Regular Governing Body Meeting - Last Wednesday Wed, Jun 24, 2026 · Governing Body https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/932 == Executive Summary == The Governing Body held its Regular Meeting, addressing a range of city issues from infrastructure planning to public safety and social services. A significant portion of the meeting focused on the city's approach to homelessness, particularly the contract with Urban Alchemy. Despite initial recommendations for termination due to budget constraints, the Governing Body ultimately voted to deny the termination of Urban Alchemy's contract, directing staff to find funding for at least six more months of services while exploring long-term strategies and alternative providers. Key decisions included approving a substantial budget adjustment for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and ratifying federal financial assistance. The body also approved amendments to the Uniform Traffic Ordinance to combat reckless and aggressive driving and made appointments to the Santa Fe River Commission. Discussions around the Infrastructure Capital Improvements Plan (ICIP) highlighted debates over project eligibility and the city's legal authority to fund improvements on private property, with a proposed low-barrier shelter project failing to gain inclusion on the ICIP list. == Key Decisions == - Denied the termination of the Urban Alchemy contract, directing staff to secure six months of funding. - Approved a budget adjustment of $7,641,910 for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. - Ratified $11,27,934 in federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Interior. - Approved Bill 2026-9, amending the Uniform Traffic Ordinance to increase penalties for reckless and aggressive driving. - Approved the appointments of Tanya Truhill and Jesse Shapiro to the Santa Fe River Commission. - Approved the professional service contract with FBTN Louise Vidal Architects Joint Venture for the Santa Fe Regional Airport terminal expansion ($1,160,000). - Approved a budget adjustment of $400,000 to the ERP budget. - Approved amendments K, M, N, and O to the ICIP for deferred maintenance at Regal Park Public Restrooms, Ava Chavez Community Center, Bicentennial Pool, and Southside Library, respectively. - Approved the amended ICIP resolution. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to waive procedural rules for Item 10D/10C (Urban Alchemy contract) — Passed (Yes: Barrett, Bamonte, Castro, Garcia; No: Chavez, Faulkner, Fagal). - Motion to switch presentation order for 8A and 8B (BPAC first) — Passed unanimously. - Motion to approve the agenda as amended — Passed unanimously. - Motion to approve inclusion on ICIP list for the low-barrier shelter project — Failed (3 Yes, 4 No). - Motion to approve Amendment K (Regal Park Public Restrooms) — Approved (6 Yes, 0 No). - Motion to approve Amendment M (Ava Chavez Community Center deferred maintenance) — Approved (6 Yes, 0 No). - Motion to approve Amendment N (Bicentennial Pool deferred maintenance) — Approved (6 Yes, 0 No). - Motion to approve Amendment O (Southside Library Deferred Maintenance) — Approved (6 Yes, 0 No). - Motion to approve the amended resolution (overall ICIP list) — Approved (6 Yes, 0 No). - Motion to move directly to public comment — Approved (6 Yes, 0 No). - Motion to deny the termination of the Urban Alchemy contract — Passed (7-0). - Request for ratification of $11,27,934 in federal financial assistance — Approved (7-0). - Budget adjustment request of $7,641,910 for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund — Approved (7-0). - Approval of professional service contract with FBTN Louise Vidal Architects Joint Venture for the Santa Fe Regional Airport terminal expansion ($1,160,000) — Approved (roll call vote). - Approval of budget adjustment of $400,000 to the ERP budget — Approved (roll call vote). - Bill 2026-9 (Traffic Ordinance Amendments) — Approved (7-0). - Santa Fe River Commission Appointments (Tanya Truhill and Jesse Shapiro) — Approved (7-0). == Public Comment == Public comments covered a wide range of topics, with a strong focus on homelessness and the city's response. Several speakers expressed frustration with the perceived ineffectiveness of local government and politicians in addressing community needs, particularly regarding the need for a low-barrier shelter. The decision not to include a specific low-barrier shelter project on the ICIP list drew criticism, with advocates questioning the city's commitment to the unhoused. Concerns were also raised about the city's handling of the Urban Alchemy contract, IPRA request delays, and the nuclear weapons program at LANL. Other comments included support for increased traffic penalties, interest in developing a Palosari-like project in Midtown, and gratitude from Santa Fe Habitat for Humanity for their ICIP inclusion. == Topics == - Urban Alchemy Contract - Reckless/Aggressive Driving - Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety - Procedural Rules & Agenda - Plaza Street Closures - Fireworks Regulations - City Budget Amendments - Fishing Events on City Property - Community Events & Celebrations - Santa Fe River Commission == Full Transcript == Thank you. Right. I'd like to call tonight's Governing Body meeting to order. We will start off with a Pledge of Allegiance from Councilor Chavez, a salute to the New Mexico flag by Councilor Castro, and invocation of remembrances by Councilor Bamonte. Please stand as you're able. So, I just, I know we have a lot of important things coming up tonight, well, many nights, and I just want to say that I hope we can all keep in mind that we're here for the public good, and I hope that the public can remember that we are here to represent you. Yeah, thank you. Are there any remembrances? Seeing none, let's take a moment just to remember those in our community that are in need of support. Thank you, everybody. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call, please? Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Barrett? Here. Councilor Bamonte? Here. Councilor Castro? Councilor Chavez? Here. Councilor Faulkner? Here. Councilor Fagal? Here. Councilor Garcia? Here. Mayor Garcia? Present. Mayor, you have a quorum. Great. Next up is approval of the agenda. Any changes from staff? No changes to the agenda, Mayor. I have an objection to item 10D. Okay. I'll make a motion to waive our procedure rules so we can include item 10D into tonight's agenda. Second. Mayor, could I ask for a change for the presentation orders for 8A? If we could put in B first instead of 8A. Can we vote on the first item first? Is that open to discussion, Mayor? Yes. Yes. Yes. So, I do want to just bring everyone's attention to item 10D, which we are supposed to discuss this evening. It has gone through the proper channels as it's supposed to, but it was not supported at committee. If you look at our procedural rules, paying attention to page 10, section C, meeting agenda 1C is very, very clearly states that no item may be placed on the GB agenda if it has not passed at least one City Council standing committee unless rules are waived. So, the committee understands it did get seen by a committee. It was a no vote across the board at Finance. That is why there is objection to it being discussed this evening. Right now, we have a vote for waiving this rule, specifically this procedural rule, specifically so that it can be heard. And yeah, just point of clarification to double on Councilor Chavez's point. It did pass, or it failed unanimously at Finance. Okay. And also, I think the rule relates to action items. It doesn't specify legislation or contracts. It is action items, and in the procedural rules, it does clearly delineate when it is necessary between legislative action and other action, but in this case, it is all action items. And, hold on, hold on, hold on. Are you finished, Councilor? Thank you. Okay, Councilor Chavez. And to clarify, Councilor Pillar, are you referring to item C? Did you say 10C or 10D? It's 10. Thank you. Are you discussing the contract with Urban Alchemy? Yes, thank you. 10C. 10C. I thought it was D. It is 10D. Yeah, thank you for clarification. Obviously, it did not pass a committee. However, we, what's the purpose of having discussion over it? Oh, so I can, wait, great, great question. Just because I'm the person who's requesting to suspend the rules that have been referenced. This particular item is to, is, was a proposal to eliminate the outreach contract with Urban Alchemy. During the discussion of this item, we did hear from councilors in regards to how folks would like to move forward, but as discussed there, the initial reason why we brought this forward was because there was not funding budgeted in the upcoming budget for this particular proposal item. And so, it's imperative that we have this conversation to hear from the Governing Body. We must remember that was five folks. We have nine Governing Body members here, and we don't want to eliminate four voices of this conversation. So, it's imperative that we have a conversation as a body to determine how we want to move forward with this contract. There's nothing that prevents us in regards to the law if we were to have a conversation on this. I'm not proposing that we take action. I'm proposing that we as a body discuss how we move forward with this proposed item. And so, it's critical that we have this, or else we can get in a nasty cycle of not bringing forward an item that the Governing Body would support. And it's my priority to ensure that we as a body move forward with an agenda item or a proposal that is going to be supported by the Governing Body. So, hence the reason why I would like for us to suspend the rules. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, I, I too would like to hear because I know, we have a lot of discussion at Finance over this. However, there were members not present, and it is something that we do have to discuss now and into the future. It, it seems to be the will of this Governing Body to continue to move forward with the outreach program. But how do we have the discussion in an open meeting without again having an issue with quorum issues or having a special meeting to discuss? And so, I will second the motion to suspend. Well, you, there was already a second. Okay, we're up to discussion, correct? Sure, Councilor. I do want to underscore that we are suspending our rules, so this is something that is not normal. This is different than our procedural rules. We normally wouldn't hear that. So, to underscore that, if we do want to change that so that we all have these discussions in the future, that is something we need to be adjusting. Yes. And, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. City Attorney, we have the right and privilege to suspend our rules for a particular item. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, members of the Governing Body, that's correct. Under the Governing Body's own procedural rules and Robert's Rules of Order, the Governing Body can suspend these rules under Rule Roman 7. Okay. Any other discussion? Councilor Chavez. I do want to point out that it is item C on the public view. It is not item D. So, everyone's aware of that. On the PDF version, it is item D. So, we have a, Yeah. So, there, it's listed under item C and item D. It just depends on what version you're looking at. Just so you're clear. And then I just also want to say we do have the, we can suspend rules. That is an option. But I also want us to be very cautious that we don't pick and choose when to not do procedural rules. Because I think if the topic was something different or brought forward by someone different, this would be a non-discussion. So, I just want to make that statement. And I, yeah, I'm not going to be supporting suspending the rules this evening. Thank you. Any other questions or comments in regards to the motion? Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote on the motion, please? And just for clarification, the, the motion was to, just because of the inconsistency between item C and D. This is a motion to suspend the rules to hear the item request for approval of termination of professional service contract item number 25-0216 with Urban Alchemy in the total amount of $7,948,133.59 to provide street outreach for homelessness services. Roll call vote, please, Madam City Clerk. Yes, Mayor. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bamonte? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? No. Councilor Faulkner? No. Councilor Fagal? No. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. And then I believe Councilor Fagal had an additional amendment. Thank you. Yes, just to switch the order of the presentations in eight so that the BPAC presentation is first. Okay. Second. Is there any discussion on that amendment? None. Can we get a roll call vote, please, Madam City Clerk? Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Bamonte? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Fagal? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Okay. Any other changes from council members? Move to approve as amended. Okay. So, we got a motion. Second. And a second. Any discussion? There none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Fagal? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bamonte? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Next item, Madam City Clerk. Next item will be under presentations. 8B is the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, BPAC, accomplishment report and Micimas Gracias certificate presentation to BPAC members Judith Gabriel, District 2, Tony Gerix, District 2, and Steve Piltchure, District 3. And here to present is the Capital Projects Manager and BPAC Staff Liaison, Romela Glorioso. Councilor Fagal, did you? No, I will leave it to Ms. Glorioso to tell everyone about all the amazing things that BPAC has done under your guidance and mine now. So, thank you. Thank you, Mayor Garcia, members of the Governing Body. The Bicycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, or BPAC, was established in 2003 to be the advisory committee of Roadways and Trails Section under Engineering Division. BPAC was renamed in 2021 to be the Bicycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee by a Resolution Number 2021-8. The purpose of BPAC is to provide input and advice that makes bicycling and walking in the City of Santa Fe equitable, viable, and comfortable modes of transportation, commuting, and recreation. To deliberate on city projects, plans, and policies that impact both on-road and off-road bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and advise the Governing Body on such matters. The BPAC has 10 members, one city councilor who acts as the chair, eight city residents, and one county resident. The, the most, one of the most important accomplishment of BPAC is the strategic plan that was developed in 2022 for fiscal year 2023 to 2033. It was adopted on October 22nd, 2022. The mission of this strategic plan is within 10 years, by the end of this planning period, which is FY2033, the City of Santa Fe has successfully obtained the League of American Bicyclists Gold Level Bicycle Friendly Community designation. Why is this the mission of this strategic plan? Because since 2003, when BPAC was established, the goal of BPAC is to obtain Gold Level Bicycle Friendly Community for the City of Santa Fe. However, two decades after, more than two decades after, we are still silver. So, we, the BPAC, identified four key issues to obtain Gold Level. First is how to transition to a multimodal transportation culture. Second is how to integrate land use and transportation planning. Third is how to enhance public participation in transportation decision-making. And number four is how to promote transportation and infrastructure paradigm shifts. The strategy that we developed is to shift city policies, programs, and infrastructure toward a coordinated multimodal transportation system that prioritizes bicycle and pedestrian-friendly design, improves safety and comfort, and integrates land use planning, supported by supportive programs to reduce reliance on car travel. We developed an action plan that answers why the action and tactics are important to obtaining gold-level bike-friendly community designation, who will implement the action plan, how it will be implemented, what actions and tactics need to be implemented, and when they will be implemented. We developed three actions and 16 tasks. We created subcommittees to implement the plan. There are three subcommittees that are permanent: Policy Planning and Law, Promotion, Education and Communications, Technical Review, and there is an ad hoc subcommittee called Vulnerable Road Users Task Force. The major accomplishment under Action One: Action One is more focused on policies, programs, and practices. The governing body has passed and adopted e-bike ordinance number 2023-4. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Maintenance Resolution was passed in 2024. The Vision Zero Resolution was passed in 2025. BPAC advocated and supported the passing of Senate Bill 69, which is called the E-bike Legal Framework, and Senate Bill 73 in 2025, which is the Idaho Stop for Cyclists. Under Action Two, which is more focused on engineering design and project construction, since 2020, BPAC is reviewing the engineering design of all roadways and trails capital projects. In fiscal year 2026, roadways and capital projects has worked on 29 projects, of which three are in the planning phase, 17 are in the design phase, and nine in the construction phase. For the engineering design project highlights, BPAC has completed the review of final designs of Bishop's Lodge Road Reconstruction, Bachmann Road, and Pojoaque South. We advanced to 90% the engineering design of Henry Lynch Road Reconstruction and Roundabout Project, a Segue Trail Extension, and the Tierra Contenta Phase B, which is Lucia Lane. What are the highlights for project construction? We've completed the construction of the award-winning Cañada Contrail last year, the El Camino Real Academy Trail, which is a Safe Route to School trail, the Guadalupe Street and Bridge Reconstruction Project, and we substantially completed the Agua Fria South Meadows intersection improvements. The pole was relocated last night at 8:30, and soon to be completed is the Tierra Contenta Trail Extension, which is another Safe Route to School trail connecting Tierra Contenta subdivision to Sweeney Elementary School and Ortiz Middle School. Under Action Three, Education and Public Engagement, BPAC has developed its own website. We have strong partnerships with Santa Fe Metropolitan Organization, the Santa Fe Safe Route to School, Bike Santa Fe, and the Santa Fe Conservation Trust. We conduct annual surveys, which is a League of American Bicyclists requirement for bicycle-friendly communities, and we participate in annual Bike Month activities. What's next? We need to conduct the first Bike Summit, maybe in the fall. We need to construct, or we are constructing, Bachmann Road Pavement Reconstruction Project, the Agua Fria Cottonwood Roundabout, the Segue Trail Extension, and the Rail Trail Intersection Improvements. We need to finish the design of and secure funding for the construction of the Henry Lynch Road Reconstruction and Roundabout. What are our requests to the governing body for the ICIP FY 2028 through 2032? BPAC is respectfully requesting the governing body to prioritize Henry Lynch Road Reconstruction, Bishop's Lodge Road Reconstruction, and the St. Michael's Drive Rail Trail Underpass Project within the top five priorities. And for district priorities, BPAC is requesting for District One counselors to prioritize Cayameia bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements. For District Two, the Arroyo and Medio pedestrian connectivity. For District Three, Lucia Lane reconstruction. And District Four, Rufina Street and Lopez Lane intersection improvements. As the BPAC staff liaison since 2019, I wish to thank the former BPAC chair for five years, from January 2020 through December 2025, Mayor Michael Garcia, and the current chair, Councilor Pataki, and the BPAC members, especially those who are retiring: Ms. Judith Gabriel, she's the chair of Promotions, Education, and Communications; Tony Gerix, who was the chair of Vulnerable Road User Task Force; and Steve Pilcher, who is the BPAC vice chair and also the BPAC representative to the Public Safety Committee, which is chaired by Councilor Amanda Sanchez. No, sorry, Chavez. I am so sorry, Councilor. And he is also the chair of Promotion, Policy, and Law. Policy Planning and Law, sorry. And to my staff, the Construction Project Manager Cody Kellin, and my inspectors Albert Chavez and Ryan Gomez, and to the public for their patience when we do road. I thank, I stand for questions. Thank you very much. Director Glorio Somas, the Mayor had to step out for a minute, so I'll be running the meeting. Is there any comments or questions from the governing body members? Councilor Chavez. Thank you. I just want to say that there's a lot of discussions about our committees, boards, all the different groups we have working together to try to guide Santa Fe. And a lot of discussion about whether they are having impact or they're doing or fulfilling the role they should. And BPAC is an example of how they should function. So we have a great example in BPAC in what committees should be doing, which is driving policy and holding policymakers accountable. And so I just want to give a shout-out to BPAC and the members. They have reached out, they have asked questions, they have held us accountable by saying, "You approved this, now where's the work? Where's the support? Where's the follow-through?" And that's exactly what these committees should be doing. So I just want to give kudos to this group and really shine light, like we do have committees that function successfully. BPAC, I would say, is in the lead of that, and we should be following that example in how we build and function any, with how any other board committee should function. BPAC's the perfect example. So just thank you for that, and I imagine that you being part of the staff is a huge reason why that occurs as well. So thank you so much. Councilor Travis. Any other of the governing body members? Councilor Faggali. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. We got a preview of it at BPAC this month earlier. And thank you to our three members. I think, Mayor Pro Tem, we have the certificates for you all if you want to come up as a thank you for your years of service on BPAC, and we really appreciate you. So thank you, and don't be strangers. Thank you, Miss Gabriel. Here is a certificate. Muchísimas gracias. Thank you so much for your work and your dedication. Don't go far because we're going to all take a picture together. We'll try to get a picture with everyone. Tony, I'm going to massacre Jeries. Okay. I kind of figured I'd mess it up. Perfect. And then we have Steve Pilcher. Thank you so much. I don't know what this one is. Yeah. Have you ever heard of? No, not at the level. All right, Madam City Clerk, next item, please. Yeah, Mayor, the next item is a presentation on FY27 policy period insurance plan renewals, and Deputy City Manager Andrea Phillips is here to introduce. Oh, that's okay. Thank you so much. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and members of the governing body. We are here to give you a preview of what our insurance renewals are looking like for our next policy period. I do want to give a shout-out to Melanie Lovato in our Risk and Safety Office, who plays a very integral role all year long in coordinating with departments to make sure that our claims are being handled properly and interfacing with AJ Gallagher. We have two representatives here from AJ Gallagher, who is our insurance broker, John Chino and Nazarine Copekki. And I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to them to give you an overview of what our insurance premiums are looking like for this coming year. And then on your consent agenda is more information on the proposal. So, I'll go ahead and turn it over. Yes. Yes. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members. Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to present. It was important to Nazarine and myself and our team that we present this renewal because just a few years ago, we came in with a very challenging renewal back in 2024. Due to events that are outside of the city's control and some events that are within the city's control, we had a difficult renewal with less coverage and higher prices. And at that time, we said, "Let's work together to improve the city's risk profile. We have resources that are available to the city that we make available to our other municipal clients, and working together, we think in the future we can do better." And now, two years later, in 2026, the fruits of that labor are here. So that's why we wanted to present. I'll try to, I will try to avoid this being a technical presentation, and I'll do it more as a narrative. So, first of all, I have an executive summary for you. These are the highlights of the renewal. Starting with the property program, where we saw a 6.5% reduction to the premium from last year. And in a good faith effort, the insurance company that we're working with to ensure they're not just buying the business for one year, they gave us a two-year rate guarantee. So, we can budget this for next year as well. I wanted to present it as a 7% reduction, but my assistant said, "No, 6.5 is actually the correct number." In addition to the 6.5% reduction to premium, which is about almost $40,000, we were able to increase the limit on this property policy from 100 million to 300 million. Now the city has about half a billion in total insured values, right? Your buildings, the contents in those buildings. So 100 million limit is not sufficient, and the city procured 200 million in limits. And because now we've increased it to 300 million, we no longer need a separate policy that we had to procure that cost $85,000. So that's an additional $85,000 of savings by moving to the 300 million limit. Now I'm going to move the discussion from property to the general liability and law enforcement liability policies. These are the biggest purchase in the entire portfolio. As with municipalities throughout the western United States, liability and law enforcement liability in particular are very hazardous. Cost of insurance for defense and payment of claims for those coverages has been rising since the beginning, frankly, since the beginning of this decade. And so, and unfortunately, the City of Santa Fe was not immune to those increases. Now the good news here is back in 2024, we saw the self-insured retention increase from 500,000 to 1.5 million. So the self-insured retention is the portion of the claim that the city is responsible for before the insurance recovery begins. So that was a significant additional exposure that we had. We're now this year, we've reduced the retention from one, from 1 million, because last year we reduced it from 1.5 million to 1 million, from 1 million to 750, and we are continuing our goal of increasing the risk profile of the city to negotiate this retention down further in future years. the automobile physical damage policy. Thanks to a lot of good work by your team and our team, we were able to reduce that policy because we have a correct exposure basis. And finally, we added terrorism coverage this year, which is a very cost-efficient policy. All of the insurance policies that are procured by the city exclude terrorism and have excluded terrorism since 2001. The only exception to that is workers' compensation. So while we recognize that a terrorism event is extremely unlikely, the cost of this policy, and since it's excluded in all your other policies, we recommend the city procure that coverage. So I just wanted to take a moment. I'm going through a lot of different coverages. It seems random and arbitrary, but I wanted to make a point. All of the coverage that we work on together with your team, it's all chosen based upon the actual risks that the city has. So these are strategic decisions. The limits that we buy, the self-insured retentions that we have, these are all strategic decisions based upon the actual risks of the city. And so they fall into essentially three different categories: risks for property that the city owns and that if something was to happen to it, it would diminish your ability to carry out the mission of the city, or human resources, and that's where our workers' compensation coverages, and then the protection I spoke about a couple of minutes ago against third-party lawsuits. So these policies fall into those three categories, and each of them has been carefully considered and analyzed prior to placement. So I spoke about the property renewal and the fact that we increased the limit to $300 million. I thought it was helpful to have this visual diagram for you to see. So the way that you read this starts at the bottom and you work your way to the top. So the city is responsible for the first $100,000 of any property claim, and then AIG, which is your insurance company, would pay the claims up to $300 million, and that's $300 million per occurrence. And as we pointed out, they have given us a two-year rate guarantee. Moving on to the excess liability, the third-party coverage. On the left, you can see all the different types of third-party coverage that are included: public officials, employment practices, employment benefits liability. In addition to general liability and auto liability, we have a $3 million limit. Well, let me start at the bottom. It starts at the bottom. There's a $750,000 self-insured retention. That is the city's responsibility for any of these third-party claims. And then there's a $3 million limit that's provided by Berkeley Insurance Company. Now, last year we bifurcated the law enforcement liability from the general liability. And the reason we did that is that this carrier, Lexington Insurance Company, was willing to provide a better self-insured retention, a $1 million self-insured retention. And that was a big advantage for the city to go from $1,500,000 on law enforcement down to a million, and now we've gone down further to $750,000. And we were only able to achieve that by bifurcating the policies and working with Lexington. The other advantage of working with Lexington is they have separate loss control resources that are dedicated to law enforcement, and the city has taken advantage of that, and we're grateful to the city for doing so. The auto physical damage and contractors' equipment, I mentioned this policy earlier. We were able to negotiate a better premium this year because we cleaned up the exposure register that's provided to the carrier. Now, this policy has a $25,000 deductible. That's less than the $100,000 property deductible. That's why we procure this because this covers vehicles and it covers contractors' equipment. Contractors' equipment are your backhoes, bulldozers, things of that nature. We wouldn't want to have a $100,000 deductible for those exposures. And the last of my graphs is the excess workers' compensation policy. This is the policy that provides coverage for human resources. We moved carriers. There was a lot of competition for your business for workers' compensation. And so we were able to transition from the former carrier to the new carrier and reduce the premium by, I would say, 37% or 36.55%. And again, the carrier to prove to us this isn't a one-year deal, we're going to give you this discount this year, but we'll get it back next year, gave us a two-year rate guarantee. So we know it's good for two years. And the self-insured retention for the workers' compensation is shown below at $500,000, except for employees who are working on wildfires and for police and firefighters. It's typical that safety personnel will have a different self-insured retention than other city personnel. So the next three pages, or next three slides, I should say, or pages from the proposal, show the actual premium amounts and the reductions. So I already spoke about it. I don't want to labor the point, but I do want to move to the very last page where these numbers are aggregated. So all of these coverages, which again are part of your risk management plan, which have been carefully chosen based upon the risks that the city has. Last year we spent just slightly over $4 million for those policies. This year it's again, it's slightly over $4 million, $4,077,000, but we were able to essentially, at the same price as last year, get an additional $100 million of property limits and reduce the self-insured retention on general liability law enforcement liability from $1 million to $750,000. Again, I want to emphasize this. We're not done yet. We're doubling down. We're going to continue to work with the city to improve the risk profile of the city and continue to negotiate better limits, better attachments, and lower prices. And I hope a year from now, I'll be keeping my promise to you that we achieve that again for another year. So given the difficulties we had going back to 2024 and how much better prepared we are now with this renewal, very proud of this renewal. I thought we should share it with you, and I stand for questions. Thank you for the presentation. Any questions? I think you did a thorough job. No questions for you. Well, I really appreciate the time. Thank you, Nazarene, and I are grateful. Thank you so much, Madam City Clerk. Next item on the agenda, please. Next item on the agenda is consideration of a resolution. This is sponsored by Mayor Michael Garcia. It's a resolution adopting the City of Santa Fe's 2028 to 2032 Infrastructure Capital Improvements Plan. And here to present is the Capital Projects Manager, Shawn Moody, and Public Works Director, Sam Bernett. Just to start us off, Mayor, I think we're going to have some amendments, so I will make a motion to approve the whole thing. Second. We got a motion and a second. And so, as Councilor Castro noted, there is still a number of amendments still to be considered. And so I don't know if governing body members want a presentation or just jump right into amendments. I think we should jump in. Mayor, could we get an overview for some of us on what the amendments are up till now just so we know what we're looking at? Sure. So there's an attachment in the packet that has the amendments that have been proposed. Within that document, it shows what's been approved thus far. It's highlighted in a color. The non-highlighted requests, which are Amendment C, Amendment K, Amendment M, Amendment N, and Amendment O, have not been considered for adoption yet. Correct. Correct. And so, Point of clarity, please. Wasn't C heard though at Finance? It was, but it was moved forward with no recommendation. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, sure, Councilors, in addition to, just as a point of order as we move through this, as promised on Monday at the Finance Committee, Mr. Moody and myself have been reviewing the amendments, all of which came in late last week, and to ensure everything was viable for moving forward. And we have identified one of the amendments we would like to recommend be removed from consideration because Public Works will need to do more due diligence vetting that project before we believe it's ready to be voted on and added to the ICIP. And that is Amendment Number I related to the Tierra Real infrastructure improvement. Oh, okay. Can you, I guess let me just ask this, can you give clarification why? Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor. So as we are reviewing these, we vet projects to ensure some basic parameters are met. One, that they're constitutional, that we don't run afoul of anti-donation. We clarify who will end up with property control in the project. And in this particular project, we've noted a number of issues that will need to be vetted farther to ensure we don't run afoul of any of those issues. A quick question, follow-up. How long will it take you to do that? Because I know we've been given unofficially some type of grace period. Do you think we can have something brought forward that way we can consider this potentially before the end of July deadline? That way we can make a final determination on this. We, I do believe that by what we anticipate the July deadline to be, we will have a definitive answer on whether that project is capable of proceeding or not. Until we've done our due diligence, I can't make one promise in either direction, but I can guarantee we will have a final response or a temporarily final response before a July deadline. Okay. Any questions from governing body members? Councilor Faulkner and then Councilor Gerson. Since we have a grace period, do we have to remove it now? Because ultimately, if you, sorry everyone, ultimately if you discover that it's not viable, we can remove it at that point. I'm not sure we need to now. Mr. Mayor, Councilor, based on the situation we're in, we believe it's best to not continue advancing the item because there are questions about its suitability for the ICIP in general. And so including it, knowing that there are issues related to this item and including it and allowing it to move forward, we believe would be inappropriate for the city. So what issues make it inappropriate? So again, it's related to the constitutionality, issues related to, well, specifically it's private property, and none of the improvements would end up under city ownership. So there's questions about anti-donation. So it becomes a constitutional issue. There, and in addition to that, there's questions about what as an extension of ownership, assetization, and other technicalities for us as we develop capital improvements. It is not in violation of the anti-donation clause of the State of New Mexico. In 2021 and in 2025, the New Mexico State Legislature passed two separate pieces of legislation where it is absolutely possible for the state to fund a private entity where infrastructure in particular is concerned, especially if it's related to health and safety, which this would be. It is completely allowable at the State of New Mexico. I have opinions from the Attorney General that I can share with you that will prove this case. I shared them with our former City Attorney, Erin McSherry. Literally, this is not an anti-donation clause situation. Things changed during COVID, and then they also changed in 2025 because this very circumstance is a problem all over the state around utilities and roadways for private entities like HOAs. What we're talking about is an HOA that was formed in the wisdom of our process. We formed HOAs through the developers, and people didn't join them, or the HOAs got formed and nobody participated. So, on paper, there's an HOA, but in reality, there's not. This is a very poor community, and there is no way in hell that they will ever come up with the money to fix this problem. That is in part why the legislature put together these two pieces of legislation. If it will help you, Director, I love you to death. If it will help you, I will send you the three opinions, but the anti-donation clause is not one of the concerns on this matter. I know that there's also space where we can work out once the road is fixed, we can give it to the city. This community was annexed, and so the city can accept the roadway once it's fixed. We don't have the money to fix it. The state legislature can help us with that. And once it's up to city code, then we can accept it as a street as part of the annexation process. So, I think it's premature to pull it off the list, especially because we have a grace period where we can get all of these answers that we're looking for. It doesn't hurt to leave it on the list until we get the answers. It's going to be harder to add it later. To that point, Counselor, adding and removing is the same process. It's not harder one way or the other. Am I correct in the process? If we were to add something, it's an amendment to a resolution. If we were to reduce or take away something, it's an amendment to a resolution. It's not a different process. Mayor, I believe you are correct. Okay. What I can offer, though, is that it's on the list now, and I don't think there's any harm in leaving it on the list. If we find that there are issues related to this, we have until August. We do our prioritization. We can also remove it then. We can move it in July. We have several opportunities to remove it, so it's not like we're at risk by leaving it on the list. Mr. Mayor, Counselor, from my perspective, what I propose remains the same, which is I do believe it's in our best interest to remove it. I believe that because we do have concerns, which may be unfounded, and as we do more due diligence, we'll find it, we'll find it absolutely should be on the list. I believe it's in the best interest of the city when we do identify a potential problem to ensure we respond appropriately and not find ourselves in a situation where we've adopted or approved something that we may not, may should not have approved, when we know we have an opportunity to make changes in the future. I think airing on the side of caution is in our best interest, and it remains my recommendation. Of course, I defer to the will of the governing body. So, let me skin this cat a different way. I'm sick, so my brain is not functioning very well. What harm could befall the city if we left it on the list until we got the answers? Mr. Mayor, Counselor, I can't cite any specific harm. Again, I just generally speaking, understanding that there are potential issues with this, I believe it's the most appropriate way to handle the situation is to remove it. I can't speak to any physical, mental, or financial harm that may befall us, but it just, in my professional opinion, is the cleanest way to handle the situation. Okay, Sam, thank you so much. You got it. Counselor Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to ask City Attorney Martinez your professional legal opinion over this matter because again, this is something that both Counselor Faulkner and myself have brought forward because we have been dealing with a tremendous amount of issues such as this in regards to areas that we annexed into the city. And I know it goes not just to streets, it goes to sewers. And I know we opened up a can of worms with trying to do everyone. But how do we set the standard going forward to help some of these individuals without putting the city at risk? We don't want that. But we also want to, what harm could bring to the city? Thank you, Counselor Garcia, for the question, members of the governing body. I guess in terms of harm, the only harms that I can sort of imagine would be in the event that someone found that the type of capital project allocation or capital allocation was found to be invalid, that the money would have to be taken back. That would be the greatest type of harm I could imagine that would happen. The other potential harm would be the legislature, of course, has to make decisions, and if this were selected and another project were not funded, and then the funding was found to be inappropriate or legally questionable, then the city would have lost the opportunity to obtain a different type of funding. So, it would really be the opportunity cost and the obligation to take back the money. Having said that, I would welcome any, you mentioned some Attorney General opinions. If you have any legal authority you'd like to share with me, I would be happy to review that and revise my opinion accordingly. Thank you, City Attorney Martinez. To the Director, in regards to, if you don't ask, you don't get. We should always try to ask. At that point, if we were ever to receive funding over this, and to Counselor Faulkner's point, we find out that we can do this or we can't. You hold the money and you return it. Obviously, I just think that there is no harm in asking. I don't know that I feel that we have to continue to try to help some of these areas, especially our homeowners associations or not. But areas who were developed and brought into the city, and through no fault of their own, we won't accept their roads. We won't accept their streets. They won't accept their sewers. We won't accept things. And I get it, we have to bring it up to city standards. That's the reason why. And so, I feel that, and I hope that we could continue to bring this and ask for it. If we do find an area, we did this with the 3% tax. We passed something that was unlawful, and it's in the state, and so it's in, it's in the Court of Appeals, and we're still waiting on judgment for that. So, we have money, so we can do it on one hand, but on the other hand, I think we want to take pause. I really feel that we should try to continue to help some of these areas. Sure. Counselor Faulkner. I think I can speak for both Counselor Garcia and I. If we leave it on the ICIP list and we discover through the process that it is not an eligible project, I personally, and I know Counselor Garcia will do the same, we will withdraw it ourselves. There's no harm that can happen here. We've been working with some of our legislators. This is a problem in our district. Our legislators would like to try and solve these problems. And so, I'll commit to the council and the administration, and I would look at my colleague in agreement, Counselor Garcia, if it is not viable, we will put the amendment in to withdraw it. Mr. Castro. Yes. Just, I had sort of a process question comment, and it would be, we pass it today as a resolution, then we would amend that resolution. Yes. Well, if we pass tonight the ICAP list completely, then all we would do is bring it back and amend the current resolution. Is that correct, City Attorney? That's right. I mean, right now it could be rescinded, but if it passes, then an amendment would be appropriate. Thank you so much. Any other questions? Just, just a quick process question, just because this one's a bit unique in the sense, we have projects that are our projects, and then we have outside projects that are private, whether it's, we've got the rock that we're hearing, we've, we passed ones for Tierra Contenta and Casa Titos and New Mexico Innovation Hub, and all those folks had put forward requests because there's going to the other entities that are managing the projects that, that they're private projects. With this particular proposal, was the homeowners association responsible for putting forth this request? Mr. Mayor, Counselors, actually, could I, could I send that off to Counselor Faulkner? I think you had direct contact with the, with the project rather than us. So, technically there is an HOA that we can work with on this project, but also we have DOT that can help us. And I've spoken to some of my contacts in DOT, and I think there's space where they can help do some of the lift. And so, this is one of the questions that needs to be vetted, and I've, I've been honest with staff about this. And so, we do have to answer a couple of, that is the only question in my mind that we have to resolve. But there would be a contractor involved. There's, I think there's spaces where we can figure this out. And I think what we're attempting to do with our legislators is find a solution for this problem. And it's not just in our district. Our district has some of the more severe cases because in our district, these entities have no resources. And in some space, we have to figure out how to solve this problem. So, putting on the ICIP list gives us an opportunity to work with the state to help solve this problem, and then we can use that as a template to solve the problem