of the annexation agreement. And looking at other provisions of the annexation agreement, there was a provision about assignments. And in that assignments provision, it was clear that the people that owned the property in the annexation didn't have to hold on to it forever. They could sell it, but if they sold it, they were bound to, the operative language in that Section 16 is that the landowner or the landowner's assignee had to deliver to the city an agreement executed by the landowner and the landowner's assignee acknowledging the assignee's acceptance of the rights and obligations under this agreement. And the city has researched its archives, and the city land manager, Ed Vigil, reviewed a lot of records from the County Clerk's office and could never find any evidence that the Tierra Contenta Corporation obtained this written acknowledgment from the company that ultimately sold that Tract 51, which was a company called Commercial Center at 599, and they were a predecessor to Zidico that sold the property to Zidico. It does not appear that Tierra Contenta Corporation ever complied with that provision of the annexation agreement. The annexation agreement went into effect when it was recorded, and that was recorded December 15th, 1994. And that was just about a week after the city made its sale of those 883 acres to the Tierra Contenta Corporation. So all of this took place in 1994 as kind of an ongoing plan. Tierra Contenta Corporation was a signatory to the annexation agreement. This is page 15. And there is the signature of the Tierra Contenta Corporation president. The mayor at the time of the City of Santa Fe also signed this along with all the other property owners. So this written restated annexation agreement is our position as a legal and binding contract, the effective date which was December 15th, 1994. So this has been in place for 32 years. And looking at the affordable housing, we're going to go back to that Section 7. The affordable housing requirement was, it was actually more onerous or was a lot more generous to affordable housing than the actual city code. City code has a 15% affordable housing encouragement, but here Tierra Contenta agreed that it would develop approximately 40% of the 3,700 lots or units planned for Tierra's property for families earning at or below 80% of the median family income of the city, which is the equivalent of the qualification that's found in the Santa Fe City Code. And then what we find in the Santa Fe City Code, it defines the applicability of the Santa Fe Homes Program, or SFHP. It applies to some developments and it doesn't apply to others. And at 14-8.11, subsection D, we see subsection 3A. We're going to zoom in on it so you can read it clearly. The SFHP does not apply to a development or a portion of a development that is subject to a formal written and binding agreement entered into prior to August 15, 2005, with the city or Santa Fe County in which the signatories agree to provide affordable housing or payment in lieu thereof. So as you can see, the Tierra Contenta annexation agreement and the sale of the city land to Tierra Contenta Corporation predated 2005 by 11 years. So the evidence that was presented to the Planning Commission on October 16th by the case manager, Alexa Hempel, is that the property is located in the Tierra Contenta development. It was governed by the Tierra Contenta master plan. The annexation agreement was in place before 2005. The applicant is not eligible for the Santa Fe Homes Program per the subsection of the code 14-8.11 that we looked at. So the applicant did not qualify for the proposed density bonus. So what the applicant agreed to do was to add one acre to the property to meet the 21 dwelling unit per acre density. So at 6.9 acres, Zoro Blanco would only be allowed 144 residential units. So 165 exceeded the density restriction. So at 7.9 acres, that does meet the 21 dwelling unit per acre density restriction. And there is a graphic. The purple area shows that that is the acreage that is owned by the Tierra Contenta Corporation, and they are still obligated to do the 40% affordable housing with respect to the purple area, the roughly 883 acres minus the 7.9, minus the acreage that was sold to the Zidico LLC. And I know I don't recall exactly what the acreage is that Zidico acquired, but that acreage that for which the Zoro Blanco development is proposed is 7.9 acres. Section 7 of the annexation agreement does not require each conveyed parcel to independently provide affordable housing. It's a kind of a just a gross, it has to be, and it's not even exactly 40%. It is approximately 40% that is expressed in the annexation agreement. Section 7 does not provide a fee in lieu option. It requires affordable housing to be developed. The agreement is binding on parties and their successors and assignees who had notice, and we have never found any indication that Zoro Blanco had any kind of notice, either actual notice or constructive notice. So therefore, the conclusion was that the Santa Fe Homes Program does not apply. Perhaps in the future, admission into the Santa Fe Homes Program may require an amendment to the restated annexation agreement, but significantly now, the findings of fact and conclusions of law that were adopted by the Planning Commission made it clear that this project was approved, the Zoro Blanco project was approved at 7.9 acres for 165 dwelling units, which does meet the density restriction and indicates that they do not comply for the density bonus under the Santa Fe Constitution. I want to thank you very much. I would like to thank Dan Esabel, who's the planner manager, who's seated right here, for the very engaging graphics that he provided that I incorporated into this presentation. Also present is Heather Lamboy, who is the Land Use Director, and available by Zoom if you have any questions of her is the case manager, Alexa. Thank you very much for your... City Attorney: Ruby, Director Lamboy. Yes, thank you, Mayor. At this point, we have a little extra time, and the property owner, the agent for the property owner, Carl Sommer, would like to provide a bit of input as well. Members of the governing body, Mayor, I will abide by the 10-minute rule for sure. And I just want to present to you, I'm here on behalf of Zidico. And that's owned by Richard Yates. And I don't know if any of you know him. He was, he's been here since 1972-73. He raised his family here. He's built his business here. He's invested in this town. He has a lot of experience doing projects in this community. So he's grounded here. I tell you that because it's important. This process did not work well for one of our own. I'd like to outline just a little bit of the background that we went through to get here. And second, explain why the Planning Commission decision, staff's decision, and your city attorney's determination were correct, and why the Planning Commission said that's right. The result was not liked, and we're here on an appeal, and I want to tell you why the talent is here specifically. First of all, we went through a whole process when we came to the city of Santa Fe to do this project in October of 2024. We came, and the affordable housing director had retired. I think she moved over to the county. The affordable housing office was sort of leaderless, and there wasn't a lot of direction as to where to go. So people were experienced in that, and that's just what happens when somebody leaves. But we were told by city staff and by the affordable housing folks, "Listen, you're in Tierra Contenta. They have an annexation requirement. You go talk to them." We packed up our bags. We met with the Tierra Contenta board. We made presentations to them about trying to come to an agreement about affordable housing. Mr. Kretz, being in the development business, came up with, "Hey, why don't we come up with a project where there is in-kind affordable housing on-site, a land donation with a contract with a builder to come build, and maybe do a partial fee to the Tierra Contenta Corporation?" We presented that to them. They rejected it, and they rejected it in writing after a very detailed presentation. In your packet, there is correspondence from Tierra Contenta, and this was on April 29th. Remember, we went in October. We're now at the end of April. We're in the middle of our process. And they rejected that presentation by saying, "After carefully reviewing your March 14, 2025, cash and move 684, the board has unanimously determined, or the proposal does not satisfy the affordable aspirations of the community benefit standards that cannot be accepted." We had also proposed, which is in your packet, that in a land donation with a development agreement with somebody, we were not able to satisfy the board with respect to our proposal. What did we do next? We did some research. I said, "Tierra Contenta's annexation agreement says you, Tierra Contenta, have the obligation to provide 40% affordable housing, and the only way you can get somebody else to take that on is you have to have an agreement with them." They didn't have this agreement when the previous owner... Mr. Summer, can I ask one quick question for the city attorney? The identified time right now is for city staff. Mr. Summer is not city staff. I want to make sure he's allowed to provide comment on city staff time. And then the second question is, do we have to swear in Mr. Summer because I know we have to swear in anybody else but city staff? And I apologize, Mr. I was waiting for this city attorney to come back. Mr. Mayor, I think that if he's testifying as to the facts, he does need to be sworn in. And then with respect to the schedule, I think you laid it out in the beginning that this would typically be other time dedicated to the appellant. So I think you have some discretion to allow additional testimony. It could be incorporated into the sworn public comment period of time, or I suppose. Okay. So, Mr. Summer, because I did lay out the process that this is staff time, and there is ample opportunity later for the public to give comment, I have a hard time justifying that you're city staff. Okay. Yeah. And I don't purport to be city staff. The process that you laid out does not allow the appellant to defend the decision, and it's their case. So I don't if there's a chance for the public to make the same presentation, I'd be glad to pick up right there if I had the time. But if you say to the applicant that they have two minutes to defend the decision that they spent all the time and money to obtain, that wouldn't be fair. So I will follow whatever your direction is. It's my discretion to give the two minutes, and it says reasonable time, two to three minutes. I mean, I'm happy to afford five minutes for the applicant, you and your client, for five minutes, but I do want to adhere to the process outlined earlier that this was staff time. And unless you've recently been hired by the city of Santa Fe, which is not the case, I have to, I want to honor the process I began. So, I apologize. I will have to ask for you to wait until there is the sworn public comment period, and I do understand it is quite confusing because somebody's appealing a project that you want to advocate for. So we'll, when it comes to public comment, we'll address your concerns at that time. Very well, Mr. Mayor. I'll pick up just so you all remember I left off, "Well, we went back to the city." Okay. Okay. So with that being said, is there any other comment on behalf of city staff? Seeing none, we will go ahead and then move forward with the appellant, Tierra Contenta Corporation. I have identified here as agent Lisa Gavioli. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and counselors. My name is... You will have to be sworn in, please. If you'll please state your name. Luke Perpont. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and counselors. My name is Luke Perpont. I'm counsel for Tierra Contenta Corporation. I will present a brief opening statement, and then Lisa Gavioli, the agent, will provide the testimony on the case. Tierra Contenta Corporation appeals the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Zoro Blanco development on the grounds that the Planning Commission approved this 165-unit development with zero affordable housing. This decision was arbitrary and capricious. It was not supported by substantial evidence and wasn't in accordance with Chapter 14 of the city code. In addition, I briefly want to touch on standing because actually two parties, Tierra Contenta Corporation and Homewise, both filed timely appeals of the Planning Commission decision. Only Tierra Contenta Corporation was granted standing because they are an adjoining landowner. The appeal of Homewise was denied. We don't know where that deal stands at this point, although we assert that Homewise did have standing because it has a direct economic interest in the decision. That said, because Tierra Contenta Corporation does have standing in this matter, council does not need to make a decision on this point in order to hear this appeal. The Planning Commission decision does not comply with Chapter 14. This is a fairly straightforward structure of the ordinance case. Particularly, the decision doesn't comply with the Santa Fe Homes Program provision at 14-8.11-11, sorry. Because the Planning Commission decision failed to apply the Santa Fe Homes Program to the Doro Blanco approval, the decision was arbitrary, just not in accordance with the law. Planning Commission made no findings of fact related to this decision, and as such, that decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The plain language of Chapter 14, Section 14-8.11 D3, clearly applies to this portion of the Tierra Contenta development. The Zoro Blanco development, as city attorney Rubel described, is on Tract 51 of the Tierra development. Tract 51 was designated as a commercial and business incubator use in the master plan for the Tierra Contenta. The text of Chapter 14 applying to the Santa Fe Homes Program, which the city staff and Planning Commission relied on, determining that this project was exempt from the Santa Fe Homes Program, says that the Santa Fe Homes Program does not apply to a development or a portion of a development that is subject to a formal written binding agreement entered into prior to August 15, 2005, with the city or Santa Fe County in which the signatories agreed to provide affordable housing or do thereof. So in order to be eligible for this exemption, a development or portion of a development would have to have an agreement in which the signatories agreed to provide affordable housing or payment in lieu thereof. Tract 51, contrary to what the city attorney described, was never subject to the affordable housing obligations in the annexation. The Tierra Contenta master plan describes which development phases and which units, which areas were subject to, were planned for residential use or housing units, and those are the units that are subject to the annexation agreement and the affordable housing obligations in that annexation agreement. Miss Gavioli will describe exactly how, you know, where the language in Article 7 of the annexation agreement describes which properties and sections of the development are subject to that affordable housing agreement because there was no affordable housing agreement that applied to Tract 51. According to the Santa Fe City Code at 14-8.11-3, that property is not exempt from the Santa Fe Homes Program and should have to comply. In fact, both Tierra Contenta Corporation and the applicant agree. There's a letter from the applicant at Exhibit J, page 21, where the applicant says, "We disagree with staff's conclusion that the Santa Fe Homes Program does not apply to this project." Plain language interpretation of the code requires the application of the Santa Fe Homes Project to this property, and the governing body should correct this error from the Planning Commission below. Find that the affordable housing obligations of the annexation agreement do not apply to the Zoro Blanco development and impose a condition of approval on the Zoro Blanco development requiring it to comply with the same program. Lisa Gavioli will now testify regarding the Tierra Contenta master plan and annexation agreement and why Tract 51 was excluded from the affordable housing in the annexation agreement. Thank you. Miss Gavioli, if you'll please raise your right hand and state your name. Gavioli. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you. Could you please bring me in as a presenter so that I may share my presentation? Absolutely. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, thank you for your time this evening. My name is Lisa Gavioli. I'm Senior Director of Real Estate Development at Homewise, here today on behalf of Homewise and Tierra Contenta Corporation. As stated previously, the subject of our appeal this evening is the final action on Case 2024-9320. On October 16th, 2025, the Planning Commission approved the 165-unit multifamily development plan with no affordable housing requirement. The findings of fact and conclusions of law were adopted on November 5th, 2025, initiating the appeal period. The findings of fact and conclusions of law did not address the decision not to subject the property to any affordable housing requirement, and we believe that this is a striking omission that is worth noting. Both Homewise and Tierra Contenta Corporation filed appeals of this action by the deadline of December 8th, 2025. So, I would like to just take a brief moment to speak to standing before we get into the substance of the appeal. The Planning and Land Use Director and City Attorney's Office have determined that TCC has standing but not Homewise. To our knowledge, this recommendation has not been forwarded to the governing body as is required by the code. We disagree with the determination for the following reasons: The Land's Director and City Attorney deny standing on the basis that Homewise cannot demonstrate economic harm. Homewise and other Santa Fe affordable housing nonprofits rely on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for critical funding. Not accepting a contribution to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund clearly causes economic harm both to Homewise and other nonprofit housing providers, as well as to the clients that we serve in our community. The Planning and Land Use Director and the City Attorney did not respond to Homewise's argument that it is also harmed as successor in interest to the Tierra Contenta Corporation, to the Tierra Contenta annexation agreement, which obligates Homewise to ensure 40% of housing units in Phase 3A are affordable. Approving the 165 high-end apartments in Phase 2 and reducing the overall percentage of affordable housing units to below the 40% requirement creates uncertainty as to whether Homewise is now obligated to make up the shortfall in Phase 3A. I also just want to note that we find it problematic that the Land Use Director and the City Attorney have the power to determine whether or not an appellant has standing when it is their actions and interpretations that are the very subject of the appeal. Just as a side note, we ask that the governing body be afforded the requisite opportunity to make its own determination as to Homewise's standing to appeal this action. So, moving into the description of harm, the final action prevents the applicant from participating in the Santa Fe Homes Program as proposed in the application, thereby denying the city the opportunity to receive a $684,619 fee-in-lieu contribution to its Affordable Housing Trust Fund, undermining efforts by city and local affordable housing providers to address Santa Fe's deep and worsening housing crisis. Instead of a $700,000 fee-in-lieu contribution, the people of Santa Fe got nothing in lieu. The final action sets a very dangerous precedent that compliance with the Santa Fe Homes Program is optional, that it is not a legal requirement, and can be circumvented by an arbitrary and capricious decision with no legitimate basis. The Planning Commission's decision to neither require compliance with the Tierra Contenta Master Plan nor with the Santa Fe Homes Program violates the terms of the annexation agreement and the purpose and applicability of the Santa Fe Homes Program under Chapter 14. The approval, with respect to the terms of the annexation agreement, there are two clear violations. First, Article 3 obligates the city to approve only final development plans that conform to the Tierra Contenta Master Plan. The Tierra Contenta Master Plan designates the use of Tract 51 as office/business incubator, in which no residential development is permitted and no residential units are assigned. The project therefore does not conform to the Tierra Contenta Master Plan. I want to point out here also that Article 3 of the annexation agreement clarifies that the Tierra Contenta Master Plan is adopted as part of the city's general plan. That is how master plans work. These are not private covenants conveyed through a purchase agreement. A master plan carries with the land. That is an important point. I also want to note, just for the record, as the Assistant City Attorney gave you some history about Tierra Contenta Corporation, if you weren't aware, Tierra Contenta Corporation was actually formed by the City of Santa Fe with the express purpose of carrying out the Tierra Contenta Master Plan, which the City of Santa Fe itself developed and approved. And the primary purpose of the Tierra Contenta Master Plan was to further affordable housing in this community. So, Article 4 of the, my apologies. Article 4 of the annexation agreement provides that any increase in dwelling units must be approved by the governing body. No amendment to the Tierra Contenta Master Plan, increasing the number of dwelling units or changing the land use designation on Tract 51, was required for this project by city staff. This is an important point. Finally, the decision inhibits Tierra Contenta Corporation and its successor in interest, Homewise, from fulfilling their obligations under the annexation agreement to ensure that approximately 40% of homes in Tierra Contenta are affordable. Denial of participation in the Santa Fe Homes Program places additional burden on the remaining development tracts in Tierra Contenta. By increasing the total number of residential units in Tierra Contenta, a greater number of affordable housing units will be required in order to maintain 40% affordability in compliance with Article 7 of the annexation agreement. This threatens economic harm by impacting the value and developability of the remaining tracts in Phase 2C and the development of Phase 3A. So, a little more about the basis of our appeal. The basis of our appeal is that Chapter 14 was incorrectly applied to this case, specifically 14-8.11D3, which states again that the Santa Fe Homes Program does not apply to a development or a portion of a development that is subject to a formal, written, and binding agreement entered into prior to August 15, 2005, with the city or Santa Fe County, in which the signatories agreed to provide affordable housing or payment in lieu thereof. The intent of this code provision, I want to be very clear about this, the intent of this code provision is that either a prior written agreement imposes affordable housing requirements on a development or a portion of a development, or the Santa Fe Homes Program applies. There should never be an approved development in the City of Santa Fe in which there are no affordable housing requirements. City Attorney's Office and Planning and Land Use staff claimed in the case that the Santa Fe Homes Program does not apply because it is subject to