in other spaces. And so, I think that's really, it's, it is complicated. I agree, but I don't think it's an impossible lift. I think it's something we can figure out just based on my conversations with state, with the DOT and some of the people that I've talked to at the state level. I think we can figure it out. And if we can't, then we will take it off the ICIP list because if it's not going to work, we're not going to waste, I mean, I'll tell you as a lobbyist, I can't stand it when you waste a capital outlay on a project that isn't going to work. So, we will pull it. Absolutely. If we don't get an answer to especially this critical question, I personally will take it off the list. Mayor, I'm so sorry. Sure. Sure. I am feeling the need, since it is on my office to track what's going on with the legislation. I just for my own clarity want to kind of say that there are two different things happening here as I'm hearing them. One would be to leave amendment, would be to leave amendment I on the list and adopt the resolution tonight with it there. If you, that's the first thing. If you leave it there and later decide you need to take it off, you would be amending a past adopted resolution later down the road. So, that's one thing. The other thing that's going on is whether or not we want to leave it on there tonight at all. And if you did decide to move it, you would make a motion to rescind the adoption of that, of that amendment letter I that took place at Finance on the 22nd. So, it's kind of two different, there's a fork in the road here, and I just kind of wanted to make sure that I was tracking what's happening. So, I just wanted to speak. Thank you. Sure. Thank you, Marcy. I appreciate that. But just for clarification, and I appreciate having the will to, to find the answer to yes, but, but because I do want to help this community as well, but I think we need to ensure, just as any of these other entities came forward with their requests, that there is the capacity and the legal authority for the work to be done because again, I think we're in a precarious position where this particular request would improve infrastructure on private property. The homeowners association has not formally requested that we improve the property. We can go down a path where it might be possible, but we need the approval from the homeowners association, and we might not get that in time to even figure out if this can be pulled off. So, I think we need to, if we're going to explore keeping it on the list, we need to have a drop-dead deadline date of when it needs to come off because if we can't get clarification, we should not roll into this legislative session having this on the list. So, I think we as a governing body need to kind of draw a line in the sand and say if we don't have clarification if this could move forward by X, Y, and Z date, then we need to move forward because again, we need to work with Marcy's team to get a resolution introduced and get through the entire process, which is a whole time in itself. So, I'm open to having this on the list, but I think we also need to be cognizant of if it's not going to work, how are we going to determine how we pull it off, but in parallel, how can we continue to work with this community to get it in the appropriate place where it could be on the list next year, so to speak? So, I'll open it up to the governing body in regards to what the governing body still would be. If I could speak, Mayor. Thank you. I just wanted to say I think that this project in particular does something bigger than just existing on this list. It does set a precedent, and it should, because we have multiple communities in need that don't have advocacy that exists within them. And because they don't have advocacy, we are not showing up appropriately. And it's because we're at capacity. We're doing the best we can with what we have. But I think as we figure out how to start prioritizing these types of projects that are in great need, where it has huge impact on the quality of life, that exist the way that this community exists in particular, there's something that we do have to figure out. And I think leaving it on the list reassures the community that we're going to do that. And if it does need to be pulled off just to create a longer timeline and figuring that out, that's one thing. But I like that this is here because it does shine light on a greater need, I think, across Santa Fe for multiple other neighborhoods that we have that really require support of the city, but haven't spoken up or haven't connected with the right people in order to get the support that they need. Okay. Sure, Councilor Faulkner. So, point in fact, what remains of the association reached out to Councilor Garcia and I for the past two years about this issue. They're also working with PNM to get them lights so that the city can then take their streetlights over. So, this has been an ongoing issue. That group, that leadership group in that association, reached out to Councilor Garcia on this matter. So, there is a formal request through Councilor Garcia. This is not something that we just kind of went, "Oh, this looks like a good idea. Let's just do it." We have had an ongoing conversation with this community around their utilities, especially their streetlights. And this is a community, by the way, that was in utter disrepair, and it was overrun with homelessness. It was overrun with trash. It was overrun with crime. And this community pulled together and cleaned up their entire, they found an entire park they didn't even know they had because it was overgrown with trees. They have cleaned it up. They have done a great job of building community in this space. And I think one of the reasons Councilor Garcia and I are passionate about this is I don't know how many dumpsters, I think it's up to like 20, 30 mega dumpsters of trash and debris that they've cleared out, and that they did it themselves. We've helped on occasions when we can. But this is a community that is doing the right thing. This is a community, a high-risk community, that is showing that they're building themselves back up. And I feel responsible as a leader to reinforce that and to do things to say like as a government, we can't fix everything. But if you're willing to do the work and you're willing to put your heart and soul into your community, we are going to support you. And this is, I know we're asking for something outside of the box, and it may not work, but this is an opportunity for the governing body to show one of the poorest and most at-risk communities in the entire city who is doing the best for their people on their own without the city helping them other than getting them dumpsters. We have to show these communities that we care about them and that we hear them and that we are going to help them. And I know it's outside of the box. We're on the edge of some things we're not used to doing, but we have to start thinking differently as a government. We have to be there for the clientele. That's it. We have to do it. Sorry. So, just to get us back on track because I want to hear everybody's comments, but what is the drop deadline that we have to pull things off? That way we can work back, figure out when this ultimately would need to be pulled off, factor in Marcy's legislative timeline, and truly understand a timeline for this. Mr. Mayor, councilors, the official deadline for submission of the ICIP is July 1st. No, no, no. The amendment process because I believe it, and maybe Sean can help. Is it November? No, no, no. It's definitely. Mr. Mayor, so, just to clarify, so the deadline for submitting ICIP projects is officially July 1st, and I'll elaborate on that. So, our official list needs to be submitted by that date. We have in conversations with the state, we understand that they may provide more flexibility to communities in this particular year cycle due to changes in process. We don't have an official date of when, what the absolute deadline beyond what we know to be the July 1st deadline. So, yes, we believe there may be some ambiguity. Exactly how long that ambiguity lasts, we're uncertain. The timeline you're referring to after our conversation with people from the state is not specific to when we can submit projects, but what the deadline that they will allow us to adjust the ranking of projects. So, as the governing body knows, we often select the city's top five priorities and district priorities. And so, the portal will remain open for us to adjust how they're how they are listed inside of the city's website. The official date for that is generally before November, if I remember correctly, first. It is November 1st, and we believe there may be some additional time granted in addition to that as well. But according to the state and ICIP rules, our list of projects is officially due by July 1st. And that is our complete and final list. And technically, unless there's an announcement that they are allowing a grace period, in all years past, our final list is due on that date. Okay. So, just, I think what I'm trying to figure out is we pass this with it tonight, then November 1st is the date where we have to adjust it, which means we can pull it off, right? We can't pull it off on November 1st. When is the date, the drop-dead date to pull anything off? Is it July 1st? Could we just not rank it? If we're ranking priorities and we decide that we don't want this anymore, we could just not rank it as a priority, right? Mr. Mayor, Councilor Fagali, there's a distinction here. So, the July 1st deadline is to submit our list of projects. But if it's on the list and then we decide that it's not a good idea to have it on the list, we could just not have it as a priority. No, that's that, you can reduce its ranking, but it will remain on the list. Right. But it's unlikely to be funded if it's not our priority. As an example, the city has around a hundred projects on the ICIP list, and we rank about 10. Right. But, and I'm going to turn to Councilor Faulkner here because she's the professional lobbyist here. There are sometimes projects that are ranked last that get funded. It's all upon the priority of the legislature. And there are sometimes projects that are not even funded by the delegation in our area because another member wants to prioritize it for us. And so, there's no rhyme or reason to the ranking. If it's on the list, it becomes game. That's why we have a group of folks here that want to be on our list because that is the list ultimately that whether it's the governor's office or the legislators have to work off of to fund anything, whether they're number one or number 120. And so, I think I'm just trying to figure out the process if we want to give ourselves time for due diligence. When is the ultimate deadline for us as a governing body to bring forward a request to remove this item from the list should it stick on the list tonight? Because again, I want to set our team up for a path forward. Because if that means June is that month where it would have to, or July is that month where it would have to be pulled off, essentially Mr. Moody and his team has a very short window to do the due diligence, provide the recommendation. I don't even, we don't even have a process on where that would be, but would it be the next governing body meeting? We would get an update and then an amendment would move forward hopefully with for the next meeting. I'm trying to figure out a cadence of how it could ultimately be pulled off if we add it, if it is ultimately deemed it cannot be on the list. Can I offer some? Sure. The mayor is correct. I make a living off of items that are not in the top five priorities for any governing entity. They're private sector. You are correct, Mayor. Being on the ICIP list allows you to access funding from the state, from the executive branch, and from legislative branch. However, other options that are available with regard to projects like this is the city can send a memo to DFA or LFC, or to the legislators and say that this project is not a viable project. We did our due diligence. It's not viable. We can communicate through our lobbyist that this project isn't viable. We can communicate to our legislators that it isn't viable anymore. There are a lot of ways that this item could be removed from being considered outside of the July 1 deadline. I know that I've worked with municipalities and I've worked with even organizations where they had one project that they were really excited about, found out it didn't work. We went and told the legislators, "It's not viable. Take it off." And there was a formal letter or some kind of formal communication sent to the delegation that says it's not viable. So, there's several ways to skin this cat if this doesn't work. Councilor Castra. Yeah, thank you so much, Mayor. Thank you, Director. It just sounds to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that it is actually a little bit more difficult for us to add something after the July 1st rather than remove it from the list because July 1st is that set deadline, but we can adjust and remove things later on. Am I misunderstanding that? I think it's quite opposite. It's harder to pull it off than it is easier to put it on. We in July, we can add things, right, Mr. Moody? My understanding of the DFA's rules are July 1st is a hard deadline for submitting any project. It's silent on removing them. Okay. Oh, also, sorry, Mayor. Sure. The way my understanding is the way the state does its law around these things is if it is not in the statute about how capital outlay should work, it is with purposeful intent to exclude it from being something. If they don't have removal as discussed in the legislation about whether you can or cannot, even in policy, if you can or cannot do things, and it doesn't explicitly direct you to do something, like this is how you remove an item, that means the state leaves it in the hands of the local governments. It's explicitly excluded. It's excluded with purpose, meaning that they don't want to have to contemplate it. So it means we could remove an item, but we cannot add an item. I hope that probably was very confusing, everyone. I'm sorry. It's a confusing process, especially this year. Any other questions, comments? Councilor Bamante. Yes. Join in on the fun. Yeah, I'm just curious if this is something we could approve to proceed and review it on Monday at Public Works. Would that give staff enough time to review this, or is that not something that we'd have time to do? Mr. Mayor, Councilor Bamante, my understanding would be that tonight would be the deadline to make a decision because ultimately it would need to be approved by the governing body. I may be missing something, but I think tonight's the night, so to speak. So, okay. Sorry, just a point of clarification. What we passed tonight is going to meet the deadline, but potentially we could remove things or adjust the things that are on the list for a certain, uncertain amount of time. Mr. Mayor, Councilor Castro, I cannot speak to whether or not we'll be able to remove things. We will be able to adjust prioritization. Okay. All right. Any other comments? Yeah, Councilor Chavis. I just want to know what we do next. So, did Director propose an amendment, and are we going to be voting on that then, or removal, or do we just— It's included right now. So unless the governing body wants it removed, no action needs to be taken. Okay. So any other comments? Just one. Sure. Sure. Thank you so much. You're a wise and sage individual, and I adore you, but on this point, I had to push back a little bit. Mr. Mayor, councilors, I do not take anything personally. I'm doing my best to do what I believe is my responsibility, and I appreciate the feedback and the conversation, and thank you for the kind words. Okay. So last call. If not, we can go ahead and move to consider Amendment C, which is a resource and opportunity center. Mr. Bernett, can you give us a quick overview of what this is, and then I'll open it up for comments? Mr. Mayor, councilors, I'm actually going to turn it over to our Capital Project Planning Manager, Mr. Shawn Moody. Okay, Mr. Moody. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not going to go into great descriptions. I think the materials we provided are essentially what we have, but this is a project developed by Interfaith Resource and Opportunity Center. Let's put it— Just a little closer, maybe. It is located just south of Vinda and off of Srios Road. And it is a—I think some of the developers are here if there are questions. Okay. But up to questions, comments from the governing body. Councilor Faulkner. I'm just going to restate what I stated on the Finance Committee on this item. I do not think that this organization is in a position where it can manage a low-barrier shelter, especially in this location. I think the organization is doing a lot of work to get to a good space. I can only offer that after the Finance Committee hearing, I got an onslaught of telephone calls thanking us for not endorsing this amendment on the committee. There is no goodwill on the part of the community, from what I can assess in my district. I know that the nonprofits, when we asked about the nonprofits who were supporting this initiative, it was providers, but the major funders of projects like this have not stepped up to help fund this project. And the county, to my understanding, based on the testimony on Monday, the county said they would be fiscal agent, and then in May, and sometime later, said they would not. I don't get a sense that the legislature is open to funding this project at this time. And so I just want to reiterate, I do think this organization is on the right path. I've reached out to this organization to have a conversation about how we can get this into the right space. I do not think we are there yet. And I know that one legislator said to me that if the city puts this project forward, they would interpret that as the city not learning a lesson in how to be a steward of this situation regarding homelessness. I do want to help this organization. They do a lot of good work. I think they're amazing around transitional housing. I'm not sure this organization is good for low-barrier shelter work, especially my concern is that the mall is where all of our teenagers on the south side go. A lot of them, and this location, if we had a repeat of what happened with Pete's Place at the location that they are suggesting to put a low-barrier shelter, it would be disastrous for the Southside youth population. And I really wish this organization would make that facility a transitional housing facility because I think this organization is bomb at that. But I just want to reiterate what happened on Finance. There is not enough momentum or trust at this moment in multiple strata in our community. And it leaves me in a position where I cannot support this being on the ICIP list. Councilor Chavis. Thank you. I sponsored this amendment because I really wanted to hear just the progression that Interfaith is moving forward with. And there is progression. There's intent to, I think, really prove services, but you already have great services. You already show up for the community. You do. I have concerns as well, and I did get some insight from Finance, which is common with my concerns. I do have concerns about the location as well. I do have concerns about the level of services that would be required for this to be successful, and how as a city, we don't have those services to begin with. So it's hard to be confident just within services itself because it is evident throughout our city, those services don't exist. So how will we bring a level of services with Interfaith for this project specifically so it's successful? My other real concern is for Interfaith itself. You are essential to our community. Supporting something too quickly before readiness would be potentially leading you down a path of failure that I don't think would help the organization or the individuals you serve. I think that there's time, and there can be thought to gain more momentum and gain more support so that if you're back here asking again, you will have proof that the community is bought in, that you have services that are ready to go, that are actually available and sustainable, because we have most, a lot of providers that are here that leave after providing services for a few months. It's so unstable right now, where you can really rest on facts of agreements you have, on solid partnerships you have that you can communicate, that you can share with us, that you have, that will allow us to be confident that you will be set up for success, and that this is ready to be put up, and it is ready to be sustained, and it is ready to be successful. And I don't think that we're in a place where there's that readiness right now. I would also love to, you know, hear from other members of Finance, just on their thought process with this. But those are my major concerns, and like I said, it's all the things that have been said, but it's also for the organization itself. I get the comeback and the wanting to serve and the wanting to prove the potential you have, but also what is really important is making sure that there's a true foundation outside of just an idea that is going to create success for you. And I think you're almost there, but I don't think that it's quite there yet. Thank you, Mayor. Absolutely. Councilor Castro, and then Councilor Bamante. Yes, thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Councilor Chavez, for opening up the conversation of why we decided to pass this forward without recommendation. I think we had a lot of the same concerns, and I actually brought up a contrast with some organizations in Albuquerque who built a building and were unable to bring services, and I didn't want to see that repeated. I think there was also some concern about lessons learned. And I will push back, Councilor Faulkner, a little bit. I think that there are organizations that were associated with this group that do really well in transitional housing. I don't know that this is the same model, right? This is something completely different. This is—I don't know that that's a fair comparison. So, I want to just delineate that those are separate models, and we do need a low-barrier shelter. I also want to honor the fact that it is 6:30, and we haven't gotten to public comment, and there's a lot of folks in the room that were here in support. So, if you would like, until 7:00, so if you would like to just stand up for the folks who are in support of this in the room so we could get a sense before we take this vote, that would be helpful. Okay. Thank you very much. Because I did—I understand that many people are sitting here waiting for an opportunity to speak, and we are probably going to take this vote before you have the opportunity. Thank you for the emails and the calls. We hear you. We know there is support for this work. I think the concerns we really have is, is it ready, not do we need it, and not do we support you. I think we all support you up on this day. We're just concerned that it might not be quite where we want it to be. Thank you, Mayor Bonte. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm just going to echo a bit what Councilor Castro said. One of my biggest concerns that I feel still has not been addressed, and I have asked a couple of times, is in regards to lessons learned. And I guess this is on me because I wasn't blunt enough, so I'm going to be blunt. What lesson did you learn in regards to the fact that there was criminal behavior on your property, that there was criminal behavior around the property and throughout the neighborhood up and down Harrison Street? Your previous director continually said, "Well, what happens once they leave the building is not my concern." We cannot allow that to happen again within a community, especially one so close to the mall where a lot of children and a lot of teenagers, it's the main hangout for teenagers here in this town. I asked multiple times for clarification on that. Again, maybe I wasn't blunt enough because I received pages and pages of comment that to me still did not address that core issue. My core concern. And so, can we give an opportunity for them to speak now? Sure. I mean— So if anybody has an answer for that, I would really like to hear it. Good evening, Mayor, members of the governing body. As you must know by now, I'm Kent Grubs. I'm the board chair of Interfaith, and I'd like to make some prepared comments if I may. But I'm also happy to enter into a conversation about your specific query, Councilor Lmani. Mr. Grubs, I would, because there was a question asked, I would prefer just to respond to the question, not a prepared statement. It is certainly a concern that there would be an attraction of criminal behavior around a facility such as what we are proposing. Having said that, it does not have to be that way, and the facilities that I have visited in other cities do not exhibit that kind of situation. Some of these facilities are located in heavily commercial areas. Certainly, going forward, we would not tolerate any criminal activity on our property. So that's number one. Number two, we would have to build credible street outreach capability, either in our own organization or partnering with another organization, to proactively canvas the immediate area around the proposed facility. I've used the example in the past of an organization called Outreach Fort Collins that exists. It's a nonprofit. It exists in the city of Fort Collins, and it serves as a buffer between the service providers in the town, the business owners in the main commercial district in Fort Collins, and first responders. That organization was founded because of precisely this kind of need: protection of the business community and residents from activities by people that service providers were trying to serve. The way that organization functions is that they've got teams that go out and proactively canvas a designated route. They don't do the whole city of Fort Collins, but they do a designated area up and down the main commercial thoroughfare. They do this on a regular basis. I don't know what their schedule is, but it's Monday, Wednesday, Friday, or Tuesday, Thursday afternoon. They've got teams that go out and survey a specific route to proactively engage people that might otherwise be causing disruption. In addition to that, they respond to calls. So, when a business owner has suspicious activity out in front of his business, that business owner doesn't call 911. They call this organization, and they track the response times, and they come and take care of the situation. They claim—we've had conversations with their executive director, and I intend to visit Fort Collins myself next month—they claim that the vast majority of their calls can be satisfied by their outreach teams. So that is the kind of model we would expect to employ at The Rock. A third thing I would add is that when I look at all of these facilities that I visit in Houston, San Antonio, Albuquerque, Fort Collins for that matter, there is a collaboration between the organization that is running the facility, first responders, other service providers, and it's typically formalized in some sort of protocol that defines who is responsible for doing what. It is not entirely the responsibility of the police department, for example, but it is also equally not the entire responsibility for a service provider. There has to be a collaboration because certain organizations, certain responders, don't have the authority to respond in ways under certain situations that others might. So you have to think all that through ahead of time and design a protocol that would allow the alternative response unit, fire department, other outreach organizations in this city, La Familia Crisis, for example, and determine who is going to do what under what circumstances in what areas. Does that answer your question? I can say yes, but not necessarily satisfactorily. I could say yes, but not necessarily satisfactorily, because we have shown that, and again, I'm not advocating for another organization, but the model that they have shown, which included that street outreach from the get-go, is one of the reasons we hired them. It has shown a drastic reduced call volume in that area. I'm not doubting what you've seen in other areas in terms of criminal activity in and around facilities, but we have seen it here in Santa Fe. We've seen it at formerly Pete's Place. We have seen that. We know that it's going to happen. And so I'm a little disappointed to hear that it's just in conversation that you are having this and that it's not built into your plan already to proceed. What conversation are you referring to? I'm talking about the organization that you're talking about that would perform the street outreach. In our existing operating plans, we have clear written documentation of our intention to have thorough and constant, regular street outreach. And you're absolutely right, the organization now running 2801 Crios Road is doing that, and they're doing that well. Street outreach is a critical component of the operations plan that we have currently, and we would also be willing to partner with any other street outreach programs in the community in order to ensure safety. That's one of the things, and the other piece that I want to state very clearly, collaborative agreements with law enforcement are critical to the success of these types of facilities and different organizations. And we are committed to working with the Santa Fe Police Department, the ARU, the Sheriff's Department. We need to repair the relationships that were damaged under the last administration and under the last at both Interfaith and the city. We're committed to doing that, but we do need to do that in tandem with all of you, and we would request that support. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilor Chavis, then Councilor Faulkner after. Question, follow up on. Okay, Councilor Chavis. Yeah, I have a few follow-ups, because yes, crime was an issue, cleanliness was an issue, quality of life in these facilities was an issue, hiring was an issue. So that all ties to leadership. So the real question is, what has been done to improve expectations for the leadership that is in charge of this project? And with that, my follow-up question to really provide proof, have you reached out to ARU? Have you reached out to Urban Alchemy to get ideas, to look at collaboration opportunities? Because that would be my evidence as having an established leadership that's moving in the right direction, because those are all the components that exist right now that would help you be successful. So has that, those conversations, like tell me a little bit about your leadership. Tell me about the charge they had with connecting the people that are already doing this kind of work, specifically the outreach, specifically the connection to services within our community, within the street outreach that you know you will be serving. I'm not going to speak to the board. I'll pass that over. But I do want to say that yes, communication has taken place. Unfortunately, the woman that I spoke with at the ARU, Nicole Alt, is no longer there. She did support this verbally, but given her role, was hesitant to say in writing that that was a support. We have been in communication as well with Urban Alchemy, not necessarily about partnering on this project, but we are building a relationship with their team members. And they showed up to assist us when we did a community cleanup at the site. We've signed on to a community letter indicating that this is a resource that we need in the community. We need a low-barrier shelter, and we're committed to working with anyone and everyone who's willing to work with us. And I just want to add something that's a little off track, but we had an event for Chaplain Joe, and he passed away, and he was a huge advocate and a huge partner with this organization. Food was left over after the memorial. We took all that to Urban Alchemy. We are in communication with them. We are working with them as good neighbors and partners, if you will, and we're absolutely committed to continuing that. And I stress that because, and I say this every time, I've been in conversations with our ARU work sessions, by the way, that has been open to community partners, those work sessions. So you might want to connect because they had like 15 organizations show up to those conversations about their services and how they're trying to restructure. I think they have another conversation coming up soon in the next few weeks. But I said this in one of these work sessions, and I'm going to say it again. We are rich in community services. We are rich in community partners. Unfortunately, they all compete. And when they all compete because, and it makes sense that they do, because it's all a fight for funding. It all makes sense. However, who ends up, it ends up interfering with the benefit for the community. And so in reality, sustainable progress within this type of service is never going to happen until there's alignment amongst all of our service providers, all of our community partners. Like, there has to be alignment. I actually want to shout out the fire department because they're actually an example with ARU of the start of this. They have identified a need, and they had an all-call to all community providers saying we need your help in designing a structure. We're all moving in the right direction. That is a completely new concept. Like it really is. I know a lot of us say this is happening, but it is not happening. If it was happening, we wouldn't have the gaps that we have, and we wouldn't have the duplication of services because we have a lot of duplication of services. But like it, it is possible to bring everyone to the table where you might not even need this funding honestly. Like if you would propose a path and pull everyone to the table and get on alignment and everyone team up to serve the community, the funding situation may solve itself. But for some reason, those conversations aren't happening enough. Again, shout out to the fire department if you want to see something like that that's occurring. They're a great example. They are designing a service for Santa Fe around ARU where they are leaning into partners to align services. So, we're not duplicating services, but we are actually widening our net to catch all community members that are in need. So, I just want to throw that out there. Like partnership is probably more of an asset to you than funding because that's what's truly going to make your program sustainable in the future. Mr. Mayor and Councilor Chavis, thank you for that. Mr. Mayor, I'm going to be very honest. I sent an email to you a number of months ago, and I requested a contact for both the police department and the ARU, and I didn't hear back. And I was, we were doing that in response and being respectful to you entering, and I, I'm sorry to put you on the spot here, but we have been making requests for this. Furthermore, we have five MOUs in place, signed. Some of our partners are here this evening, and a number of other partner providers. At 19, we have support letters of groups that want to work with us. Yes, the collaboration and the utilization of services efficiently is critical, but we do not have a structure in our community that can accommodate the needs that we have. As we've shared, this is intended. We do not have a low-barrier emergency shelter currently in our community where someone who becomes homeless today can show up and get a bed. Secondly, we're, we're proposing a day services center in addition to wraparound services on site. The partners are here. We need a structure. We need a place where people can congregate. A place that is trauma-informed and built to receive people in the state and the despair that they're in. A beautiful place that welcomes them, that shows them we as a community of Santa Fe value them. We see them. And we're not going to always be dependent on a repurposed pet store. A lot of folks when that, and that was a great step, and we're grateful that that happened when that happened 15 years ago because Interfaith started saving lives by churches in our community opening their doors and having people come in to and sleep in their congregations. We're grateful. I believe it was Mayor Coss who helped this community and this organization to purchase, formerly, Pete's Pets and convert it. That was converted with hours and hours of volunteer and community support because we believe in this community. We believe our residents deserve respect and dignity and safety and infrastructure, and this is absolutely a project that will only succeed with all of us participating. And we welcome your participation. We want your participation, and we need it. There's been a rupture in a relationship that we need to repair, and hopefully, we can do that and wait for a year and see if we even get funding. We're simply asking for inclusion, equity, and access like any of the people that come to us requesting services. Sure. But just since my name was invoked, I apologize, Marisol, if we didn't get you info, but we've met several times since the months since said request you put forward. Never was there any follow-up. In addition to that, it's not hard to find contact info for our police chief or our fire chief. So with that being said, Councilor Faulkner, I mean, Councilor Faggali, I apologize. Councilor Faulkner was next. Thank you, Mayor. I'm looking this way and calling this way. We have the same initials. I know it's confusing. Thank you, Mayor. I mean, I understand that this project might not be perfect. No project is perfect, but we don't have a shelter right now, and we need one, and I don't know that we have a lot of options. I apologize. We can't be, I can't allow for the clapping. Chairman Putin, if somebody says that you like, just do some jazz hands. If there's something you don't like, feel free to give a downward thumb. But no, I apologize. But yeah, I mean, I think that's the position that we're in. We only have so many options, and this is one of them. And we are not, we're just putting on a list. We're not doing a whole lot of endorsing to my understanding, and I don't think we're taking on much liability. Director Burnett or Mr. Moody, if you can correct me on that, but by putting us on this list, are we opening ourselves up to any liability? Are we in any kind of danger? I see Director Burnett shaking his head. So, yeah, I'm not sure what I, I understand that we have objections, and it's not perfect, but I don't know what our other options are. Thank you. Mr. Faulkner. Okay. To Council Fragali's point, there is a harm that could come to the city. There is not a political appetite for this. And there, there are informal spaces in politics where if we do something that there is no appetite for, and I've cautioned on the finance committee about this. The city is already in trouble with the legislators. We are already in probation right now, and we've been called to the principal's office and putting a project that there is no will other than this group of people. This group trusts itself, the community, the legislators, the county, the nonprofits. There is not political will from what I can assess to do this now. I'm hoping there will be next year. But one thing that's dangerous is we can't do projects where we say, "Okay, we don't have anything else, so let's just take what we can get." Last year and what happened at Pete's Place is an example of that kind of poor stewardship. Badly run things are worse than no things sometimes because clearly it sets a tone to a situation that has ripples that last for years. And that's one of my concerns. The other thing I would warn the organization about, and I sent an email to your organization about this, if you think you're getting scrutiny here, I would strongly advise you not to go to the legislature this year because you will be in committee after committee where legislators will be grilling you. It will be public. It will be in the paper. And so, I would caution you as a professional lobbyist, be mindful. Your brand is not in a good space. You don't have the support of the majority of the community. This, if you were wise, you would take this next year to rebrand, to get completely organized, to reach out to all of the different, the police, the fire, the ARUS. And I'm not saying this to be mean. The scrutiny at the roundhouse can annihilate your project for the next decade. And the paper will be there. And I, I'm telling you honestly, if you want to stand a chance, you need to take some time to build your reputation back up to get to convince people that your organization is trustworthy. And I'll be honest with you, I have to say that one of the red flags for me is the mayor has been one of your biggest supporters. He really has put a lot of heart and soul into this organization, and for the excuse to be tonight that he didn't provide you access to the police and fire chiefs when that information is online. You could go to station one and talk to the fire chief. You could go to the police station unannounced and talk to the police chief. You could have set up those appointments. And what's a red flag to me is instead of saying we've been trying to do that, you went after your number one advocate. That is a red flag to me that the culture of the organization has not changed or at least the public-facing component of the organization hasn't changed. We are all trying to tell you what you need to do. We don't want to not support you, but I, that going after the mayor is crazy to me. He's your number one advocate. And that just shows to me that the culture hasn't shifted. And I understand the city let this system, this project, we're to blame for the failures. We, we, we saw stuff was happening. We should have interceded. The last administration didn't have an appetite for that. We can't. But that's our responsibility. But your responsibility has to be mea culpa, has to be building new and better bridges with community including from the state all the way down to the average person on the street. And I, part of why I am against putting this on the ICIP list is you will literally face a level of scrutiny that will only damage your cause further than where you are right now. If you back off, take some time, get yourselves organized, rebuild the relationships, next year, you'll likely make the ICIP list, you might make it tonight. I'm just saying as a lobbyist, I'm a worry about how what you're going to face at the session just based on the conversations I've had. That's all. Mayor, Mayor Garcia, I apologize. I didn't, I didn't mean to put you on the spot, and we're just a little bit frustrated because we're doing everything we can to try and bring this resource forward. We're trying to find, follow rules of protocol and be respectful, and I apologize for that. I'm sorry. But just for the record, because such accusations are huge, and I mean, I quickly sifted through every single email I had from you from January of this year, and I couldn't see any such request, and we can follow up offline. To me, it's neither here nor there, and it's one of those things where again, my job is to help. My job is to facilitate, and if for some reason that, you know, that didn't happen, but in, in, in an instance where it, it, as Councilor Faulkner and as I mentioned, this is publicly information that I, I would hope that nobody who's looking for contact info for police or fire is waiting for somebody to get back to them. It's easily available. So I don't want to belabor the moment. Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've been able to listen to a lot of the comments, questions during the finance committee. Now, listening to the remainder of the governing body members that were not finance, haven't had any private conversations with any of them, but I go back to taking it to a basic level of making decisions. And for me, when we make decisions based on emotion, typically they're going to be the incorrect decision. I can feel and I can see in each and every one of you out there the will and the and the heart that you have that you want to help people, and we do too. I think that what's concerning to me is alignment of certain things, and I think that's what I'm hearing from the governing body as well, connecting the dots. How are you going to really truly make it work? How is it going to affect the area that you do? Whether the property over near the mall is the right one or not, I don't know. It doesn't seem like it's an inappropriate spot, but that's not really kind of, I think, what is fueling a lot of our concern. What's fueling a lot of our concern is the fact that no matter where you do this or once you achieve the level of your goals, your end goals, are you going to succeed? And so, you know, to Councilor Fugali's point, I think that she's correct. Where do people go? Well, we can't just accept just anything and then roll the dice and see if it does work. And so I'm going back to not emotions. I'm going back to thought processes, and I'm going back to what's worked and back to lessons learned and so on and so forth. I've known many people who are involved with Interfaith over the years through church activity and so on. And again, your heart bleeds to help people, and I think everyone here is the same. But when we have to come and make a decision whether we support or not support, I think take the advice of certain colleagues on this governing body. We are here to help you because we do need this service in our community where we see people that are hurting, and we're also going back to to now we have something to gauge it off of with an organization who is expensive and clinically proven and are showing results. And so now how do we make that decision? So I get it. You need to find any which way you can get funding. But to me, the dots aren't really connecting yet. It seems to be the same individuals who are your partners, trying to do this again in another location. I do hope that at some point when this does happen that the city does become good partners to make sure that it works, and that's what we really need is we need it to work for everyone. May I respond to your comments, Councilor? Thank you for those, and thank you all for all the comments I've heard over the last 15 or 20 minutes. I'm mystified by the thought that this is Interfaith doing this by ourselves and that we don't have the support of the rest of the players in the homelessness ecosystem in Santa Fe. From the very beginning, starting in July of last year when I became board chair, the first thing we did was go out to Santa Fe Recovery Center, to The Life Link, to St. Elizabeth, to La Familia. These are the big players in the homelessness space. Am I wrong there? I met with their board chairs. I met with their executive directors, and by October, we had memoranda of understanding from those four organizations. We've since added Street Homeless Animal Project that indicate their, in writing, their, not just their willingness, but their intent to have a physical presence on our campus. Interfaith is not big enough to do this by itself. There's no organization in this town that's big enough to do it by itself. It has to be done by collaboration. It is a community challenge that we are facing, and there has to be a community solution, and I just, I'm just, I just don't know what to, how to, how to respond to that. If you don't think that we have the support of the major players and the ecosystem in this town behind this project, I don't know how to change your mind because, Mayor, we have the memorandums