the affordability requirements of the Tierra Contenta annexation agreement. This is not correct. Tract 51 is designated on the Tierra Contenta Master Plan as office business incubator. I'll restate that. Land use category in which no residential development was allowed and for which no dwelling units were planned. Article 7 of the annexation agreement, which is the affordability requirement, requires that approximately 40% of the units planned, that is the specific language of the agreement as defined in the Tierra Contenta Master Plan, must be affordable homes. The requirement for affordable housing under the annexation agreement does not apply to this portion of the development because no dwelling units were planned on Tract 51. Therefore, the Santa Fe Homes Program does apply. So, just to give you a little visual, you'll see on your screen Tract 51 is highlighted in orange here on the Tierra Contenta Master Plan. It is identified as office business incubator, and I want to point out that the master plan also provides tables that enumerate the development program and tract data for the development as a whole in Tierra Contenta. Tract 51 is identified here under Phase 2 as office business incubator. And importantly, there are no units assigned. There are no units planned for this tract. Therefore, this tract is not subject to the affordability requirements as the plain language of Article 7 of the annexation agreement states. Allowing a residential development with no requirement for affordable units horrifies, is in direct conflict with the intent and letter of the law of Santa Fe Homes Program as spelled out in Chapter 14. So, a little bit more on how we got here, and I'll be brief. At the time Tract 51 was rezoned to C1 in 2010, city staff should have imposed a condition of approval that required compliance with the Santa Fe Homes Program if residential development was ever proposed on the property. Although some residential uses are permitted by C1, this rezoning did not amend the Tierra Contenta Master Plan to allow residential use of the property. It was done strictly with the intention of developing the property for commercial use in conformance with the master plan and as directed by Article 5 of the annexation agreement, which I've copied here. Any proposal for residential development of the property should have required a master plan amendment in order for the development to conform to the master plan as Article 4 of the annexation agreement requires. When the Zoro Blanco development plan was proposed, city staff should have required an amendment to the Tierra Contenta Master Plan to permit residential use of the tract. At that time, city staff should have also required the Zoro Blanco development to participate in the Santa Fe Homes Program as the applicant proposed. Because the affordable housing requirements of the annexation agreement did not apply to this portion of the development, participation in Santa Fe Homes Program was required. So what happens now? We submit that the governing body can acknowledge that the affordable housing requirements of the annexation agreement do not apply to the subject property, and therefore the Santa Fe Homes Program does apply to the Zoro Blanco development plan. As a result, a $684,619 fee-in-lieu contribution to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund can proceed and a density bonus can be applied. Finally, the governing body can direct Planning and Land Use staff that future residential development applications in areas where the Tierra Contenta Master Plan does not allow residential development must be accompanied by a master plan amendment in accordance with the annexation agreement. And with that, we will stand for questions. Thank you. We will go ahead and move on towards public comment. Do we have any members of the public that would like to address the governing body tonight? If so, please go ahead and line up and we can swear you in as you make your or provide your testimony. Yeah, I'm back. Okay. So, what I'm going to do, Mr. Summer, because I want to be equitable, and I understand the predicament you're in, I'm going to allow for everybody to speak three minutes. So, that means you've got to be very efficient with your time. But it will also allow, if any governing body members have questions for you, questions can be posed to you as well. I would just like to note for the record that what is being proposed here is that you deny the project or follow there, and that fundamentally violates our right to speak. Three minutes is not enough, but I'll comply with your stricture and hopefully there may be other opportunity, but I'll be quick. Okay, if we can... Please state your name. My name is Carl Summer. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. Alright, I'll be quick. Listen to what's being said by the appellant. The appellant is Tierra Contenta Corporation. They are telling you tonight that the master plan was violated, the annexation agreement was violated, and this project should not have been approved. That's what they just said. They did not say that at the Planning Commission. They did not show up and talk at the Planning Commission. What they're asking you to say is, look, the zoning law, which is C1, is trumped by the general plan, the master plan, and the annexation agreement. That is fundamentally flawed. It's wrong. What applies when somebody comes in to apply for a zone, for an application, is the zoning law C1. If you have a permitted use under the zoning, you have a right to do that. Under the zoning, it cannot be denied because of some other requirement. And I think you can ask your city attorneys that. So that's fundamentally the first thing. And it is notable that they did not say this project should not be approved because it did not comply with the master plan. So, I note that for your presentation, the second thing is this. There were disagreements all along through this process about how to comply with affordable housing. It's the city's program. The city attorney determined, said, "Look, there is an affordable housing agreement, Carl. It says right there, Terra Contenta has got to apply to produce 40%." I said, "All right, Terra Contenta has to do that. We're not Terra Contenta. You're bound by the master plan agreement." What happened here and what is going on here is Terra Contenta failed to require of the property owner who purchased the property a requirement to comply with the affordable housing of some amount, 40%, 10%, whatever they were going to put. They did not require that of the property owner, and now they're asking you to save them from that. That's not fair to us. That is not fair to us. We've been through this process for nine months since an approval. It costs us tens of thousands of dollars to do nothing every month for nine months. That is not fair to us. Homewise, they are the purchaser of Phase 3. And I note for you that nobody from Terra Contenta got up here and talked. Nobody who got up here and talked was Homewise. Lisa Gavioli for Homewise. And I'll tell you why. Because they bought Phase 3, and they are required to produce and comply with that overall 40%. And they're saying, "Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait. Well, if we can get something here, that's less for us." They're asking you to save them from mistakes that were made by them in their purchases of their property. That's what's going on here fundamentally. And it is not fair to an applicant who has complied with the law every step of the way, done everything that was asked, and got a unanimous approval, 100% staff report. There were two people who protested, and they didn't say anything about the project generally, but you're being asked to— Mr. Summer, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it up, please. Anyway, I thank you very much, and if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer. Thank you. Next member of the public, please. If you'll please raise your right hand and state your name. Kathy Collins. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. Hi. I know it's been a long evening already. I'm Kathy Collins, the executive director for Santa Fe Habitat and a resident of Santa Fe. I think this is an opportunity, or at least a small do-over. I'm not going to go through all the technical stuff, but I agree that we should never approve any sort of housing without having some sort of affordable housing, or at least a deed in lieu of. And while understandable how this all happened, or maybe not at this hour, we have things in place for affordable housing. And as a developer of only affordable housing, 80% to 30%, I think that this is an opportunity. The developer already had sent in and said that they were willing to be part of the B&L program. And if I'm looking at if it was under the Terra Contenta, that would have been 66 units. And this is 33 units that they're getting to pay approximately $700,000 for. As a developer of affordable housing, $700,000 does not go very far. So I'm also grateful that at some point it seems that you all are going to do a comprehensive look at the fee in lieu of program. Again, I don't think that we should ever, in this city that has a crisis with affordable housing, let anyone develop without having some sort of either building affordable housing or paying a fee for that. Thank you. If you'll please raise your right hand and state your name. Amara Bear. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. Well, good evening, Mayor and counselors. I'm a board member of the Terra Contenta Corporation, and I'm here to say that the board of Terra Contenta fully supports this project, and we always have, unanimously. And we regret that it has taken this long for the applicant to get this far, and we hope that we can resolve this in a manner that is satisfactory both to the applicant for the project, but also for the greater good of the city. And I think the bottom line here is whether or not there's going to be a contribution to affordable housing and advance affordable housing in the community. And that's really our primary interest. And that's the main reason that we filed this appeal, because it doesn't make any sense for a housing development of 165 units not to contribute in some fashion to affordable housing. And I have to say on the owner's behalf, they were very willing, and they did bend over backwards to try and satisfy first the board and then the city, and they just kind of got caught in between, and it's just unfortunate. The city did, just for the record, the, I'm sorry, the Terra Contenta Corporation did submit a letter to the city saying that we objected to the Planning Commission decision not to require affordable housing. So, just for the record, that's really all I have to say. Thank you. Please state your name. Ann Watkins. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this topic. I've been a member of the Community Development Commission for many years now, and every year we tear our hair out and agonize about the fact that we have so many applications and so little money. So, you can imagine what I at least felt and thought, and how frustrated and irritating it was to hear about this. So, I have two things I want to say tonight. First is, please fix this problem. Fix this immediate problem and fix it for the long term. And secondly, I just want to say, Mr. Mayor, that I really applaud your efforts to reorganize and streamline city government so that it works, because it doesn't now, and people don't believe in government as a result, and it's very hard to create a community with people who don't believe in government. So, I really applaud your efforts to do that. And I hope that among those efforts will be a directive to your city legal department that certainly in cases like this, but generally— Please keep the comments to the case, and I appreciate the comments, but we're addressing the matter. Thank you, Mayor. If you'll please raise your right hand and state your name. John Paulo, Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you. I'm not quite sure about a problem. So I guess I'm not really making a statement. I'm asking a question. Is what the lady said to me kind of confused me with a half-truth. If one part is how are we losing affordable housing money, it's just who's paying the affordable housing, because I believe there's more than one track in the space. And if Zidico went and tried to please, and the city made a decision, I don't think it was a mistake. I think it's a decision. I'm kind of confused. And when I look at affordable housing, there still has to be 40% across however many acres. Now, whatever the content did, that was a choice they made when they sold it. And that's where I'm confused. I don't think the city made a decision, a mistake. I think they made a decision. Are you going to stand with them? That's the question. Are there any other members of the public to address? If you'll please raise your right hand and state your name. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you. Yeah, Mike Lofton and Mayors, Councilors. I think the history of what happened here is when Terra Contenta Corporation sold this parcel as an office business incubator, the commercial, whatever it was, a Richard Cook, it was sold to do commercial, not residential. It wasn't in the master book. Then sold it to Richard Gates also without amending the master plan. It was intended commercial office business. There was no affordable housing agreement for Track 51. There were no residential units to do a percentage of. There was nothing to transfer. There was nothing that Terra Corporation said you have to do this because there was no housing in that. So they couldn't do that requirement. It wasn't until the current applicant applied to the city to change it from commercial and office business incubator to residential. At that point, since there was no prior written agreement, at that point, the Santa Fe Homes program should have bid. The applicant actually proposed to do that. The applicant argued when the city changed, because originally the city agreed with that. Land Use Department agreed with that. Then they changed their mind, say, "No, we think it's Terra Contenta." We still disagree at the very Planning Commission hearing. Their final submission from the applicant was, "We still disagree with Planning Land Use staff. You still think this is subject." I get why you would like to avoid paying the fee in lieu, but I don't think, and I think the Mayor and the Councilors had real good concerns about we're overusing fee in lieu, and we need more affordable housing units. We can't let the fee in lieu become a nothing. I really hope you will require the Santa Fe Homes program apply. We're not against the development, not contrary to what Carl said. We're fine with this. We don't want to stop it, but it just needs to comply with the law as everybody else. We look at staff write-up, the city attorney's write-up on this. It says Santa Fe Homes program. It's in there. Look at it. It says Santa Fe Homes program encourages affordable housing. That says something like that in there. Therefore, it doesn't require it. This is a very dangerous precedent if we say this is an optional. We are losing ground. People have worked really hard. We're now, we're working hard. The administration's working hard. Tighten up the fee in lieu movement, and so we get more affordable housing. It would just be really a problem to walk. No, it's optional if we decide, you know, the city staff decides we don't. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the chambers that would like to address the governing body? Madame City Clerk, is there anybody online? Yes, Mayor. There are hands raised. We'll start with Anthony Ga. Mr. Ga, if you'll please raise your right hand and state your name. Anthony Guido. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do indeed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Councilors. I'm Anthony Guida. I'm an architect and board member of Friends of Architecture Santa Fe. I am speaking tonight as always in support of affordable housing and in favor of the applicability of the Santa Fe Homes program relative to this case. I ask you honestly, what are we doing here? How in the world, in the middle of a housing crisis, is the city arguing in favor of less affordable housing being produced, in favor of less money going into the affordable housing trust fund? Really hoping that you all make the right call on this tonight. I also hope that you see this as yet another thing that is emblematic of dysfunction in our land use process and the urgent need for deep and comprehensive reforms in zoning and the authority of land use staff, not the city attorney. We deserve a general plan and a zoning code that reflects our community's current values, our needs for the next 25 to 50 years, and land use staff that is empowered to make logical decisions on cases like these. Please do the right thing tonight. Thank you for your time. The next person we will promote to talk is Gayla. Gayla, if you'll please raise your right hand and state your name. I'm Gayla Beal. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and counselors. Thank you for allowing me to speak from my home. I was on the Chair Contenta Board of Directors in the 90s, right after it was created, and I believe that we used to actually have a much greater percentage of affordability requirements when we had not only the lower income but also middle income requirements. So, I think it was actually a 66% requirement originally, but it's changed over the years. When I was made aware of this project and this appeal, I was distressed to learn that there would be a tract in Terra Contenta that was neither of the 40% nor captured by the Santa Fe Homes. As previously mentioned, I just feel like we need to do the right thing and then take note of how we got here and not to get here again. So I appreciate my opportunity to speak with you, and I would really love for Chair Contenta to continue to provide affordable housing for the city of Santa Fe. Thank you. Michelle Williams. Miss Williams, are you there? Yes, ma'am, I am. If you'll please raise your right hand and state your name. Michelle Williams. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. My name is Michelle Williams. I'm the executive director for Consuelo's Place Homeless Shelter, and I would agree with every point raised thus far in the context of this appeal. The overarching argument, of course, is that we should always be advocating for more affordable housing or accepting a fee in lieu, and I'm in agreement with many others already spoken tonight about perhaps a misunderstanding or some technical snafu around not accepting this fee, and not in the effort of delaying or further altering the course of this development, but just in the efforts of moving the efforts of the development forward and to accept the fee. As Miss Collins said, $700,000 does not go very far, but that is not insignificant, and we should always be advocating for what the spirit of this aspect of the code was aligned to do, which was to build affordable housing or to accept the fee in lieu for developers who were not willing or able to do more affordable housing. So, we support also on the efforts of many of our low-income residents at the homeless shelter to accept this appeal so that we can accept the fee in lieu of this development that we hope to encourage them to move forward on. So, thank you for your time this evening. If anybody else in the Zoom room would like to speak to this matter, please raise your hand now. Marissa Rule, if you'll please raise your right hand and state your name. Miss Rule, are you able to hear us? She's unmuted, but we can't hear her. Can you hear me? Yes. Wonderful. Yes. If you'll please raise your right hand and state your name. Marissa Rule. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. I am a board member of Terra Contenta. I'm also a native of Santa Fe, born and raised, and I don't want to go back and forth on who did what, who's at fault, who could have, should have, would have done things differently, but from a standpoint of affordable housing and how every dollar matters, my first house was affordable housing, and there was no way that I could afford to live in Santa Fe without those dollars. And so it's just really important that every contractor, anyone who applies for permits that are going to build subdivisions, that they also comply to this because it's not just the impact of those. It's the impact of everyone that they're touching, all of the affordable housing. And so I just want to go on record to say that this fee in lieu is really important because every dollar really truly matters for everyone in the city that wants to be able to afford Santa Fe. Thank you. Are there any other attendees that would like to speak to this item in the Zoom room? Mayor, no hands are raised. Thank you, Madam City Clerk. So, the next step is to go to the governing body for any questions of staff, parties, witnesses, and the public. So, I'm just going to go from the left side to the right and offer up everybody equitable opportunity. As Councilor Faulkner requested, we kind of keep our comments to 10 minutes, give everybody equal opportunity, then we'll do a round two, round three, and so on and so forth. So with that, Councilor Bamonte. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a question as I'm looking at Exhibit C here. So I have a question for TCC. And I'm looking at page, is this 960 of our packet here? Excuse me. I don't know because it says page 960 of 177. It's Exhibit C. I don't know what the page on that. Oh, excuse me. I'm sorry. Yes, it is. I guess it would be page 10. No, it is a letter from Terra Contenta to Zidico dated April 29th, 2025. It is a response to Zoro Blanco affordable housing proposal. So this looks like it is page 99 of 159 of... Is it, Councilor Bamonte, is this the letter dated April 29th, 2025? Yes. Okay. So, if you're looking at the packet, it's Exhibits A through M, that is 159-page document, and this is page 99 of that packet. Yeah, I have some other kind of because mine, it says consolidated, and the paging seems to be off, so I apologize. But in this letter, so my question is, did Zidico offer to pay TCC a cash offer of $684,619.20? Mr. Mayor, Councilor Bruce Damonte, yes. And was that offer unanimously determined that it did not satisfy? So it was denied by TCC? Mr. Mayor, Councilor Bamonte, it was denied on April 29th. However, it was later accepted in May of 2025 after Mr. Summer made the effective argument that Tract 51 did not was not subject to the affordable housing requirements of the annexation agreement. And where would that be? Is that in our packet? It is in your packet. A letter dated May 15th, 2020. 15th. Yes. Okay. Yeah, my numbering is off. I apologize. No, that's okay. Okay, that was my question. So, thank you, Mr. Mayor. That's all I have at this time. Councilor Cassip. Thank you, Mayor. Let him read for a second. To tell all of you in the room that you're not going to be happy that I don't think this is cut and dry on either side. So, FYI, as we jump into this. Okay. So I think this is a question for staff, and what I am trying to figure out is the stacking of documents and requirements and legal outlines that we've been given. So we have an annexation agreement, we have a master plan, we have our zoning documents, we have Chapter 14, and we have Chapter 26. And all of these seem to be slightly not aligned at this moment in time. So first, when we get to this concept around the master plan of TCC and whether or not the underlying zoning trumps, I hate using that word these days, but for lack of a better term, the master plan because it sounds like there was a change to the zoning still to commercial, which would have aligned with the master plan in terms of zoning and the master plan purpose, this coming together. But no master plan was changed, and when I do look at that annexation agreement on this tract, it very clearly says commercial. Every other tract, they are listing residential. So what takes precedence here when we are looking at these kind of discrepancies in these various allocations of this land? Mayor Garcia, Councilor Cassid, thank you for the question. It is confusing without a doubt, and it has been an onerous process, but I would like to take us back in history. Tier Contenta Village Plaza and all of that work was done by me back in 2011. And so I would just like to say, first of all, planning and land use absolutely supports affordable housing, but we are bound by the law. And in this case, the law is the master plan. It is what is the zoning, and it is also all of the different components of an annexation agreement. The annexation agreement is very clear that there was no written agreement that happened in 2005, or I'm sorry, there was no written agreement at the time of the annexation in 1994 that obligated the owners at that time. And the master plan went on to state, or I'm sorry, the annexation agreement went on to state that a rezoning should occur for those properties in Tier Contenta Village Plaza at that time to clarify the uses. And so that's what we did in 2011. There was a master plan amendment, there was a general plan amendment, there was a development plan as well as a subdivision plat, and the rezonings as well. That development plan contemplated residential uses at that time, and it was live-work facilities or uses on that property. So it's not like it was not residential because those live-work units were there. The zone district that could accommodate that was commercial office, which the zone district that was the zone district that was given to this property. And so at that time also, the Santa Fe Homes program or the affordable housing staff at that time did review this application as part of our process. When we take anything to the planning commission, we have a draft Santa Fe Homes agreement that shows that there's consensus between the applicant and staff about their affordable housing obligations. I looked at the record. I looked at the findings, in fact, and conclusions of law from 2011. I have all that stuff here. And at that time, there was no Santa Fe Homes agreement, and that's because it did not apply. And so in 2011, it was clear in what was done at that time that that agreement did not apply, even though residential development was proposed as part of the development plan. Do we have those documents anywhere in our packet that state that residential development was contemplated at that moment in time, or do you just have those right now? Mayor Garcia, Councilor Casset, that was a development plan that has since expired. So we did not include that in the packet. So once a development plan expires, I know the underlying zoning remains. Correct. Yes, that is correct. But does it revert back to the... Well, I mean, what happens when a development plan expires? It does not necessarily conform with the original master plan, and it didn't get developed. We keep the zoning. But again, at that point, this contemplation of residential use, is it still valid? Mayor Garcia, Councilor Casset, when a development plan expires, it simply means that another development plan has to be proposed, which is the reason that a development plan was submitted for Zoro Blanco. Another one had to be proposed. The permitted uses in C1 did not go away. So those permitted uses were, or the C1 zone district was approved to allow live/work at that time, but C1 did not go away and does allow for residential multi-family residential in this. And you did say that in 2011, at that time, the master plan was also amended, or no? Mayor, Councilor Cassidy, yes, that's correct. And so when that master plan gets amended, even if the development plan expires, does the master plan amendment remain? Mayor, Councilor, that is correct. Okay, thank you. Now, in terms of, it sounded like there was this conversation initially of the developer. It's interesting, the change in language around whether you are eligible for the Santa Fe Homes program or you are required to meet. It's kind of interesting the way that has changed back and forth today. So there was this conversation that the developer had proposed to pay a fee in lieu for said density bonus in order to get that, and then they were told they were not eligible for the Santa Fe Homes program. So they could not pay a fee in lieu to get a density bonus. I'm sorry, what happened there? This sounds, this sounds kind of literally insane to me if we're having this conversation where on one hand we're saying, "Hey, you know, we're either going to get nothing for affordability, or we're going to get a fee in lieu and denser units, which help with our overall housing stock and the health of the housing market." Anyhow, so I'm curious what happened there. I don't know if that's a question you can answer, if this is a City Attorney's Office question. I know that there has been a change in the cast of characters potentially who were involved in this, but if anyone can provide some insight there, I would appreciate it. Mayor, Councilor, I will provide some insight relative to what happened at that time. As required by the annexation agreement, we still had to refer this case to Tier Contenta first in order to have the conversations. They also reviewed the architectural design as part of their obligation under the annexation agreement. The Tier Contenta Corporation has an architectural review committee. Zoro Blanco, the applicants for Zoro Blanco, went. So it's not completely devoid, but the original uses that we're contemplating, the commercial, and not having a Santa Fe Homes requirement at that time, was not discussed on the staff level. But then, you know, there was the applicant came back and said, "Well, we've agreed to a $685,000 fee in lieu of," and we investigated that statement and then came back that, "Well, based on previous approvals and the annexation agreement and consultation with the City Attorney's Office, it's not that does not, the Santa Fe Homes program does not apply." And in addition, it would not be the Santa Fe Homes program that would apply. It's an either/or, Tier Contenta 40%, or, you know, no requirement. Santa Fe Homes can't be put into this because it's part of TC. It's a different set of, because it's part of Tier Contenta, and Tier Contenta already had a 40% agreement across the board. So that's where that, and this is, I, it sounds like there was this confusion, this differences in interpretation of if a development plan or part of a development plan, and how that's being divided, whether, so then that brings me to the authority of TCC to allocate out how that 40% affordable occurs. I know that there was somewhere in here, whereas speaking from a previous board president, or that it was, you know, they have, or developments are anywhere from 0% to 100% affordable to make up for the 40%. Obviously, somebody is controlling that. You had 10 minutes. Thank you. Obviously, somebody is in charge of that, is dictating how those get allocated out. I believe that it is TCC. Am I correct there? And if so, then how is this property then exempt from TCC dictating what happens with affordable units there? Mayor, Councilor, so TCC does review to make sure that the 40% criterion is met, but this is separate because there is no affordable housing requirement. It does not batch into the overall total, and this is a separate property not obligated to affordable housing or that component of the Tier Contenta authority relative to the 40% standard. But why, I guess I'm still trying to understand the relationships between these. I understand I am out of time, so I can, I see Mr. Summer, I'd love to hear if you have a perspective as well, and then I will have to yield the floor and probably come back to this. If I could answer that question, Jerry. I am happy to hear both sides respond within, give me a one-minute response. Terac Contenta has absolute control about how they allocate it, and they do so when they sell the property. They require the property owner who's buying it to agree to an affordable housing. They do not have the municipal authority to just case by case any property owner make exactions. So they control it, and they control it by virtue of the agreements that they make with property owners when they sell it. That's how they do their allocation. And in this case, they didn't do that. And so, they don't have the authority legally to say, "Oh, you know, we didn't do it there, but we're going to require you to do 60%." How do you like that? That's not lawful. And so, anyway, answer your question. Thank you, Mr. Summer. Mr. Mayor, Councilor Casset, just to respond to what Mr. Summer just stated, that is correct. In the past, on a tract-by-tract basis, as tracts were sold, the Contenta Corporation negotiated affordability, and that was inserted into the purchase agreement. This tract was sold to a commercial developer for commercial development. Therefore, no affordable housing requirement would have been included in a purchase agreement. I also want to speak back to some of the statements that... I am currently out of time, so I can come back around, but I know my time is up, and so I think that that would rely on the next councilor there, but happy to bring you back up when I get another round. And I'm happy to let you finish your statement. Go right ahead. Okay, I just want to mention because I know that there is, there's a lot of confusion as to terms being interchangeable. A development plan is not the same as a master plan. A master plan is adopted as part of the general plan. It transfers with the land, with land ownership. It is not conveyed via a private covenant. A development plan, once it's expired, is no longer applicable. The master plan, Tier Contenta, does not allow for residential development on this tract, and therefore the affordable housing requirement of that tract is not, does not apply to that tract. Sorry for the confusion there. All right, well, thank you very much. I have a few questions just regarding this master plan situation. Director Lamboy, when a master plan is approved and there is a tract, for example, that is designated to be commercial, because I imagine the overall sense is they wanted a grocery store or some sort of live/work space as you mentioned. Why wouldn't we have done a master plan amendment if we knew that that potentially could have housing on it in 2011? Mayor, Councilor Kro, I need to double-check the master plan, but at that time, the master plan already included the allowed uses, so that it was not required. So, because it's, I wish I had the PowerPoint to show you the graphic, but the master plan already complied with what was being proposed at that time. And so help me understand, if it does comply, right, because the zoning that it currently has doesn't conform with the use that we are looking at. If there is no commercial space in the overall master plan, have we not complied with that master plan? If this parcel is not developed as a mixed-use or as a commercial space, are we not complying with the master plan or TCC? Mayor, Councilor Castro, first of all, there's the market at play. So there is an opportunity for change just because there has not been any type of, even though there is a development or plan approved for an office business incubator, that was in combination with the pavilion development, which is across Jaguar Drive, which was supposed to happen between Jaguar, between 599 and the airport. This was all anticipated to be one development. The market never