to document that we have office space designed in the building for them. The second point I would like to make, if I may, is I don't think the governing body fully appreciates the level of definition that's been put into this project over the last 12 months. This isn't just some idea that we've come up with. We have purchased land. We have hired architects. We have done a specific needs assessment for the city of Santa Fe, where the gaps are, what needs doing. All of that has been built into an architectural plan that is months away from a building permit application. I don't know what to say to that. This is as shovel-ready as a project could be. Now, you can have your doubts about our track record and our doubts as an organization and whether we can deliver, but I don't think you can have doubts about the level of definition that has been put into this project. Thank you, Mayor. I think I want to make some clarifications. And I will speak for myself, not anyone else sitting on this dais, that The Rock as a concept I heard over 10 years ago initially. Is that correct? Is this a concept that had been part of the Interfaith since the inception? Mr. Grebs, I think the mic is turned off, maybe. Thank you for that. I've only been with the organization since 2023. My understanding is that The Rock as a concept was adopted in the strategic plan of the organization the year before I joined in 2022. Okay. So there's some maybe misinformation that I have, but again, The Rock is something that I've been hearing for over 10 years. The Resource Opportunity Center was presented to the neighborhood around Pete's Place as the initial concept. So, let's potentially have more conversation because that is not the understanding that I have, which is why I made some comments during the Finance Committee about the long-term planning strategy because it seemed like potentially this came into fruition under pressure from potentially losing the lease from the city of Santa Fe. May I address that, Councilor? Yes. Following the strategic plan adoption by the board prior to my joining the board in 2022, we started putting money aside for eventual application to a Resource and Opportunity Center. And we started looking for property in August, let's say the summer of 2024. We hired Shopworks Architecture out of Denver to come and do a needs assessment of Santa Fe and to provide architectural conceptual architectural advice with respect to how you would design a trauma-informed facility to meet the needs that had been identified in the city. Shopworks came down in January of 2025, and they interviewed 74 people in the community from homeless guests at Pete's, our volunteers, neighbors on Harrison Road, players in the ecosystem, political leaders, and so forth. That report was delivered to us in April of 2025. All of that activity took place before we even had an inkling that I would push back because I know that we had conversations and I had discussions with folks while I was running for office that this was an issue and that potentially, I mean, there had been a month-to-month contract for this property years ago with some of the same issues. So I would push back in saying that there was no inkling that there was an issue here and that the lease was not up for debate. The second piece that I would like to address is some of the organizations that you mentioned in collaboration. So this is not an Interfaith alone issue. Many folks that you have mentioned have changed leadership since October. So those and the conversations you've had are going to need to restart because they're a whole new group of people. Is that correct? For example, St. Elizabeth's Or the Recovery Center. The Recovery Center. We've met with their representatives and we've corresponded with their board chair, their current board chair, not Mr. Pontius. But you do understand that this is not just an Interfaith problem. This is a problem of the entire service provision sector, which ultimately when we're hearing that that is the plan and that is what the contingency plan is going to be to bring in these organizations that are also having their own difficulties and potentially could not exist in, you know, five years. I think that's the concern, and I want to be very clear that I plan to support this being on the ICIP list. I want to be an ally to this community, and it is becoming harder and harder as I hear some of the testimony that doesn't seem to be jelling with the information that I personally have from before I was sitting on this dais. No further questions, Mayor. Councilor Foster, So you mentioned that you had spoken to Urban Alchemy. I check in on Urban Alchemy on a regular basis. I call their, I guess, president or CEO and talk to her about things that I see that I think need to be improved there. I had a conversation with her and asked her if there was any genuine conversations happening between your organization and theirs, and she said no, there was not. Yeah, certainly we haven't communicated with the CEO. So that's part of the problem. It's like if you're going to work with an organization as a partner, you should be talking to the people who run the organization. The other part that I don't think your organization is getting is that it feels to me almost like you're tone-deaf to what is happening around you in the community. Like this is a great plan. Of course, any organization would say if you said to them, "Do we need a low-barrier shelter that's well-run and has all these amenities?" And everyone would say, "Yes, of course we do." But you have no substantial investment from the community, including the nonprofits and the county and the state, that would indicate that there is genuinely a path forward with your organization and the rest of the community. And what I, I'm, I don't want to be hard on you guys, but it's like almost dangerous for your organization how you're proceeding with even the testimony before the council. It's like you are tone-deaf to the community, the larger community in Santa Fe, tone-deaf to the state, tone-deaf to the county. I understand I'm a very stubborn human being, and everyone who's worked with me knows that once I get lock my jaws on something, I'll drag it out to the end of days. But I do have to tell you, you have to, there has to be a point. I feel like you're doing more harm to what you want in the future than you need to be doing. You're doing harm to yourself, and you're also just driving a bigger wedge between yourself. Councilor Castro is now frustrated. You're pushing people away from you with your approach to this situation. And so I just, that's the last bit of advice, unsolicited, that I'm going to give you. But you are really, from where I'm watching the situation at all levels in the community, you are doing harm to yourself at this point because you're tone-deaf to what's happening around you. Councilor Fagulli. Can I make a motion to approve? Call the question. Sure. We've got a motion. Is there a second? Motion. Second. Okay. So there's a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? To be clear, this is a motion to approve to put this on the ICIP list. Correct. Yes. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Falner, No. Councilor Fagali, Yes. Councilor Garcia, No. Councilor Barrett, Yes. Councilor Bamante, No. Councilor Castro, Yes. Councilor Chavez, No. And I'd like to explain my vote. Motion did not pass. Okay. Yep. Councilor Chavez. Thank you, Mayor. Your vote. I think that it doesn't feel like this is in your best interest, but I think it's going to be, if there's action. So I think Fire is here right now. Ask them for their phone number. We have an ARU session that we're going to, I think it's tomorrow. It's tomorrow, Friday. It is Friday. We want to develop a relationship, and I know it doesn't feel that way. I also know there's frustration. I think I heard someone cuss in the audience when we were talking. That's a bad look for you all because that's not partnership. That is creating a divide in two entities that are trying to help the community. We want to help the community, too. And so I just want that to be clear. My decision really, and I kept saying this when I first talked about this, I want you to be successful. And I think you need the time and the relationships and the true momentum that when you come back here next year, which I am rooting for you to come back next year, that there is no ounce of hesitation to support you because we have proof in the work, we have proof in the partnership, and we have proof in the relationship. Thank you, Mayor. All right, Mayor. I'd like to make a motion that we move to public comment. We're in the middle of an item right now. I apologize. You're right. We still have some amendments to move. No, I just thought that was the last amendment. I will resent my motion, and once we're done with this, then we can go to public comment. Okay. If that's the will of the body, though, this item can be tabled. We can go to public comment. We can come back. But it's just wanted to give the options. So, or okay. So the next proposed amendment is Amendment K, Regal Park Public Restrooms. Mr. Moody, if you would just give an overview of this one. I'll move to approve. Second. We've got a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Any further clarification needed for Mr. Moody? Okay. Seeing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote on this amendment, please? Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Fagali, Yes. Councilor Garcia, Yes. Councilor Barrett, Yes. Councilor Bamante, Yes. Councilor Castro, Yes. Councilor Chavez, Yes. And motion passed. Okay. Next proposed amendment is Amendment M and Ava Chavez Community Center deferred maintenance. Move to approve. Second. We've got a motion and a second. Any further clarification needed for questions on this? I just wanted to thank the staff for bringing this forward. I think we've been hearing it very loud and clear that this is a priority of our community. So staff that reached out to me to support this, thank you for doing so. Super honored to be in support. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote on this amendment? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Garcia, Yes. Councilor Barrett, Yes. Councilor Bamante, Yes. Councilor Castro, Yes. Councilor Chavez, Yes. Councilor Faggali, Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Next item is Amendment N as in Nancy, Bicentennial Pool deferred maintenance. Move to approve. Second. Second. Okay. So we've got a motion and a second. Any questions, clarification? Thank you, Councilor Faggalian Barrett. This is awesome. Okay, hearing none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Barrett, Yes. Councilor Bamante, Yes. Councilor Castro, Yes. Councilor Chavez, Yes. Councilor Fagali, Yes. Councilor Garcia, Yes. Motion passed. Okay. And the last amendment I have on the list is Amendment O, Southside Library Deferred Maintenance. Move to approve. Second. Okay. Any discussion or further clarification needed? Hearing, seeing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barret. Yes. Motion passed. Okay. I think that's all the amendments that were part of the packet. Correct? Am I correct, staff? Am I missing any? Is there any additional amendments governing body members would like to make? Okay. So, we have still the motion to approve on ask unless there's any other comments, questions. Is this for the as amended? No. Seeing none. Madam City Clerk, I see Marcy. I want to make sure before we move forward, we're good from the boss back there. Okay. Okay. Hearing, seeing none. Madam City Clerk, roll call vote, please. Yes, Mayor. On the amended resolution. Councilor Krov. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Begali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Bernett. Thank you, Mr. Moody. This is a first-time rodeo process. All new. Thank you for all of the learning process. And Mayor, now I would like to move that we move to public comment. Okay. Second. So, we've got a motion and a second to move immediately to public comment. Discussion. Seeing none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Travis. Yes. Councilor Begali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Councilor Castro. Motion passed. Okay, so we now move directly to public comment. Now is the opportunity for anybody in the council chambers to move forward. Please step up to the podium. Everybody gets two minutes. And as always, please state your name, council district number if you'd like. Mike, can we get the clock up on the screen, please? Hold on one second. Let us get the speaking clock up for you all. We good? Hold on. You'll see it right there. There we go. Feel free to start whenever you start. Your timer will start. My name is Jim Heath. Mr. Mayor, members of the governing body, town council. I'm not here to ask for a vote, and I'm not here to ask or comment. You might put the mic a little closer to your mouth. Okay. What I'd like to do is just tee something up for consideration at further meetings. I've been involved for a number of years in trying to get Paul Salari back on track. I've done a lot of concerts in town over the years, and I've worked with the Indian community, and it has come to my belief that that project is not going to happen for any of us in the future. So I have decided to personally get involved and tee up and provide the development and the funding for a project very similar to that in the Midtown project. And I know there's space there. I know I've done some research. I've actually been out of the country for the last couple of years, and I'm just kind of coming back and getting on track. I know there's been a lot of development and progress on the Midtown project since I left, but I do think there is space and an opportunity to put something very much similar to Palosari in that area. And so I'll be working now. I guess I have to reach out to the members of staff and start doing my homework. But tonight, I just kind of wanted to come and get a sense of things and who's on the council now and who's not on the council now, and just generally kind of tee it up and let you know that that's something I'm going to be working on. Thank you. Next speaker, please. All right. I'm tired of it again. This is America. We speak English. When you answer questions, you answer in English. When you're speaking to the public, you do not throw in slide Spanish remarks. You say it in English. It is disgusting that this panel is allowing that to happen and not correcting it. Two, you guys like to throw money here, there, everywhere on what you want. When someone comes to you with a project that you're like, "Eh, maybe, huh? Nah." No, you tell them to kick rocks. It shouldn't be like that. These people are trying to do something. They're trying to create a homeless shelter better than what is here. And what is going on? I'm sorry, Agape. Here, here's more money. Here's more money. They're not doing anything for our community or for our homeless. I'm sorry. I talk to the homeless community on a daily basis. I donate to them. I've actually gone and spent time with them in a homeless camp. So, let me put it this way. Did you know that 90% of people, and this is an actual fact that this just came out, are one paycheck away from being homeless? One paycheck. One. You could lose your job tomorrow, and you could be homeless. You know, you go to AAP, you ain't going to get the assistance you think you're going to get. I'm sorry. They are not helping our community. If you want to help our communities, go to people that are coming to you with solutions. Instead of telling them no, that is a problem. If they're here, hey, we got this. We're working towards this. But then you tell them, "No, what's the point in even coming to you with a project?" And then you tell people that are upset. I'm sorry. I'm an independent. I hate all Republicans, Democrats. You guys politicians are jokes. You pander to people. You pander to the group that's going to kiss your ass. And I'm sorry, I ain't one of them. I'll never be one. You guys need to fix your problems. Come together with the community. If someone wants to cuss, I'm sorry, that doesn't represent the whole group. That represents that one person's feelings. You got to look at it like that. So, yeah, you may think I'm an emotional, angry person. Sir, your time has expired. Yeah, I'll give you that. But you know what? You got to learn to respect your constituents. Learn. Next speaker, please. Mayor Garcia, City Councilors, Kevin Rap from District 2. Pleasure to see everybody and meet the new councilors. Personally, and as a member of the board of ICS, I just want to say thank you for all of your honest and open comments tonight and in previous conversations and definitely look forward to working with all of you and looking for your input and your assistance and your support as we build out the rock and everything around it. Because as everybody said tonight, it's a community that's going to take this to the next level. It's not one project. It's not one group. It's not just the city. It's not just the citizens. Everybody working together. And so I definitely look forward to working with all of you, and we'll, I think everybody probably has my information, but definitely willing to sit down with any of you one-on-one or as a group with the board, without the board, whatever, to have conversations and figure out how we repair what we have going on because I think everybody wants to go in the right direction and has the exact mindset of what needs to happen. And Councilor Faulkner, I definitely appreciate what you're saying about going to the next level at the roundhouse because I think that is definitely something that is a true statement. So, thank you all again. Look forward to working with you. Great evening. Next speaker, please. Hi there. Thank you all for your time. I'm Erica Kid. And the said swear. My apologies. So, noted. Apologies to Mr. Garcia. I'm somebody who's worked at Presbyterian Medical Services as a case worker, worked at the LifeLink as a case worker. I've worked at Casa Malagro case worker program manager, worked at St. Elizabeth's running the Santa Fe Suites. I'm now a board member of Chaplain Joe Street Outreach. And I'm also part of the Santa Fe Housing for All Collaborative. I'm pretty damn knowledgeable about what's going on with services and what I'm hearing that is believed going on with services and that the rock has not reached out and, you know, facilitated that. That's insane. I worked with Joe Joe Jordan to get people funding through Interfaith that came over to the Santa Fe Suites, and they have been housed sustainably for a very long time. People that were paranoid to even go to Social Security and get income. That has been going on for years. I've seen ARU over there constantly. It's not looking the same. When I interact with Agape, it has, they've kicked out all of the volunteers. Healthcare for the Homeless is not over there. So, I am completely dumbfounded by what I'm hearing, and I'm not quite sure where the information is coming from. As someone who is very much someone who has put together a training on the continuum of housing in Santa Fe and brought different providers together, picked from different organizations. I did that on my own to try and do what you guys are wanting to be done, and it is the community that is going to be the answer on this, and that is what they are doing. So, I'm really confused. And he also mentioned, "We don't have the political appetite." Well, I don't have the appetite to keep seeing people dying and going to the vigil. And the numbers keep going up. What is it going to take? I'm going out there now, and I buy signs from people that are homeless so that I can create a relationship. I do that with my own money to create change. I'm, I'm whatever. Sorry, but your time is expired. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, City Council. I'm Jamie Blosser, CEO and Director of the Midtown Arts and Design Alliance, and I just want to start by saying how grateful the MA team is for your unanimous vote of support for our ground lease and development agreement on June 10th. And I did not expect to be back in front of you so soon or at all, but I'm here regarding House Bill 247 in the city's ICIP process. As part of our agreement with the city, MA is responsible to raise funds to rehabilitate city-owned buildings. As you know, while we are not requesting city funding for these renovations, we have always included state capital outlay in our proforma. So as we are a public-private partnership with the city, we really do need the city as a critical partner to advocate for MA to be eligible for external funding sources such as state capital outlay. MA did receive a 200,000 state capital outlay appropriation in 2025. However, we cannot draw that down until the effective date of our GLDA, which means that we were not able to submit a request this year in 2026. And now with this new state bill and the city's process, quick process to approve the ICIP, it now looks as though we may not be able to request state capital outlay until 2028. I am here to petition you as a governing body for MA's inclusion on the ICIP. It is our understanding that there may be some leeway. I thought it was August 1st, obviously that there's not a clear understanding to change or modify the list, and we have, as you know, MA has been well vetted through the ENA process. I acknowledge we are late to the game here because we were focused on our GLDA approval, and we were very caught by surprise. I know many organizations also are by this new state bill. But I just want to say I thank you very much for your consideration of this petition for inclusion of MA as this public-private partnership unfolds to be on the ICIP. We pledge to work with you, the governing body, and public works as needed to supply and clarify any information which may be required to secure a place on a list. Thank you. While I wait for the 41 seconds. Yeah. Yes, please. Should I sing? Regioning Granny. Mike, can we get the timer back up on the screen, please? There we go. I'm Jean Palmer. I am a volunteer with the unhoused. I teach the formerly and currently unhoused people public speaking skills, and we do panels anywhere, any group in Santa Fe, and actually we even spoke, they spoke at a conference in Albuquerque about all of the for all of the people who work with the homeless. That was about three years ago. I'm really personally disappointed that you chose to vote against having them be on that ICFP or whatever it's called this evening. The information that you were sharing, I get quite a bit of different information from what I heard some of you saying. A lot of people talk to me about all the kinds of work that I do with the unhoused. And I'm on the mayor's steering committee for the June 30th, June 29th homelessness summit, and there will be some of the volunteers of some of the formerly homeless that will be part of that program, and I'm really, really appreciated that that is happening. But many of the comments that I have gotten are people are really, really want to have the low-barrier shelter, and I do know how much work they have done, so many hours, seeing so many people, so many organizations. So at least my take on it is quite a bit different from what I heard this evening, and that was a little bit disappointing. But I think it's really important to have support for them from everyone because they have a really strong plan. They've done a lot of research. They had 200 people at a place where they opened it up for the community to come and talk about what their concerns were, what they wanted, and so forth. I feel like they've done a tremendous amount of background work, and I think that what they will do once they get this in place will be pretty significant. And that's all I have time for. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Kathy Collins. I live in Santa Fe, but I also have the privilege of being the executive director for Santa Fe Habitat. And I just want to thank all of you for including us on the ICIP for our Pasadtos subdivision development. And that gives us the opportunity to go lobby the legislators. So, thank you very much. I know this was a new process and caught everybody off guard, including us, of how to do this. But we are very grateful and we look forward to continuing working with the city in all the ways that we can to bring this development to full fruition. Thank you very much. Resetting the timer to go. How's the timer? Michael, can you please reset the timer? Thank you. Good evening, everybody. Adam John Ggo. I'm an advocate here in the community of Santa Fe. I live in Santa Fe County, but Councilor Busonte, I was hoping to address the mayor as well. Really great question. What have you learned? And I feel everybody got up and left, and I'm not sure why, because we still had an opportunity to give comment to you guys. And so that really speaks volumes in my opinion on the support of the program and where they're headed. I guess really my question is, if not Interfaith, then who to handle a shelter, a no-barrier shelter? It's a critical thing that our city addresses this issue. And Mayor, thank you so much for joining this conversation. I just, I was thanking Councilor Bamante for his question about, you know, really what has the Interfaith learned through this process? And I didn't hear an answer either, or at least one that I could say I was grateful to have heard. And so one thing I really want to give you guys kudos on is the way you guys dealt with the situation. I saw cohesion. I saw well-orchestrated answers to questions, and you guys did really well. So, I appreciate being in front of you guys tonight, but I just feel like if not Interfaith, then where do we go with our city? And I can't tell you, I'm right down the street behind Tortilla Flats with my shop, and I experienced homelessness viscerally. There was a guy there with a bulldozer the last three weeks trying to clean up the lot because there's a lot of traffic in the empty lot across the street, and I appreciate that. But what's next for the city of Santa Fe? And I don't know if that's something you can answer now, but I really appreciate the way you guys conducted yourselves tonight. And I'm just basically here, I was here to support Misaw, who I happen to really admire, and she's a mentor of mine. She handles herself well, and apparently tonight wasn't our night, but thank you guys so much for everything you guys brought to the table. The questions were great, and I really appreciate how you guys brought it to us. Like, we really don't feel like you guys are meant to handle the shelter. I think that's really important that they heard that tonight. So, thank you. Good evening. I've been unhoused in Santa Fe. You can call me Cupcake. I've been unhoused in Santa Fe. It was a few years ago. Luckily, I had a car I could live in. And the information that I found online was completely useless. Organizations that were providing support for the community, I found them completely useless. It was hard to find housing and affordable housing. I'm still currently one paycheck away from being homeless. I work in education, and I work a lot. And I believe that every single person who lives in this community deserves to have access to permanent stable housing, a basic need. Like yesterday, I assume that everyone has housing in this room, and you don't have to worry about it. You can put this off, this topic off. You can put it on the table. You can think about it, but the people who are living in the streets cannot. They cannot afford. We need to have, I believe that this community needs permanent housing for everyone now, whether you want to support that or not. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Testing. Testing. Hello. You guys are probably seeing my topic of United Nations Santa Fe branch. That's okay. I'm going to keep talking about it till we get it done. I'm going to list this really quick. It won't be boring, I promise. In the last few days, Mina Faso, Mali, and Chad have withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Second, a woman from Ghana. Finally, a woman appears to be the best suspect. An Amerindian woman, not a Hispanic descent woman, but American Indian South American Guian woman is running for Secretary General of the United Nations. I supported prior, like two weeks ago, Rebecca Green from Costa Rica, because of Costa Rica, if you know anything about Costa Rica, but this one appears to be matter. I gave you a copy of the Xerox letter matter to the Prime Minister of Lebanon, who's in a difficult position, and there is a strong movement in the United Nations to expel Israel from the UN General Assembly permanent and summary resolution or sentiment is to expel the United States semi-permanent because of the killing all these children. And now Lebanon, Israel has annexed Lebanon. Okay, you know about that. Okay. I wish you would knew a UN municipal resolution about the plutonium pit trigger. Why do I say that? Because in front of the people, I send out letters to a lot of people, thousands of people. The only ones of you that have responded by acknowledging receipt are Councilor Barrett and Mayor Garcia. And this is a form of etiquette. You know, if someone sends you a letter, they don't know if they got there or not. So, I send you the 30 Russian foreign ministers. Now, these are the people that know something about thermonuclear warfare. They blew off a big bomb, the biggest bomb in the world's history, Nova Somalia in 1951. The videos of it are on YouTube. So they don't want the... Time's up. You looks like you still got 13 seconds. So go ahead, Mr. Fox. Okay. Once you invite Rand Paul and Bobby Kennedy to come to Santa Fe, or ask Lawyer Martinez if it's okay to have a city council meeting in the spaces of the Cross Garden next to... I discussed this Brian earlier, and I think it would be refreshing. They have mics, they have stairs. It means something. I mean, it's never happened before. Thank you, Mr. Fox, your time is expired. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor and Councilors. I'm Rachel Thompson. I live in District 2. And I'm looking, I've been looking at tonight's agenda on my iPhone. So, I'm like rolling stuff past this, but I believe after looking at it last week that there are two items that I want to support, both of them. They're not been brought up yet. One has to do with fines for speeding and aggressive driving and all of that. I just want to say yes, please. I'm afraid of getting killed by somebody who's crossing over the road, runs into me head first. Like, seriously. And the second thing I just want to say I love the idea of is Councilor Castro and Councilor Fagali's proposal to close the streets around the Plaza in the summertime. Whoa. Love that. Love that. I was out during one of the No Kings, well, a bunch of the No Kings marches, but at the last one, just the openness, the relaxedness that was felt on these streets when, you know, we didn't all have to, all the tourists didn't have to be on this little sidewalk, and we didn't all have to, you know, avoid them and everything. Just, it was really lovely, and I just think that it would probably benefit business too, though I don't have a business on the Plaza. I'm wearing purple. It means I support Interfaith. It means I support fervently a low-barrier shelter, and I don't want to be flipped, but like, what's your solution? You're supposed to be the leaders here. And I think it's really good that you, you know, you sort of, you know, this sort of come to Jesus discussion about Interfaith, but it does in the end sound sort of like you, you know, you put the problem back on everybody else. And there are lots of fantastic nonprofits in Santa Fe. Okay, they vary in capacity tremendously. I assume everyone is doing their level best. We need lots of training. We have the Santa Fe Foundation. Lots of organizations don't know how to do the things that they are trying to do. And I'm not, and I'm not saying that about, I have not volunteered at Interfaith Pete's Place. I, you know, looking from the outside, it seems to me that the executive director of that organization just got pounded over and over and over again and didn't have the broader support of a board. That's my impression from reading the newspaper. Since last fall, I am seeing a board come through, and I feel like I am seeing a whole new organization. I think that the kind of conversation that was going on before was very, very unrealistic and very punishing all around. And there needs to be a level of board involvement for all these organizations. You can't put somebody out front and let them just, you know, try to both run your organization, do your communications, you know. Thank you, Miss Thompson. Time has expired. Thank you very much. I know you all support the unhoused. Great. Next speaker, please. Good evening, City Council. My name is Dylan Schwaggel, and I've worked here in Santa Fe for a few years with the homeless population. But I also want to say that tonight I'm also speaking as the co-chair of the Santa Fe Democratic Socialist of America, as well as the chair of the chapter's housing working group. And I have to say, I am disappointed with the decision that was made ultimately tonight around the rock. In my own professional experience, I've had concerns. I've had criticisms. I've seen on the ground issues that occurred at Pete's Place. Some of them are a function of a lack of adequate structure to manage the chaos of shelters. And the reality of shelter operations, it's chaos every single day, and you can't ever really get in front of it. All you can really do is manage it. If there was a criticism that I could give of Interfaith management of Peace Place, it would be that. Now, I can't speak to the fine details of what has been done to address that lack of structure, but I know Mari Sol Atkins, and I really do trust any project that she's willing to put her name behind. I do trust that that work is happening. Maybe there's more conversation that needs to be had about what can be done to establish, right? What does that improvement of structure look like in the new iteration of a low-barrier emergency shelter? However, I again want to emphasize that we are at a deficit of roughly 300 shelter beds, and that is increasing, and the number of people living on the streets are increasing. Every year when I go to the homeless memorial, the number of people dead goes up. I see those names. I recognize people I worked with. So, and to echo the sentiments of my colleague Eric Kidd, for us it's personal. For us, it's personal. These are real people with names, with faces, and this is an emergency. And a part of taking emergency action is making hard decisions, making uncomfortable decisions in the face of ambiguity, in the face of uncertainty. And I feel that the decision made tonight was not acting out of a sense of emergency. Well, my name is Gina Aranda. I'm a teacher, and I'm retired now. So I've also had a job working with the homeless, and also I've been a volunteer with the homeless. And I want to say that I very much appreciate those of you who are giving the respect that us workers and volunteers and leaders in the community of the homeless and the solutions that we presented, that you're giving us the respect of your time, of your eye contact. I like that very much. I want to have a say in how my tax dollars are spent in the state, in the city, and it's very difficult. I have done my job of trying to follow the City Council. It's not easy to follow these meetings. First, you've got to take a lot of time to do it, and then you have to actually pay a lot of attention. And it's the same thing in reverse. And I appreciate every single councilor who's willing to do that, such as at the homeless summit that's coming up. The councilors need to be there, absolutely, attentive, and show us that you're attentive because what I've seen in the years since I've started working in this field and volunteering in this homelessness situation here in Santa Fe is that there is a problem in communication. And that's what a lot of you said tonight, that there's a problem in communication. But you have here leaders, community leaders, who somehow that lack of communication is there still. And as a teacher, I want to ask you all, how come some committees don't have either minutes or agendas or video that I can watch later? It's very hard to follow the City Council, and I know it's hard for you to follow the city leaders also among the community. And thank you for your efforts to do that, Mayor Garcia and councilors. Thank you. Madam City Clerk, is there any folks that would like to participate online? Yes, Mayor. We'll start with Madison Figueroa. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Awesome. My name is Madison Figueroa. I am a student at the University of New Mexico and work with the Los Alamos Study Group. I am also an officer for Albuquerque Students for Nuclear Disarmament. I am here asking the council to oppose all plutonium pit production at Los Alamos National Laboratory and to oppose the construction of any LANL satellite campus in the city of Santa Fe. Santa Fe has already taken a stand on the issue. In Resolution 2008-17, the city objected to expanded nuclear weapons activities at Los Alamos, including pit production. I ask that the council reinstate its opposition. As part of a younger generation, I am concerned about the future of New Mexico's capital. Pit production is not about maintaining the status quo. It is part of a larger effort to modernize and expand the nuclear weapons complex for decades to come. This commits future generations like mine to an ongoing nuclear arms race. A LANL satellite campus in Santa Fe would tie the identity and future of this city to nuclear weapons production. Santa Fe should be investing in opportunities that promote peace, sustainability, education, the arts, and technologies that improve people's lives, not becoming an extension of the nuclear weapons industry. Even if no hazardous material is handled at this satellite campus, it would still support LANL's mission. This site will also increase the city's dependence on nuclear weapons production and the nuclear weapons industry. The city of Santa Fe should prioritize projects that directly benefit its residents, students, small businesses, affordable housing, and public transportation, rather than projects that may have a negative impact on them. The largest investments in Northern New Mexico are tied to weapons production, and supporting this institution narrows the vision of what Santa Fe's future can be. Thank you for your time. We'll start with, or we'll go to Greg Melo. Mr. Melo, you can go ahead and speak. We cannot hear you, Mr. Melo. Yeah, they can come back. Okay, we'll allow Stephanie Beninato. Thank you, Stephanie Beninato. I hope you can hear me. Yes, we can hear you. I am disappointed in your refusal to put the ROC project on your, on the list. I have to point out that the city has been talking about doing a pallet shelter for years and can't even get that together, but you had a shovel-ready project. And I think that the communication and collaboration among other groups could have been done and could go forward as that was being approved because that's not happening until January. And I do think that we need this kind of shelter, and it's not happening yet. You want to pay Urban Alchemy more money when they had a contract and we supposedly didn't have the money or don't have the money allocated. I also hope that Perez expenses, deferred maintenance expenses, were on that list. I'm sorry, I was distracted at that time and I did not hear it, but my councilor said that it would be on the list. And then in terms of communication, I have to say that I've been waiting to hear from an IPRA request about the notice of violations in the 1100 block of Don Cubero. It has been over eight months since I made that request. I was told last year that there were notices of violation given out. I just found out from one of my city councilors that there are no notices of violation. Not only is that a betrayal of trust and that it was a complete fantasy that I'm being fed here that there were notices, but in terms of if there are no documents, then somebody should respond and say there are no documents available or your request is such that it's not in the form that we can provide, you know, we don't keep those documents in that form. It's not a way of just ignoring the request, and this is why the city gets sued over IPRA again and again. Thank you. Greg Melo. Mr. Melo, go ahead and unmute yourself. Yes, can you hear me now? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Garcia and council members, for your attentive and careful leadership, which is so evident tonight. My name is Greg Melo. I'm calling from Washington D.C. where some of my colleagues and I are meeting with committee staff and others regarding the U.S. nuclear weapons program, which collectively are by far the largest government programs in greater Santa Fe. The city has easily and often unanimously passed strong resolutions against plutonium pit production in the past, and it is more important than ever to do so again. Here in D.C., it is assumed that the city supports what is now the Trump nuclear agenda without question. Our reward for silence is hundreds of ugly stacked residential boxes, increased traffic and congestion costs, and greater water and electrical consumption. How much of the city's efforts to provide affordable housing have been negated and more than negated by the influx of thousands of well-paid LANL workers? The federal government spends additional and increasing billions on nuclear weapons right here at LANL, but the city and other local jurisdictions in the region are left to deal with the resulting problems. Ideally, we would like the city to formally adopt a resolution containing approximately six points calling on our delegation to oppose further preparations for quantity pit production at LANL. Limit production to the lowest level consistent with technology demonstration and training, which is the traditional mission of Los Alamos National Laboratory. Oppose the Trump administration's requirement for LANL to produce at least 60 new nuclear weapons triggers per year and work to limit LANL's role to demonstration and training. Remove the statutory requirement to produce at least 80 pits in 2030. Prioritize the removal and disposal of legacy plutonium waste from LANL over the production of additional nuclear waste from nuclear weapons activities. And work to decrease the level of federal spending which is currently allocated to weapons activities in favor of more humane and important federal priorities. Thank you very much, all of you. Mayor, there are no other hands raised in the Zoom room. Okay, we'll now return to our regular order of business. Yes, Mayor. We will move on to action items in the discussion agenda. 10A is a request for approval of a professional service contract with FBTN Louise Vidal Architects Joint Venture for professional architect engineer services for a new terminal expansion at the Santa Fe Regional Airport in the total amount of $1,160,000, including NMGRT, for a four-year term. And online we have Jimmy Gunn, interim airport director. Okay. Move to approve. Second. We got a motion and a second. Any questions, clarification requested from governing body members? Yes, Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Mayor. Just since we have you, Director Gunn, this additional project here, was this part of the original scope and why, for what, for what the reason for the increase? Yes, sir. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you, Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Mayor. Councilors, this was not part of the original scope. The original scope for Phase One was just what it is, the Phase One of the terminal, which was 18,500 square feet of addition. This will be to the west of the terminal. And we've, we've called it a Phase Two terminal expansion, which will eventually hopefully have a parking structure connected to it. But we've already been awarded money from FAA to go ahead and proceed, and we've been vital, and FPT were the contractors picked for this job. And hopefully we'll get into design here in the next couple weeks after this approval. Thank you, Director Gunn. Just wanted a little bit more information on it, and with that, that was good. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions, comments? And seeing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote? Certainly. Mayor, Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Bamonte. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Faulkner. Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Motion passed. Next item, please. Next item is 10B, a request for approval of a budget adjustment request from salary savings to the ERP budget in the total amount of $400,000 to support ongoing and future ERP initiatives. And here to answer questions is ITT Director Eric Candelaria. Okay. To approve a motion. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any questions? Clarification needed for Mr. Okay. Hearing, seeing none, roll call vote, please. Yes, Mayor. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Falner. Yes. Councilor Faggali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Next item is 10C. This is a request for approval of termination of professional services contract item number 25-0216 with Urban Alchemy in the total amount of $7,948,133.59 to provide street outreach for homelessness services. And here to answer questions is Director Sandy Emmery. Move to deny. Okay. Got a motion. Can be made. A motion doesn't need to be made. Ultimately, a motion to deny was made. So, is there a second? I'm sorry. I just want to say it is under action items, Mayor, which leads me to believe we do need to make a motion or we can take no action. You can take no action. It's just on the portion of the agenda where there is automatic discussion. Action does not have to be taken. Sure. But, yes, a motion to deny. Second. And I do think the Mayor is just trying to attempt to give the rest of the councilors an opportunity to have the conversation. Okay. Or wait, any questions or happy to hand it off to the staff. Mayor, I have an agenda question because on this PDF there is also a request for approval of a grant agreement with Interface. Yeah. So, Mayor, if I may, so that item was originally on the agenda on Friday because we are waiting for the packet material. The packet material didn't come through. We, it was removed at the direction. Armenia removed it and the agenda didn't get republished, just the packet, and that's why you see it on there. It actually shouldn't be on there. So, Okay. The C is this item. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councilor, for that clarification. Okay. Right. Thank you, Mayor, councilors. Sorry about the volume of my voice. My name is Sandy Emry. I'm the Community Services Director for the city. This matter was originally proposed as a contract termination for Urban Alchemy's street outreach program and Oasis shelter program, or sorry, Oasis Day program. We understand this is not the desire of the governing body and appreciate the opportunity to present a more comprehensive plan for the shifting of these services at a later date. Staff have prepared a bar to come before the next governing body session to fund six months of services for this contract while we continue to work to identify additional funding resources. And thank you again for this opportunity for a little clarity around that request. Currently, the city has street outreach contracts with two providers. The first is Urban Alchemy, which we're here to talk about today, of a $7,948,133.59 four-year contract term. We, the city, has paid $1,400,874 to date for the last fiscal year. The city also has a contract with The LifeLink for street outreach services for and the SOS shelter for $1.6 million. Of that contract total, The LifeLink has spent approximately $750,000 on street outreach. So for about $200, oh sorry, and they received in FY26 an additional $20,000 from the Human Services Committee to support materials for street outreach. So for about $270,000 annually, The Link also provides homeless street outreach services. They're in year three of a three-year contract. That contract terminates at this, at on December 31st, and was funded solely through ARPA funds. Additionally, Kristen Woods is here today to share a little bit more about the service providers in the city who are not currently funded through our sources providing street outreach services to our homeless population. And I wanted to share just a couple of statistics. I looked at data from The LifeLink and from Urban Alchemy for the same time period. So, I'm looking at a time period from January to March of 2026. During the reporting quarter, The LifeLink served 445 unduplicated outreach clients. Their reporting highlights filling identified shelter service gaps and establishing basic documentation such as IDs, social security, and SNAP benefits for clients. They reported, they report completed referrals to other local agencies such as higher barrier shelters and continue with referrals into more robust services available with The LifeLink itself. They report beginning to work with the city's park rangers to address client encampments around the city. That's as of March 2026. They served 760 total client, or they had 760 total for their street outreach. During the same reporting period, Urban Alchemy reported 1,369 Urban Alchemy initiated outreach contacts. So, Urban Alchemy does not track unique outreach clients at this time. So, that's a difference in the data that I'm sharing with you. But the, that 760 total would be the same as the 1,369 total for Urban Alchemy for, for all of you. In addition to food and water, these contacts resulted in 85 provisions to service provider information, 407 referrals to the Oasis resulting in 283 transports, 20 referrals to the Agape care coordinator, four referrals for employment services, one incident of Narcan administration, one referral to a sobering center, and 13 were refers for, referred for housing assessment. So today, Urban Alchemy's contract has seen the highest level of outreach engagement with contract around providing those basic water and food services to our, to our community members on the street. This street outreach, the Oasis sees an average of 141 weekly visitors and that's supported by an FTE of about 2.5. So, just a couple of data points to share with councilors of, of how we are, how we, how we're looking at this from a financial standpoint and what we could potentially do in the future. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and the council. Thank you for having us here this evening. I'd like to talk to you a little bit about our amazing street outreach providers here in Santa Fe. We have a lot of really amazing people doing a lot of great work here and I just wanted to uplift that work to you all this evening. One great group is the St. Vincent's HUGS program, which stands for High Utilizer Group Services. There's actually someone here this evening listening in who works at that program. So they're clearly a very passionate and dedicated staff. They work with a high demand clients at the hospital. They provide case management and care coordination for them. We also have in our community Southwest Cares. They are a harm reduction team. They're not funded by the city. Neither is the St. Vincent's HUGS program. They usually work with about 200 people a month, or around 150 non-duplicated people. They give water and do harm reduction services. Another notable statistic about them that I have here is they did, they have an average of 65 Narcan encounters a month. So they're out there doing a lot of really important work. We also have the La Familia Crisis Triage Center. La Familia does behavioral health emergency work. They face to face daily in person, but they also have a van that does transports usually in the morning. And in early June, they reported to us that they do 160 transports a month for harm reduction, which is pretty impressive. Okay, can you hear me better? Whoa. Okay, that's really different. Okay. Do I need to repeat anything? Or, okay, thank you. We also have Chaplain Joe's Street Outreach. Earlier this year, Mayor Garcia created Chaplain Joe's Day to honor the passing of Chaplain Joe, but that good work continues to be done in this community. They do street outreach and engage with unsheltered individuals to provide resources and build relationships. It's a very small but mighty operation that we do not fund. It's very grassroots. There's also youth shelters. They do street outreach for youth and we do not fund that. And then the Interfaith Community Shelters does the Showers to Go program. We help them to purchase those showers and then the Human Services Committee does partially fund the showers program. So they provide showers, I believe, three days a week right now. And then finally, The LifeLink, which we fund for street outreach as Director Emory discussed, that's an ARPA contract, and they provide a number of services in the community. Outside of that as well, they operate the Safe Outdoor Space under the ARPA contract, but outside of that, they also have a clubhouse, Rise House for men. We were able to come earlier this year and give a presentation to the Quality of Life Committee. So, there's a lot more information in their presentation for that. But through their street outreach contract, they're out there daily making contacts, building relationships, providing food, water, connection to services. If someone is interested in getting any kind of treatment, they're available for that as well. And we've been working with them for quite some time and they have a lot of really great relationships in the community. And all of these providers, Urban Alchemy included, all really work together to learn, understand, collaborate, and support their clients. So, it's a really beautiful network of street outreach providers that we have in this community, and we're, we're really grateful for all of their amazing work. And with that, I'm going to pass it back. I'll pass it to Director Salivary. Thank you all. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and city councilors. So next, in addition to what my colleagues here had mentioned, I want to just paint a picture of the path forward and some of the plans and initiatives that our team is working on to really help again set the stage for this proactive citywide encampment management policy as well as just a coordinated approach with all of our incredible service provider partners in the field. So you've heard already quite a bit about our homelessness summit. We're very excited for this event. It will be Monday, June 29th. And this is a real milestone in our, in our initiatives in terms of bringing together service providers, government partners, funders, small businesses, and community members to build again a comprehensive plan that not only touches on the need for encampment response and street outreach, but shelter, housing, prevention, all of the things that we know are integral in us moving the needle on homelessness locally. So please, we invite you all to join that conversation in order to help ensure that we have all of the right critical stakeholders at the table. As part of the summit, we will have a breakout session specifically on this concept of an encampment management plan. This is a key topic and there are quite a few models across the country again for anchoring this work within a city or municipality from a regional standpoint. But again, the intended outcome is to bring enhanced coordination and outreach to ultimately help bring folks into shelter and housing solutions, get back on their feet, and ultimately resolve their homeless status. In addition to our homelessness summit, we are dovetailing that effort with a citywide homelessness strategic plan. This is intended to be a three-year plan that is really helping, sort of, implement all of the key components that are coming out of the summit and coming out of our ongoing initiatives and strategies, helping to build that roadmap and bringing all of the necessary partners to the table so that we can advance again a long-term housing and shelter strategy in the city. So we stand ready to answer any questions you have about any of the many things we, we touched base on. I just have a quick, oh, sorry. Hey, hi, guys. Thanks for all you do. So, out of this summit, we hope to have a three-year homeless engagement plan. Is that our end goal? Because that's what I would love to see. And I feel like we don't have that now, and we're always playing defense because we don't have an offensive plan. And just thank you to all the community partners for all that you do because I think we're a little behind. So, what's that going to look like, the three-year plan? I'll let Leah answer tomorrow's specifics. Thank you, Mayor Garcia, Councilor Barrett. They're either open today or opening before the summit. There actually is an RFP for doing that strategic planning process, and that is really the goal. We are playing defense at all times, and really a lot of the, and there is so much great work being done in the city around this topic. Even sometimes the negative feedback that we receive from the community really comes from a place of care and concern. And so, this strategic plan and working toward some really concrete milestones will help us gain a firmer footing on where we need to be for the future. As Director Emmery said, I think that was a great summary, but maybe just a couple of key points to add. So, really what the strategic plan is intended to do is sort of capture from this catalyst event of the summit all of the outcomes and making sure that we spell out in great detail what are the funding streams, what are the partners, what are the timelines for all of the initiatives that we have been and want to continue moving forward within the city. Great. I think that's going to be really helpful moving ahead because we haven't had that historically, right? Like a strategic plan with goals, objectives, how we're going to meet them, funding, all the players. So, I think that's going to be great. Thanks. Any other questions? Councilor Castro, then Councilor Bamonte. Great. Thank you so much. And I appreciate you presenting to us and spending all this time both here and at the Finance Committee. I just want to sort of try to express some of the things that came up in that meeting, and please, counselors, if I am misquoting you, let me know. But I think our concern was twofold. One, that we need to invest much more in your program and what you're doing in homelessness services in general. So, taking away any resources to service providers seems concerning. To Councilor Travis's point earlier, we're constantly in competition, and I don't want this to feel like if we're funding one service provider, we cannot fund the Hugs program, for example, or the Lifelink, because we had a presentation. They do amazing work. We want to continue to fund them. Why does it feel like we're having to choose between service providers here? Thank you, Mayor Garcia, Councilor Castro. I think at this point, it's not a decision of choosing between service providers, but really looking at the assets that we have in our community. So, as Kristen shared, there are a lot of providers doing really valuable work, and if we could identify resources at this level or at the level that we're supporting this contract, what could we do with more is really the question that we're hoping to answer. Agreed. And I think that a big part of what our study session is going to be around on July 1st, looking at what comes out of the summit on the 29th, is going to be around resources and where we can find money and resources like staff and reorganizations and all the fun stuff that we're going to talk about in supporting this work. I guess my concern is we recently saw two $3 million contracts for security. It doesn't feel like this is an amount that we're not able to find in our budget. But I will cede to my other colleagues. Mayor, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you again for coming out and for everything you do. Can we just remind everybody of the date and times and location for the summit? Yeah, always happy to take an opportunity to talk about the summit and all the hard work we've been putting in. So, the summit has two components. So, there's a daytime session that will start at roughly 8:45 a.m. and go until 3:00 p.m. It's broken down with many different breakout sessions. We have a data panel. We have many, many components within that. And then we have an evening session from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. that is public-facing where we're inviting residents, small businesses, and anybody throughout the community to join a facilitated conversation on the city's plans and getting their input. Thank you. And is there some way we could get an agenda for that? Yes, absolutely. We have some information that we just publicized online, and we plan to send personalized invitations to all of you as well. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Any other questions, comments? Chavis. I have a comment, and I, like I keep saying, kind of the same thing, but if we are going to continue this contract, then why don't we lean into Urban Alchemy to build that cohesion and bring those individuals together so they have a united force in regards to outreach? It sounds like they're already doing that, but maybe in supporting that dialogue as a city and really leaning into them to take the lead. And maybe that's already occurring, but if that's occurring, how do we support? We're supporting with the funding, but how do we also support the goals, mission? And I'm sure this is going to come with the work that we're doing at the summit, but to me, they have a system that seems to work, and they have the funding. So, how do we lean into them as a resource to bring everyone together so we're all moving in the right direction? Because I think they'd be willing to do so. And so, at first, when I hear what you say, I'm like, "Oh, there's inequity," but in reality, there isn't because I know that organization would be very open to working with other individuals and moving in the right direction, especially if they have like, "Hey, you're a partner in the city." As a city, we've identified this, this came out of our summit, this whatever it is, and we need you to help us lead all other organizations in the right direction so that we are utilizing all of our resources as efficiently as possible. I feel like that is more, well, first of all, I think that's a possibility, and I think that would go a long way. So, at first, it was like, I was like, "Oh, well, it's inequitable how we're resourcing funds out," but in fact, we could definitely guide efforts despite where those funds lie. And I think they have a model that works. Yeah. Thank you. And maybe I can help answer that just because it's our team that ultimately develops the budget. And this, we'll get to the question around concern of where is the funding coming from. And so we have to look back at when this contract was initiated. It was, there was one-time funding that then was not used, and we relied upon resources from the state of New Mexico. And as mentioned, this is not the only outreach contract that we have. We also have another contract that is, as related upon by Director Emory, doing equitable work at a fraction of the cost. And I mean fraction, you're talking probably a million dollars less. And so I think it's incumbent of us as the governing body to really understand our, what we have the responsibility of allocating taxpayer dollars to ensure that services are being paid out or are delivered at a high-quality level at the lowest cost possible. And so as we developed the fiscal year 27 budget, we didn't have the money for this contract. We did not have the money. It becomes, if we're going to allocate 1.7 for this contract, we have to pull 1.7 from elsewhere. And so we, the team, heard loud and clear that folks want to utilize the services by Urban Alchemy, from Urban Alchemy. So that's where we're going to figure out where to bring the services on for another six months. But I think it's also incumbent of us during this six months to truly understand and make the decision. Is there another entity that could do this same work cheaper and still not have a lower service product? And the answer is yes. And so I think it's incumbent of us as a governing body to truly understand what is the best path forward to ensure we're getting folks the support they need while we're able to responsibly invest that money. And so I think that's where we're kind of coming to is how do we move forward with a service delivery system that is not as expensive as the contract for us. And I think that is the decision before us as a governing body. And I think there will be proposals being brought forward that will demonstrate just that, that we can expand outreach services and not have it as such a high cost. But it's the, from what I heard at least from the governing body, they would like for this entity to continue. So that's why we're working to find resources for the next six months. Meanwhile, we will produce alternative options at a lower cost. So hopefully that's helpful for folks because again, our goal is not to reduce services. It's actually to increase, as exhibited by the way we are reshaping, reforming the alternative response unit or yet to be named potentially. Meanwhile, working to ensure we are leveraging the resources we have for maximum impact possible. So hopefully that's helpful with some clarification to Councilor Castro and Chavis's question. May I briefly answer Councilor Chavez? Sure. Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor Garcia, Councilor Chavez. Regarding Urban Alchemy, you're right. They've done, they've done work. They're willing to work with us on things, and they operate under a 501c3 IRS status. However, they do not fundraise outside of their government contracts. So if you read their 990 and if you read their audit, their funding is entirely from government contracts, which if that's the vision of the governing body, that's your choice to make. But that is entirely where their funding comes from. They don't receive, they don't fundraise. They don't do the things that our local organizations do, which means that if we're asking them to do more work outside of what's contracted in any contract we have for them, we have to pay for that work as well. So just a brief answer to that question to provide some clarity. Councilor Bamonte. Thank you, Mayor. I just kind of a point of clarification, and just speaking for myself, and I kind of brought this up at Finance the other night, but it's not necessarily that I want Urban Alchemy specifically to perform these services. My concern at the time of the meeting the other night is that what we were proposed was terminating the contract and not having a plan in place to immediately take over those services. So that was my concern from the other night, not necessarily who does the service. And second, I'm kind of hoping that we can use this opportunity for the summit because I've heard it a couple of times now, but we heard it in the ARU meeting. Chancellor Chavez brought it up tonight that there's a lot of overlap and a lot of redundancy in services. And I mean, it's great that everybody kind of has their own mission model, but in some regards, we're paying some of these organizations for these services, and we're paying for duplication of effort. And it would be great if we could start looking at who does what best and form a more cohesive plan out of that based on what each, the strengths that each organization brings to the table. So, and you may have that already in mind. Thank you for that feedback. Thank you. Councilor Garcia, then Councilor Castro. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I hope I'm not duplicating questions or comments from Governor B. I stepped out for a second. I also look at this from a fiscal perspective, and I see that if we are able to provide those services, I think that's, and get the same results, well, then I think it's a no-brainer. That's what we're, you know, we're ultimately here to do is to see the results. It was brought up the other night. We heard a very, very definitive comment by a governing body member that has seen tremendous results in before and after. And so if we were to have terminated this and approved that, and then go with another entity, and then the results split back, now you're going back and forth. And so how do we vet this 100% properly that we are going to get the results that we need? And if we're not going to get those results, then we should find the money somewhere. Either that, or we turn to other alternatives: heavier policing, incarcerating people, doing things. And I know that's not the will of the public, and I don't think that's the will of this governing body either. And so, you know, that street outreach and what Urban Alchemy is actually bringing forth, and I think that's where the difficulty in us having to say, "Let's find this money. How do we do it?" If you are able to bring forth that plan, we got six months to do that, and I think that we're all here to have that conversation. So, I do appreciate the work that you're doing. It's not an easy job to do this because we have to come from the level of compassion to our people, but we also have to also see what's working. And there are other people. If not them, then who? If not the list of those that are already providing services, you know, why aren't things connecting again? Why? Where are we missing the boat? And to Councilor Travis's point, she's said over and over again, we provide a lot of services. We provide a lot of funding to different organizations. And how do we make them all tow the line together and make an impact to our community? Thank you, Councilor Estro. And then you, Councilor Chver. Thank you so much, Mayor. Thank you to all my colleagues and to staff for, you know, having this conversation once again. It is very important, and I think that we're all on the same page, and we want to support you. I think the main concerns that I have is we're hearing the six-month contract. So potentially, could we be seeing a cancellation or termination of this contract in six months once we have a more robust plan? Is that what I'm hearing? Or what is the six-month plan? So the contract is a four-year contract. We are completing the first year of it. There are three more years to the contract. We can, what we are doing right now is we're bringing forward a bar to governing body equivalent to six months of the operations for the current contract. It's almost touching my lips. So the six months will allow us to really reassess. We're getting a lot of good information. We're getting a lot of information that we've never had before. We also know that the LifeLinks contract is active and valid, and they are also doing that work through December 31st. So at that time, we may just, we may have identified other funding sources from, and we may say, "You know what, great, we have resources and we can do this." Or we might say, "Hey, we need, we might, you know." So we have, it buys us some time. The contract's in place at this moment. The funding will be before governing body next week, and we're working on all of the details surrounding it. Wonderful. Well, I just want to underscore that if we continue our relationship through this contract today, that we will have other opportunities potentially to look at this contract again, to modify it, to, you know, potentially cancel it if we choose. We're not necessarily allocating, because I think there's some misinformation about us allocating $7 million in one lump sum, right? That is not what's happening here. Is that correct, Director? Yes. Thank you, Mayor Garcia, Councilor Castro. That is why I came with these hot numbers to really make sure that we're putting the right information out to the public at the right time. This microphone, oh my gosh. But yes, that it's that, it's that full amount over four years. We're looking at moving six months worth of a year of that contract right now, or on next Wednesday. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Another concern that I had was the inequity in reporting, right? We're not looking at apples to apples. Is there anything that we can do to potentially in these next six months get a better comparison? Our data and policy evaluation staff is looking at that right now. I will say that this Urban Alchemy contract has been under intense scrutiny, and as such, we have a lot, I mean, I think Director Salbury will, both the people on each side of me will say, we have more information about the work that Urban Alchemy is doing than probably any other city contract we've ever had, which is, which is not bad. The LifeLink contract and reporting requirements were put in place based on our ARPA requirements, and they are working. And Kristen could maybe speak more to this, and I would invite all of you to like, really, if you want to dive into it, I'm happy to have those meetings with all of you, any of you at one time, so you can see where, what these numbers really look like. But I know that there is a data dashboard being worked on, being worked on, and the LifeLink is putting really robust information into that too. So there is more robust and more uniform information coming forward. Thank you. Appreciate it. And I know that you've been a big part of the conversations around ARU. I know that we're talking about how to better track all of these things. I just feel that we're potentially in a place where we are supposed to, we as a body want to invest more instead of less. And so without that commitment that we are going to continue to invest with a long-term strategy, I want to believe that we are well-intentioned. I think we need to hold ourselves accountable by having a contract and having a policy. Thank you so much, Mayor. Officer Chavis. I just want clarity. Because we keep talking about six months, which that makes sense. Like if this was to, like, if this was a proposal to reconsider Urban Alchemy's contract after six months of the summit and all of those things, because that's what we're having a conversation about. That makes sense to me. So why is it presented as a termination immediately if we know we want services for six more months while we dive deeper? I can answer that. So the termination was because we didn't have the funding for it. And after Monday's meeting, we heard loud and clear from the Finance Committee, we need to find resources. So it's now our job to go find it, so to speak. We didn't budget for the project, and so now we're, we're having to check under the couch cushions, do everything. That's why we're looking at six months, because it's going to be hard enough just to find that six-month period. And as we move forward throughout the year, it will allow us to also get forward the information you're talking about. Who knows? There might, as Director Emory said, we might have additional resources that come through that can pay for the rest of it, but as of right now, we don't have the funds for it in the budget. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah. I keep saying this at every one of these meetings and hearings and discussions on homelessness. We don't fund homelessness like a city who, and this is not the administration's fault, we're picking up slack from years of this being a problem. We don't fund this problem like it's a real problem, the level of a problem it is. And to me, you know, you have, we have the providers in the city as community partners who do great work, but we also have had the same set of people trying to solve this problem for almost a decade, at well, at least since COVID. And so to me, I look at the situation, I say, "Okay, so let's get some new eyes on the situation," because we're kind of overwhelmed by it, I feel like. And I also feel like we're on the precipice. We can either get to work and get this done ASAP and fund it like it matters and look for money everywhere like it matters and make this the number one priority of the city, or we can become like lots of other cities that messed around with the issue, couldn't make decisions, couldn't take action, and then they're in a nightmare situation that is, you can't come back from, not easily. And so I am willing to fund anything that is reasonable and shows success. And Urban Alchemy does a kind of outreach that is particularly effective with the population that they are serving, and that the population where we find the largest challenges around the homelessness issue. And that's why I think keeping them on board is a good idea because they've proven to be successful. All those outreach programs were all doing outreach the whole time Interfaith was running the shelter, and it didn't stop that from happening. All of those programs were in play, and it didn't stop that mess from happening. Urban Alchemy did though. And so that's why I'm, I'm, I'm do not want to terminate the contract with Urban Alchemy. Nothing against those other organizations. They have different missions. That is the reason why Urban Alchemy is necessary. Their mission is specific to this very particular need that is the biggest part of the problem. Any other comments? Councilor Bart. I just moved to call the question. I think that's appropriate. Second. Okay, we got a call the question. Can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Councilor Barrett. So, this is complicated. I might need coaching on this to call the question, right? It's just too. Oh, wait. Oh, the question is just. Yes. I love you, Liz. Councilor Bamante. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Faulner. Yes. Councilor Faggali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Motion passed. Okay. So, we've got a motion on the floor. Reminder, it's a motion to deny. Okay. So, we've, and we all the vote on that one. Yes, Mayor. Councilor Bamante. So, it motion to deny you. Deny the termination. Okay. Not the six month. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Falner. Yes. Councilor Fugali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Motion passed. Okay, next item on the agenda, please. Thank you, staff. Next item is item 10D. This is a request for ratification of $11,27,934 in federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Interior to the City of Santa Fe. And here to answer questions is the Water Resources Manager, William Schneider. Move to approve. Second. Okay, we've got a motion in a second. Any questions or clarification needed for Mr. Schneider? Hearing, seeing none, can we get a roll call vote, please? Certainly. 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, Mr. Schneider. Next item on the agenda, please. Next item on the agenda is a request for approval of a budget adjustment request in the amount of $7,641,910 from the Community Development Fund to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. And here to answer your questions is Affordable Housing Director Faviola Chavis. Move to approve. Got a motion. We got a motion and a second. Any questions, clarification needed from Director Chavis? Really quickly, Director Chavis, can you explain to us and the public what is going on here? Testing. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilor Castro, members of the committee or the governing body, I apologize. Back in December, we had a request to isolate the Affordable Housing Trust Fund dollars that are allocated through the governing body and take that funding from the Community Development Fund and segregate those dollars. That is what this bar is doing tonight. We will have a segregated fund solely for affordable housing. Okay. Any other comments, questions? Okay, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Faulkner. Yes. Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Garcia. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Busamante. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Motion passed. Thank you, Director Chavis. Next item, please. Madam City Clerk. Next item is matters from the City Manager. Mr. Mayor, councilors. Thank you. I have a few things. I want to start by thanking HR for the wellness fair on Thursday. The new HR director, I'll tie into that in a second, but she wanted to just give me some highlights. So, we had 263 employees participate in the event last Thursday. 125 wellness prizes were awarded to employees, 75 picnic blankets, 100 eyeglasses, and more than 500 employees, family members, and vendors and guests got food. So, I just wanted to highlight the HR team for that great work. I want to also just remind everybody on July 30th, we are having the city-county meeting. I verified with Manager Schaefer. The time is still, I have two blocks on your calendar. I have nine and one. And I'm just, I'm trying to get that detail locked down. I just want to also remind you the survey is due to the county by the 17th. I think eight out of the 14 of you have done the survey. So I'm just not putting pressure. I'm just letting you guys know. That will help us drive the meeting on the 30th. So that's what we're working on that way. I would like to just welcome our new HR director, Monica Oavdo. She started on Monday and she's hitting the ground running. Also want to thank Sarah Bolter Gonzalez for all the hard work. She is going back to Deputy or Assistant HR Director. So I just want to thank especially Sarah for her hard work over the last six months stepping up and taking on the role. I also want to congratulate Sam Bernett. He is our new Public Works Director. I made that public last week, but I want to just thank him. I don't have to do an interim. He just jumped the gun. But what I've seen over the last six months with him is he's done a great job and I deal with him a lot on a day-to-day basis and he is really stepping up and taking on a good role. Also want to announce our new Airport Director, Don Dickerson. He'll be starting on July 18th. I also want to thank Interim Airport Director Jimmy Gun for all the hard work he's done. He's been doing it for over 16 months. So, I want to thank him for everything he's done. He will be going back to his previous role and really helping John get on his feet and moving forward. So, I want to thank him for that. I just want to thank all the staff for next week for the Fourth of July event. I know we've been putting a lot of energy and time into this event. We'll be going into public with all the stuff that's happening with that stuff and all the parking and where everybody needs to go. So, we will be getting that information out. Me and Gerine have been working on that today. So, I want to let them know that. The last thing I have, I want to give out a shout out to my department, my old department. The department has been at these fires for the last two days. Our wildland superintendent, I just got a text, will be going to run the incident in the Hemis Mountains. So, I just want to let them know we both, we have both trucks in Torrance County currently and then they will probably be transitioning to the other fire. So, they're helping out our local community. I'm very advocate on that. But if we need them for anything, they're only an hour away. So, that's what I have. So, thank you. Okay, we'll move on to matters from the City Attorney. Thank you, Mayor, members of the governing body. I have no matters tonight. Okay, we'll move to matters from the City Clerk. Just a reminder that on Saturday is the Pride parade. The parade starts at 10:00 a.m. And if you want to participate, meet us at 9:00 and look forward to walking that parade with you all. And with that, let's go to communications from the governing body. Okay. Well, yep. We'll go and go left out, then right out. So, Councilor Faulkner. I would like to say happy birthday to our colleague Paul Busamante. His birthday's Friday. If we get out of here in a reasonable time, karaoke at Boxcar, Paul's birthday. Everybody's invited. Lee Garcia is a bomb at karaoke, by the way. But I just want to thank all of our colleagues and staff because I think we have the last month dealt with some pretty deep, hard decisions and I think we have done it as a team and we've done it with diplomacy and kindness to each other. So I just really appreciate it. Thank you, Councilor Faulkner. Agreed. I did not cry today which is really exciting for me. Happy birthday, Councilor Busamante. And I do just want to let folks know, we do have a special governing body meeting tomorrow. It is land use hearing. We are not ignoring you. We are in a quasi-judicial situation. We cannot discuss this. So for all of the emails and calls, thank you, but we cannot engage in that kind of communication. Thank you. Councilor. Nothing for me, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councilor Garcia. Pass for tonight. Thank you, Councilor Chavis. I'll pass. Mr. Barrett. Nothing from me. Faggali. Thank you, Mayor. I want to echo our City Clerk that the Pride parade is on Saturday. It should be very fun and maybe slightly less hot. So, that's exciting. And then congratulations to Mexico and to the United States, which will both be advancing in the World Cup. And there's a game tomorrow night. So, if we are out of here by 8:00 tomorrow or really by 10:00, we could possibly go watch the USA game. So, that's, I think that's everything for me. Oh, and thank you for the BPAC recognition. At our next meeting, we will have new members to be appointed and hopefully that will go smoothly and we'll have new members starting at our July meeting. Thanks, Mayor. I'm so sorry for one thing. As well as Pride, this weekend is Freda Fest, the second annual Freda Fest. And we have Freda Ko's niece, who is an amazing photographer, giving a talk Saturday at 12:00 noon at the International Folk Art Market. So, if you can catch that. Thank you. Thank you for that announcement. No, no true announcements. I think everything that's coming up has been shared. Pride this weekend, summit on Monday, Los Slooos on the plaza Monday night. So go to the summit then go to the plaza and then we've got the fireworks show next Saturday but more importantly the drone show and we got recognition that it is the state's kind of highlighted Fourth of July event due to the cultural inclusivity of the event. So, I can't share any secrets. You got to just go and watch the drone show for yourself. And then again, yeah, we're halfway through the year and I think we maybe what had one meeting past 10:00 p.m. So, it shows that we can be efficient, we can be effective, we can have constructive dialogue and we can get home to our families at a reasonable hour. So, thank you everybody on the DAS for working in a constructive manner. With that, next item, please. Mr. American, I had one more thing that I just wanted to remember in case constituents have concerns. Every firework you see in the city limits are all safe and sane fireworks. I did drive down Airport or Sri Road today by the Walmart. There is a stand up, but I want to verify and let people know that it is all safe and sane fireworks. I was a little frustrated with that stand, but it is not fireworks that are loud or everything is approved by the Fire Marshal's office. So, I just want to reiterate those kind of, we can't stop those fireworks, but they're all safe and sane fireworks. Right. And just quick, just perfect opportunity. A couple years ago, the governing body passed a resolution that allowed the City Manager to immediately ban fireworks, etc. That way, we don't have to go come back. So, we're keeping an eye on it and the City Manager is working with the team to make any decision all the way up to 4th of July if necessary. So, okay. Next item on the agenda, please. We'll move to item 16. This is introduction of legislation. 16A is consideration of resolution. This is sponsored by Mayor Michael Garcia. It's a resolution approving budget amendments and requesting that the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration approve the City of Santa Fe's third quarter budget amendments for fiscal year 2026. Self-explanatory. Okay, we'll move on to 16B. This is consideration of a resolution. This is sponsored by Councilor Patricia Fagali and Councilor Alma Castro. It's a resolution amending resolution numbers 2014-49 and 2016-80 to close the streets surrounding Plaza Park annually from Memorial Day to October 31st or later and to close Lincoln Avenue and Palace Avenue next to the Plaza Park permanently. We'll go Councilor Faggali and then Councilor Castro. Thank you, Mayor. I think it's pretty self-explanatory from the caption. Thanks. Councilor Castro. Same. I do just want to put out there that this is for the summer in particular, it will reopen, but we had a lot of support as mentioned earlier from the downtown businesses. I think we are looking to make a pedestrian walkable downtown. Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to item 18. This is public comment on bills. This is first public comment, no action. 18A is consideration of Bill number 2026-12 and adoption of an ordinance sponsored by Councilor Paul Busamante and Mayor Michael Garcia. It's a bill specifying that the specific and limited fishing events on city-owned property in the Santa Fe municipal watershed may be approved by the governing body. This is the opportunity for the public to provide their first comment on this proposal. Is there anybody in the chambers that would like to speak to this item? See nobody. Is there anybody online? Madam City Clerk. No hands are raised in the Zoom room, Mayor. Okay. With that being said, let's go to move on to the next agenda item. I'm sorry. Next item is 19A. This is final action on legislation. This is a public hearing. 19A is consideration of Bill number 2026-9 and adoption of an ordinance. This is sponsored by Councilor Pilard Falner, Councilor Lee Garcia, and Councilor Amanda Chavez. It's a bill amending subsection 12-6-12.3 and Article 6 of the Uniform Traffic Ordinance to eliminate minimum penalties for reckless driving and raising maximum penalties for the $25 from $25 to $250 for first convictions and from $300 to $500 for second or subsequent convictions. Creating a new section 12-6-12.4A of Article 6 of the UTO Exhibit A to Chapter 24 SFCC 1987 to define criminalize and penalize aggressive driving amending the UTO's Schedule A traffic violation penalty assessment schedule to increase certain penalties to specify that all reckless driving fines aggressive driv fines, as well as all Schedule A penalties, except for those dedicated to traffic calming, shall be split equally between the law enforcement fund and the fire support services fund, and to require a mandatory court appearance for violations related to aggressive driving. Creating a new Section 12-6-12.25 of Article 6, engaging in prolonged, deliberate, and/or excessive training of another vehicle, and establishing a penalty in Santa Fe's UTO Schedule A traffic violation penalty assessment schedule for the same. Creating a new Section 12-6-12.26 of Article 6, unsafe sudden stops, and establishing a penalty in Santa Fe's UTO Schedule A traffic violations penalty assessment schedule for the same. Creating a new Subsection 12-6-127 of Article 6, throwing items outside of vehicles at another vehicle or at a pedestrian, and establishing a penalty in Santa Fe's UTO Schedule A traffic violation penalty assessment schedule for the same. Okay, so this is a public hearing. If there's any member of the public that would like to speak to the item, now is your time to do so. Please step up. There is nobody in chambers. Is there anybody online, Madam City Clerk? Yes, Mayor. There is one hand raised, Stephanie Beninato. Good evening, Stephanie Beninato. I am in support of raising these fines. I have not studied the bill really well, but I would hope, and if it hasn't been in there yet, that if you are distracted by some other activity, meaning that you're on a cell phone or texting, that that is per se reckless driving, and that if you injure somebody, the fine should be increased greatly, or that you should lose your license for a certain amount of time, because I do believe that we have a lot of distracted driving. I myself was hit from behind by a truck by somebody who was distracted by some other activity. I'm taking that to be use of a cell phone. They didn't see me. And we have much larger vehicles now, and there have been articles recently that it's much more dangerous to be hit by a large vehicle because of where you get impacted as a pedestrian, and also because of the blind zones, the much larger blind zones that these vehicles have. So I am definitely in support of this, but I'm not sure that it goes far enough. Thank you. Are there any other comments, Madam City Clerk? No other hands are raised, Mayor. Okay, with that being said, I'll turn to the governing body. Are there any questions, comments? Motion to approve. Second. So, we've got a motion to approve and a second. Any questions from the governing body? I do have a comment. I just want to give Councilor Faulkner a lot of credit on this. She put in the hours and the work, and the City Attorney's office as well. Marcy and her team, you guys are always amazing, but this was a long process, and Councilor Faulkner stuck through it, and she just was the lead on it. And then, of course, we have our amazing staff in the City Attorney's office that just always makes things happen and supports us. So, just a big thanks to you two. It was a team effort, for real. Mayor, I do just have a technical concern. And we were having a little sidebar about the caption that it does refer to where the funds are going, and we amended that. I don't know if that is an issue. So, Mr. City Attorney, quick question for you. Did you hear that one? So, my understanding is that this was addressed by an amendment. And so I think the governing body always has the discretion to direct funding, and with the amendment to change where the funding went, I think that clarified for purposes of public notice that this ordinance is on it, basically satisfies the Open Meetings Act. So, thank you. Wonderful. It was more for, you know, we use digital systems to search. So, in the future, if we were to look at something, the caption might be a little misleading. But I am in full favor of passing this tonight. I would not like to hold it up. So, Any other questions? None. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Falgate? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bamonte? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Motion passed. Okay, next item, please. Next item is appointments 21A Santa Fe River Commission. Tanya Truhill appointment with a term ending February 2029, and Jesse Shapiro appointment with a term ending February 2029. Move to approve. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing, seeing none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Falgate? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bamonte? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Motion passed. I believe that completes the agenda. So, we stand adjourned.