bore fruit in that regard. So, things can change over time in terms of needs. And that's exactly sort of the train of thought that I was going down because other developments, not this one, have had similar situations where parcels have been sold multiple times. Development plans have been an original thought that there was an ENN, the community was bought into this idea, then it was sold and it changed. I know that ultimately we're having trouble attracting folks to develop in this community, and I imagine this permitting process, this nine-month wait, is part of it. We have all agreed that this has taken too long, that the community is not fully aware of what is happening on this parcel and in this, actually, this whole redevelopment. As we've heard, there's a party that potentially has bought all of the parcels that will be developed in phase three. And there's some discussion about how we making this decision are going to affect their finances based on public dollars and city money that has already been anticipated by some organizations that they're going to receive. So, I think that this has been entangled in a lot of ways. Ideologically, I hear you. The City of Santa Fe is not interested in limiting affordable housing. But I also am concerned that we have made promises that now we're backtracking on and making more uncertainty in the landscape and development of the City of Santa Fe. If you were tasked with telling us how this could potentially be developed for the purposes that the master plan has set out, could this development fit into that master plan? Mayor, Councilor Casset, this development as part of the overall Village Plaza section of the Tierra Contenta Master Plan can comply because the zoning does allow for residential uses. Also, I would like to say that any donation or any money that would be gained by an affordable housing fee in lieu of would go to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, not one specific developer, affordable housing developer, not one specific nonprofit or provider. It truly, truly is something that goes to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and a competitive process determines who gets that money. Thank you so much. I just wanted to remind folks that the CDC has not taken any votes on this. We have not allocated any funding. There is no, there should be no assumptions that these dollars are going to go to any specific organization. And I see my time. Thank you. Councilor Faulkner. I have more by way of comments. I find it in poor form that we're going, there's an ask for the City Council to rectify a mistake that the Tier Contenta Corporation made. And in doing so, we are placing the developer in a position where they have damages, where they have tried to comply. They've tried to do the right thing. They were met with resistance. And I think the onus is 100% squarely on the Tier Contenta Corporation. I've lived in Tier Contenta for almost, well, 30-some odd years. And I can tell you, remember when the master plan went into place that included this piece of property, and it was very clear early on that in no universe would we be able to get any kind of commercial buy-in because the cost of putting together that port, that segment of land with commercial attached to it or even anything that is not residential. We could not get anyone to lease the commercial spaces because it was unaffordable. You couldn't afford to do it because of the cost of leasing. The kind of businesses that would be attracted to that parcel of land could not do enough business there to afford their lease or even to purchase any commercial space. And so, early on, it was very clear this was going to be primarily residential. So, that's all I have for now. I'm just a little, if we're going to blame anyone about what happened, the corporation is who we should blame. Mayor: Councilor Garcia. Councilor Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Great questions. I appreciate the dialogue. I just want to ask a question in regards to going back and clarifying the legality because, and I don't know who can actually answer to this, but I'm hearing a lot of, "Well, you know what we should have done or what we should do or because we want affordable housing." I think everybody up here wants affordable housing. We all want the money into our trust fund to be utilized in different ways for our community. However, for the property owners, they obviously purchased this property with the intent of developing it in a certain way, which is, it seems that they've met every single rule of law in regards to the C1 zoning. And I want to go back to the C1 zoning because does that supersede the rest of what we're all talking about? And we've talked about the general plan. We've talked about the master plan. We've talked about all of these things. But does the C1 zoning in this case, specific to this case, supersede all other notes or rules that were there? Mayor: Councilor Garcia, C1 zoning district is what rules in this case. The master plan doesn't define particular uses. It's the C1 zoning district that defines what the particular uses are. Neither does the general plan amendment or general plan. Although it's consistent with the general plan, the general plan does not designate specific uses. Councilor Garcia: And under the C1 zoning then, does it require, and in this case, I want to hear again about the program, the Santa Fe Homes program that wasn't enacted until after, what's the date again of August 15, 2005? What's the significance of that again? Mayor: Councilor Garcia, that was the adoption of the Santa Fe Homes program, or the creation of the affordable housing program with the City of Santa Fe at that time, and known as also inclusionary zoning. So, back in 1994, that program was not in place. Councilor Garcia: So again, going back to the property owner legal rights, they're within the rights of what they're doing. And if we were to grant this appeal, it could possibly open up the city to litigation based upon not following the law. Mayor: Councilor, that is correct. Councilor Garcia: Thank you. No further questions. Mayor: Councilor Chavis. Councilor Chavis: Thank you, Mayor. I think most of the questions have been answered. I think that all of us find, as Councilor Garcia said, affordable housing very important, but I do think that this is super messy, and probably could have been prevented if people would have been more open to a solution early on, rather than us being here trying to find a solution. So, I think that we put the developer in a vulnerable situation because of this. I think that they have met all requirements. I think that the staff has guided us. I think we've heard from the planning commission. I think they've done everything, and it seems like they've been collaborative with all parties. Yet, we're still here. So, I don't feel like it should fall on them, and unfortunately, they're the only ones that have seen the consequence of all of this. So, that's unfortunate, but I think it's just gone messy. I want to thank Councilor Fagali because she actually cleared something up for me very well. So, I'm excited for it to get to her because she explained something very, very well. So, I am going to go ahead and move it down the line so we could hear from Councilor. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor: Officer Barrett. Officer Barrett: Yeah, I'll pass it on to my legal friend to the right of me. I don't know if the, I mean, the social worker in me has lots of questions, but that pertains to the law, and of course, I'm super pro affordable housing, but I'll let Councilor Fagali take it from here. Her legal mind. Mayor: Fagali. Councilor Fagali: Thank you. So, I think, Director Lamboy, this may be for you. So, I think just to sort of lay out the timeline, there was an agreement with the annexation in 1994 that said 40% of, more or less, 40% of the housing in this development in its entirety would be affordable. Correct? Mayor: Councilor, that is correct. Councilor Fagali: Okay. So then, after the Santa Fe Homes program came in, it has a clause that says, "Santa Fe Homes program does not apply, does not apply, not cannot, but does not apply to a development or portion of development subject to a formal written and binding agreement entered into prior to August 15, 2005." And that agreement in 1994 was a development with a formal written agreement entered before then. Correct? Mayor: Yes, Mayor Councilor Fagali, that's correct. Councilor Fagali: Okay. So, in my mind, the problem here is that we don't have an opt-in clause to the Santa Fe Homes program. We can't say, "Well, we'd rather do that than the thing that we already opted into." And because there was no agreement when this property was sold to say, "Oh, by the way, you have this deed restriction. You have this affordable housing covenant," that it also doesn't apply to this parcel of the larger property. Is that, that was the staff assessment as well? Mayor: Yes, Mayor Councilor Fagali, that is correct. And I will say we looked at the opt-in option. We tried to actually investigate that to see if it could happen and spent a lot of time on that, and what was determined that only an amendment to the annexation agreement would cure that issue. So, and it might be in the future with the properties that are remaining, there might be an amendment to the annexation agreement or some other tool that we use to provide that option. But in this particular case, it does not apply. Councilor Fagali: Thank you. I think it might be something that the council might want to look at to maybe amend this "does not apply" to maybe "could apply to." Although, I can't say there are probably not so many parcels that that would be useful to other than this one, which seems to be a weird kind of one-off case. But thank you. I think that is everything I have. Mayor: Okay. Thank you, Councilor. I'm going to go ahead and go back down the line. Councilor Bamonte. Councilor Bamonte: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There were just two things that I wanted to get. This might be for the Deputy City Attorney. I just want to clarify and make sure that as far as I understand, TCC never obtained acknowledgment of Zidico's acceptance of the affordable housing requirement. Would that be correct? Deputy City Attorney: That is, Mayor Garcia and Councilor Bamonte, that is correct. That is what was required by Section 16 of the annexation agreement which Tier Contenta Corporation President signed. And we don't see that there was ever any compliance with that. And we didn't just look in our own archives. We had our city property manager. We did a title search, and he's very good at those. You know, he finds every deed and every rezoning and plat map that applies to any piece of property. You should find nothing indicating there was any compliance with that. Councilor Bamonte: Okay. Thank you. And then the next thing, I guess I'm not, this might be for TCC. I'm not sure who to ask this one to, but my understanding again is TCC agreed to develop 40% of 3,700 lots. So, of the lots that have been developed so far in phase one and phase two, how many of those lots have been developed for affordable housing? And what sort of impact are we looking at on TCC by not allowing this appeal? Deputy City Attorney: And Mayor Garcia and Councilor Bamonte, I'll have to read that to the staff because they're more knowledgeable about that. But one other issue about the acknowledgment that Tier Contenta Corporation should have got from the buyer. I also sent the paperwork that Mr. Vhill sent to the City Attorney's office, and I sent that to Miss Gabioli, and I asked her if you have something that shows that you complied with this Section 16, please send it to me. And she has not been able to produce that. Okay. And I'll turn that over to your other question over to the staff. Councilor Bamonte: Thank you. My apologies. Deputy City Attorney: Oh, that's okay. Thank you. Mayor: Councilor Busamante, I was quickly looking for the table. And I will say that in phases, these were numbers that were provided by actually Miss Gabi in a different role as a consultant to the board, a previous role in phases one AB 2 ABC, the total built and platted units that have been developed is 3,193. You have to remember that that number is a maximum number. Typically, when you come in with a development, there's a maximum density, and then that tends to get a little down because you have to provide roadways, you have setbacks, you have densities and all those things. So, to this point, they have come close to the overall 3,700, but they have not reached that. Councilor Bamonte: Okay. And I'm sorry, just one more point of clarification. Of those, how many do we know how many were developed as affordable? Mayor: Councilor Bamonte, the number of affordable units of the total is 1,310, which is 41% at this point. Councilor Bamonte: Okay. Thank you, Dr. Casset. Councilor Casset: Thank you, Mayor. So, I'm trying to understand the chain of ownership. So, Tiro Contenta sold to who? Mayor: They sold to an entity called Commercial Center at 599, and that was a Richard Cook entity and was developed on the other side of the road as well. I was just asking the question to who, anybody has the answer to be perfectly honest. If you have different information about who it was sold to, I'm happy to hear that. Or Director Lamboy, if you have that information, you are probably the best person to answer then. Director Lamboy: I was going to say one of the, the Richard Cook stole it. Councilor Casset: Okay. So, is that, is that the chain of ownership that everybody has understanding of? Mayor: Councilor Casset, that is correct. So, Richard Cook was the one that did the original Tier Contenta Village Plaza Master Plan and all the things that were approved in 2011. Councilor Casset: Okay. And then that was sold to Zidico more recently. So the master plan, so that's when the master plan amendments happened at that moment in time and the zoning change happened at that time. Mayor: Councilor, that is correct. Actually, the master, there was a general plan amendment, but not a master plan amendment at that time because the uses did comply with what was contemplated in the master. Councilor Casset: Okay. Okay. That was my only question around, and at that, that would have been the point that TCC would have put in, if you are going to build housing, you are going to have to comply with XYZ. Correct? Mayor: Councilor Casset, that is correct. Councilor Casset: Okay. All right. Thank you. No other questions. Mayor: Councilor Castro. Sorry, I'm now manning the time clock. I don't have any further questions, but it feels like you have some statements you would like to make. Feel free. Councilor Castro: Mr. Mayor, Councilor Castro, thank you for the opportunity to respond to some things that I feel like are confusing the matter. There was an additional master plan called the Village Plaza Master Plan that was adopted around the time that the rezoning took place. When Miss Lamboy is referring to a master plan amendment or that the uses in the master plan complied with the residential, she's referring to the Village Plaza Master Plan. She's not referring to the Tierra Contenta Master Plan. Tierra Contenta Master Plan was and remains office/business incubator or Tract 51. To your understanding, is the Village Master Plan still in effect? No, that master plan has expired. Okay. And so I think this question is for Director Lamboy again. In the event that there is no active master plan on a parcel, sorry, in the event that there is a development plan on the parcel that has expired, there is a master plan, Village Plaza Master Plan in this case, that is no longer in effect. And then there is another plan, in this case, that potentially could apply. So, we're looking at two master plans and one development plan. Is that correct? Now, we're discussing, just so we're all on the same page, we're now discussing Village Plaza Master Plan and a development plan that has been, that has expired. Is that right? Mayor, Councilor Castro, the annexation agreement. So, there is the overall Tierra Contenta Master Plan that was approved back in 1994. And I'm trying to get to the, that original 1994 Master Plan exhibit. If you can please put up the DS show. Okay, so the graphic on the right, and I'm sorry if it's small and I don't know how to expand it, but this is the overall master plan that accompanied the annexation agreement back in 1994. It was contemplated for, shoot, I don't have the specific uses outlined on the graphic, but at that time it was for the Village, the Village Plaza commercial development. So the master plan that was adopted in 2011 implemented and further honed down on what was going to happen on those particular tracts for Village Plaza. So I guess you could call it a sub-master plan in this particular case. So is it your opinion that that is no longer an active sub-master plan? Mayor, Councilor Castro, that is correct because that was never built out. There was a development plan that accompanied it as well, and I believe a master plan in that particular case expired five years. I actually had to look at Mr. Esquibel. It expired five years after, since it was not tied to an annexation agreement. It expired five years after its approval. I think you just answered my next question, but of all of these documents that we should be taking into consideration, this annexation agreement should be the primary document that we're concerned with. Is that correct? Mayor, Councilor, that's correct. Thank you. No further questions. And I see the floor. So, I have one quick question. Regardless of what the master plan says, either any of them, and the annexation plan, it's the zoning that determines what can be done on that property or not be done on that property. And that zoning had residential as part of it from the jump. Correct? Mayor Garcia, Councilor Faulkner, yes, thank you for that question. Yeah, I do think that's like, all the master plan stuff, I feel like, is a paper tiger of sorts. And that really what we're talking about is the zoning is what determines what can be done on this property and what cannot. The zoning has not changed. Residential has always been a part of this piece of property. So I think the master plan discussion is, I feel like it's a paper tiger. Garcia, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just appreciate all the questions. I still want to reiterate that far and above what we would like to see, we want to see, we still have to fall back to what I think the legalities are and respect the rights of the property owner. That's where I'm sitting right now. And so, from the get-go, the zoning never required them to provide in lieu of or a percentage of affordable housing. And so that's where I'm, all of the questions have been leaning towards. And I'll leave that as my last comment. Thank you. Councilor Chambas. I have no questions. Councilor Barrett. Yeah, that's what I was going back to too, because the letters back and forth about paying the fee in lieu, and then the city ultimately determined because of all the legalities, we could not accept that because it predated, right? Correct? Am I correct on that assumption? Mayor, Councilor Barrett, that is correct. Yes. So the money, we need the money, we cannot have the money because it predates. That's, I'm coming full circle now after all this discussion. That's correct. Councilor Barrett, that is correct. And we will continue getting money through our affordable housing program. It's just not in this particular case. Right. Okay. Thanks. Councilor Faggali. Nothing further, but I can make a motion if we're done. Well, we've still got, okay. Any more steps to go? So, if there are no other questions, next step is for the appellant. If there are any, any evidence that's arisen during this questioning, you have the opportunity to ask additional questions of staff should you like to be able to. And if that's the case, I'm willing to give no more than 10 minutes to end that questioning process. Clarification, Mr. Mayor, is this, is this only questions as to evidence that we presented this evening? No. If any questions in general, because there was, we, there was not the portion earlier, if you have any questions in general desired of staff. So, you can, we can, if we can address both in this one, whether it's any questions you have of staff or any questions regarding new evidence that has arisen. And, and because we didn't do that first part, I mean at max 15 minutes for this. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I, I, I do think we would like to ask staff some questions and particularly about Section 7 of the Contenta Annexation Agreement. The first question would be, does the 40% affordable housing obligation apply to the entire property of Tierra Contenta or does it only apply to the planned units as identified in, okay. So, that's a question directed at city staff. Thank you, Mayor. So, the question is, does the affordable housing obligation apply to the entire property? The question should be, in the annexation agreement, what property was obligated to provide 40% affordable housing? And in this particular case, the 40% affordable housing requirement excludes Village Plaza. So there is no affordable 40% affordable housing obligation for these individual properties. For the entire development as a whole that's residential outside of Village Plaza, yes, 40% is required. Back to the appellant. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, to follow up on that, I think I need to clarify. Are you saying that there is no affordable housing obligation for the Village Plaza properties? Mayor, because there was a prior written agreement in the annexation agreement in 1994, and there is that criterion that that is a written, that a written agreement will rule relative to affordable housing. There is no obligation, and when that, those cases were heard in 2011, there was no affordable housing agreement because there was no requirement at that time. So what I heard is there's no affordable housing obligation for the Village Plaza properties. Zoro Blanco is located in the Village Plaza area. And under Santa, under the Santa Fe Homes Program at 14.8-11D3, 8-11D3 says that the Santa Fe Homes Program applies to all developments unless there's a written and binding agreement that obligates the parties to provide affordable housing. This portion of the development does not obligate parties to do the annexation agreement to provide affordable housing. My question is, my question is, if, if there is no affordable housing obligation on this portion of property, how can Santa Fe Homes not, I'm sorry, sir. Can you reframe the question? Does it just help me with? So, in order for, in order for a property to be exempt from the Santa Fe Homes Program, it must be subject to a binding written agreement that requires affordable housing on that portion of the development. Correct? Thank you for the question, Mayor. It does not require a binding written agreement prior to that time relative to any housing is, is what the obligation is. It's not specific to affordable housing. And that binding written agreement did not obligate them to affordable housing. It permitted housing, but it did not obligate to affordable housing. So, Yeah. So, I, I, I, what I'm trying, what I'm trying to get at here is that, is that code section 14-811D3 requires the Santa Fe Homes Program to apply to a development or a portion of a development unless it's subject to a formal written and binding agreement prior to 2005 in which the signatories agreed to provide affordable housing or do thereof. Miss Lamboy just testified that this portion of the development was not obligated to provide any affordable housing under the annexation agreement. My question is, why doesn't the Santa Fe Homes Program apply when the, the annexation agreement does not require affordable housing on this portion of the development? Mayor, members of the council, Dan Esquibel, do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? We do. Thank you. So, during our, our review of the application, reviewing of the annexation agreement, we found that the annexation agreement bound the entire property that the city sold to Tierra Contenta. The city sold to Tierra Contenta and everybody agreed to the master plan which governed the uses across the board. But the overarching umbrella that governs affordable housing is still that, that master, that annexation agreement over all of the acreage, the 800 acres that we sold Contenta. All of that was bound and it was master planned in order to achieve a specific goal in mind in order to have it all work together. So if Tierra Contenta sold the piece of property and they didn't bind the applicant to affordable housing, then they didn't get that restriction. They didn't get that requirement. That didn't happen with this piece of property. If they didn't want them to develop residential, then there would have been a restriction on the deed that says, "Hey, look, you can't do residential. You can only do commercial." That didn't happen either. So ultimately when we're looking at this, this piece of property went through the process and was not bound to do affordable housing. Did it lower the overarching number of units in that development? Absolutely. It went from 41 to 39%. But they're still not bound to jump into the affordable housing agreement because they have a written agreement that came in 1994. We can't breach that. We're not going to, we're not, we're not going to violate the contract. We're not going to breach that contract. So ultimately, we're going to follow it and we're going to say, "Hey, look, you didn't bind them. We're good with that. You're still obligated to meet that requirement somewhere else within that 800 square, 800 acres. That's your job. That's not our job." I'm so sorry. I don't know who had the floor, but I just wanted to reiterate that point. We are not, wait one second, Councilor, because it's appellant's time. Okay. Yeah. So, I, I feel like, I feel like I'm still not getting a clear answer because what I've heard is that no affordable housing is required on this portion of code clearly says that unless you have an agreement that where the signatories agree to provide affordable housing, then the Santa Fe Homes Program. In this case, we have, we have, we're not, we're not, we're not denying that, that the annexation agreement binds as a whole. Just looking directly at the code. City code says is that even if there's a portion of the development that is not bound by the affordable housing requirements of the area, then Santa Fe Homes Program must, Mr. Mayor, I would offer that this question has been asked and answered a couple of times. It's the appellant's time. If they want to ask the same question 50 times, counselor, it's their right. So nothing further, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Okay. With that, we go on to the next item, which is again the appellant or a five-minute closing statement. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. We appreciate your time and patience in wandering through this very complex set of issues. It's definitely not a straightforward matter. That said, what we do feel is straightforward is that the plain language of Chapter 14 8.11d3 states that either the affordable housing obligations of a prior written agreement apply to a property, to a development, or the Santa Fe Homes program applies. If we have heard repeatedly that the affordable housing requirements of the annexation agreement and the associated master plan do not apply to Tract 51, then we don't understand how you can conclude that the Santa Fe Homes program also does not apply. The very intent of the code is to ensure that no development takes place in the City of Santa Fe that does not have an affordable housing requirement. That's the intent of the code. That was the intent of the Santa Fe Homes program in coming forward because prior to that point, affordable housing was required through annexation agreements. So in order to replace that system, the Santa Fe Homes program had to call out that we have these prior agreements that require affordable housing. In the absence of that, the Santa Fe Homes program will apply. So that either one applies or the other applies, but it's never the case that neither applies. That we believe is the intent of the code, and that is the real crux of our appeal. In addition to that, I just want to also make a statement that the city itself has violated the annexation agreement on a number of different sections. We've pointed out in Section 3 and in Section 4 that the City of Santa Fe is obligated to approve only development plans that comply with the master plan. In this case, a master plan amendment was not required, and residential development does not fit within an office/business incubator use. The zoning that was changed in 2010 was done so with the intent of carrying out the commercial uses that were specified in the master plan and the annexation agreement. Residential uses were not contemplated; otherwise, units would have been planned and assigned to that tract. With that, we will close our argument. Thank you. Next is, we will now officially close the public hearing. We can only go back to questions from either the appellant, staff, or the public unless we open back up the public hearing. So with that, we are at the next step, which is to entertain a motion on whether to grant or deny the appeal. The person making the motion should state the member's reasoning for the motion. Sure. I move to deny the appeal on the grounds that the evidence presented to the Planning Commission supported the commission's approval of the Zorabano development without the affordable housing requirements of the Santa Fe Homes program. Second. Okay. So we've got a motion and a second. Now we move to discussion and deliberations or executive session if necessary. What's the will? Yep. Councilor Casset, then Councilor Castro. Thank you so much, Mayor. I more just want to make a statement that I have had to make some really frustrating votes. I think I have never been as frustrated with a vote because I feel like we tied ourselves in circles. I mean, I just, I hate this vote, and what I really hate about it is that you had a developer who was willing to comply with the Homes Project, and we got in our own way. I mean, we did because we couldn't figure out a way to be like, "Hey, they're able to do this, and why can't we let you opt in?" I mean, we got in our own way of this, which is just frustrating. In part of it is that, you know, you can't see the future, and I think that this, sometimes we have these arguments over how specific do we make policy and how do we leave room for things that we can't foresee. I think that this is one of those moments. I think that probably the individuals from TCC who sold this initially also did not see this coming. I mean, it is extremely frustrating, but I think what is most frustrating to me is that it's not like you had a developer who was like, "No, I don't want to do any of this." They were literally barred from doing this by us. I'm just, I'm extremely frustrated, and I hate the vote I'm about to take, and it's nobody's fault. I'm not, you know, but, I just, I just want to state that for the record. You know, a lot of times with land use cases, as I have said before, I have voted in favor of things that I do not like because that is how this works, is that it is about understanding and trying to dissect some of these really complex laws. Unfortunately, I think this is where we find ourselves. So I'm frustrated. I think this is a great learning experience as we continue to look at our affordable housing policies. But I also think that this is perhaps a good warning for us. I know I have fought against this before on this dais, that being overprescriptive in how we do things and where we put things, and we need to be extremely careful about that because it can come back. I've never cussed on this dais. I've never been this close to doing it, but it can come back and really hurt us in the end. So, I think we learn a lot from this case. I am not happy with the vote I'm about to take. I thank all of you for all of your time here. So, thank you. Councilor Castro: Couldn't have said it better. Summed it up very well. I think what's difficult, and I keep making jokes about how we should be wearing wigs, right? Because we have to delineate what we're doing here in the quasi-judicial space. We're actually looking at laws, and it's our laws and our ordinances that got in the way in this particular instance. I think you're right, we need to evaluate some of the programs we have. Look at our laws, make them easier to understand. We're trying to do that. This is one of many cases where we all lose. I think we all really want to fix this and support affordable housing as best we can and support our community as best we can. Thank you. Anybody else? Any other requests? Madam City Clerk, come and get a roll call vote, please. Yes, Mayor. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Councilor Casset. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Falner. Yes. Excuse my vote. Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Motion passed. Councilor Faulkner. Briefly, obviously, we all care about affordable housing. I would offer that it's hard enough to get developers to work in the City of Santa Fe because our system is cumbersome, and I do not think it is fair to hold a developer accountable for mistakes that were made in a couple of other spaces. Thank you, Councilor. With that, Madam City Clerk, can we move on to the last item of business on tonight's agenda? Yes, Mayor. That is Item 21, appointments. 21A is Human Services Committee. Karen Baldwin, reappointment as Chair, term ending March 2029. Emily House, reappointment as Vice Chair, term ending, sorry, March 2029. Jennifer Romero, reappoint, term ending March 2029. And Kathleen Tuni, reappoint, term ending March 2029. Approve. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Councilor Casset. Yes. Councilor Castro. Out. Councilor Chavez. Councilor Falner. Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Motion passed. Item 21B is Economic Development Advisory Committee. James Johnson appointment with a term ending June 2028. Move to approve. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any discussion there? None. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Falner. Yes. Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Councilor Casset. Yes. Motion passed. Item 21C is Archaeological Review Committee. Shelby Maguson appointment with a term ending June 2028. Motion to approve. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Councilor Falner. Yes. Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Brooks Damonte. Yes. Councilor Casset. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Motion passed. Item 21D is the Santa Fe Public Library Board. Nicholas Taylor. Appointment filling an unexpired term ending July 2027. To approve. One more. Kate Goddard. Oh, sorry. Kate Goddard. Appointment filling an expired term ending July 2027. Motion to approve. Second. Got a motion. Second. Sorry, I wasn't very loud. Second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes. Mayor Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Hi. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Councilor Casset. Yes. Councilor Castro. Councilor Chavez. Councilor Falner. Motion passed. That concludes tonight's agenda. We stand adjourned. Yikes.