Regular Finance Committee Meeting - Second Monday Mon, Mar 9, 2026 · Finance Committee https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/938 == Executive Summary == The Finance Committee met to discuss several key financial and administrative matters. A significant portion of the meeting focused on impact fees, including an amendment to a financial consulting contract for impact fee studies and a detailed discussion about their purpose, calculation, and management. Concerns were raised about past accountability for impact fee expenditures, and a plan was put in place to forensically track these funds. The committee also addressed the display of the Soldiers Monument obelisk remnants. After extensive discussion about the costs, temporary versus permanent solutions, and public accessibility, the committee decided to move the resolution forward to the governing body without a recommendation. Additionally, updates were provided on the new budget review process and the upcoming external audit presentation. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda unanimously. - Approved the amended consent agenda unanimously. - A motion regarding an unspecified item (likely related to CIAC discussion) passed by roll call vote (Casset: Yes, Garcia: Yes, Bamonte: Yes). - A motion to move the resolution regarding the Soldiers Monument obelisk remnants forward without recommendation passed (Castro: Yes, Garcia: No, Bamante: Yes, Faulkner: No). == Motions & Votes == - Approval of Agenda — Passed unanimously. - Approval of Consent Agenda (as amended) — Passed unanimously. - Motion regarding an unspecified item (likely related to CIAC discussion) — Passed by roll call vote (Councilor Casset: Yes, Councilor Garcia: Yes, Councilor Bamonte: Yes). - Motion to move the resolution regarding the Soldiers Monument obelisk remnants forward without recommendation from the committee — Passed (Councilor Castro: Yes, Councilor Garcia: No, Councilor Bamante: Yes, Councilor Faulkner: No). == Public Comment == No members of the public were present in the room or online for public comment during the CIAC and obelisk discussions. Councilor Castro arrived late but was noted as present. Shawn Moody provided detailed explanations regarding impact fees, the consultant's role, and the CIAC's function, addressing council members' questions and concerns. == Topics == - Impact Fees & CIAC - Soldiers Monument Obelisk - FCS Group Contract Amendment - Budget Review Process - Impact Fee Spending & Tracking - Impact Fee Categories - Obelisk Placement & Security - Funding Source Transparency - Agenda Approval - Audit Presentation - Committee Roll Call - Meeting Adjournment == Full Transcript == So, are we live yet? **Speaker**: We are live. Thank you. All right, everyone, welcome. I'd like to call the Finance Committee meeting to order for March 9th, 2026. And with that, can we get a roll call? **Councilor Casset**: Here. **Councilor Castro**: She should be coming, so we'll just leave that for just a few minutes. **Councilor Garcia**: Present. **Councilor Bamante**: Here. **Speaker**: And Chair Pillar Par Faulkner is excused. She's excused. Thank you. On to approval of the agenda. Are there any changes from staff on the agenda, please? **Speaker**: No changes. Any changes from the committee? No changes. A motion to approve. **Speaker**: Motion to approve. **Speaker**: Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Let's go ahead and approve the consent agenda. I think there were some items removed from consent. **Speaker**: Item H and item R. Okay. Anything else the committee wants to pull in addition to? **Speaker**: Move to approve as amended. **Speaker**: Second. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Go ahead and move on to the first item. I think it was H, correct? **Speaker**: Yes. Read that into. **Speaker**: Item H. Request for approval of amendment number one to item number 25-0480 with Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. to increase the compensation by $81,757.71 for a new total contract amount of $1,316,488.25, including NMGRT for financial management on-call services. And here we have Shawn Moody with us tonight. Thank you. Would you like to hear a little bit of a presentation or just jump into questions? I think jumping into questions because that will help shape what I want to discuss. And then I think a general overview would be great. So the reason I pulled this is I've actually had a few conversations around impact fees, around CIAC, around its role, what's been happening before, what needs to change. And I thought this was a great opportunity to have a little bit of discussion around that. So I think starting with an overview of exactly what this is doing and then we'll see what other questions and conversations we have. And then maybe some conversation around impact fees and the role of CIAC would be important because I think that perhaps it has not been exercised in the way that we should be and will be moving forward. So I'd love to give you the opportunity to talk about that. Is the green light on? Okay. And just if you just speak right into the mic. It doesn't sound like you're on. It's green, but then it's illuminated. **Speaker**: Jim, green. Now it's bright. Let the record show that Councilor Castro is here as well. Oh, good. **Shawn Moody**: Thank you for having me. This narrow piece of work for today is approval and amendment to a contract that Public Utilities issued in September for this consulting group out of Seattle, Washington, called FCS Group. And they've been doing rate studies for the Public Utilities Department for several years now. We wrote into this iteration of the contract the ability to do a work order for impact fees. They've worked for us before and they're excellent. That's why we chose the contractor and how we chose them. The work was started under a previous contract which has expired, and this $81,000 is to add to this agreement the amount to finish the work. So they got started and they spent out about $20,000 of a $60,000 agreement before the contract terminated out of time. They got all of the research done, and the next step is to write the report, present it to the CIAC, the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee, and receive comments, deliver the report in the form of resolution to the governing body for approval in what I'm anticipating about August. Okay. Wonderful. And can you talk a little bit more about CIAC, where the money comes from? We have a lot of rules around impact fees and why this is so important for us to really hone in on and focus on. We have a timeline in which we have to spend them. I believe I may have recently learned something new where we get a certain dollar amount for each of the four areas that we collect for, and it's not just one giant pot. We actually have to spend out in those areas. So, and then the role of CIAC, we did just appoint the committee, which is great, and they're starting to meet again. And what that authority looks like because what I'm understanding is we have not necessarily delegated allocation authority to them. They simply provide a recommendation up to us. So if you could dive a bit more into that, I would appreciate it. **Shawn Moody**: Yeah, good. Thank you for the question. Impact fees, development fees are governed by a state statute and city code. The premise is that new development, that is new housing or commercial or institutional, needs to pay a share of the broad systematic cost of them coming to town and building this. So it would cover impacts to roads, to parks, to fire and police facilities, and emergency facilities. And it could include anything from a fire truck to a building. And the art behind the Development Fees Act in state law is that that money that we charge has to be, first of all, the fees have to be developed by a qualified professional, which FCS Group is, then brought through for comments from the CIAC, that's a statutory committee that's in state and local law, and then taken through governing body at least every five years to update. The calculation of the fee is meant to be proportional to the impact of the various types of land use. So there are essentially four categories in state law, and one is residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional. So those four impacts, we are collecting on the order of roughly over the years about $5 million a year across those categories. And as we, the projects that are eligible for those fees are carefully curated by the professional consultant so that we and the residents and the developers in town can be assured that it's equitably distributed among the impacts. And under that context, when a project is proposed, whether it's from an ICIP list or a roads project list, that that project is evaluated and determined all or part of it being related to growth, strictly to growth, and the proportion of the cost is then eligible for impact fee reimbursement. Got it. So the proportion of the cost of a project that we associate with growth. So it may not be the entire project. It may only be part of it and that percentage. Okay, got that. **Shawn Moody**: So some projects will be 100% eligible. It's not that the city will choose to fund it 100% of impact fees, but 100% of eligible. An example being the extension of Jaguar Drive in Tier 10 to phase three would be 100% growth related. There was nobody living there and now people will be living there, but the city may or may not choose to fund it 100% with impact fees. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. And then in order for something to be considered by this contractor and therefore by CIAC to then be considered by us, does it have to be an existing project already on either our ICIP or on the, you know, roads? Should the ICIP have everything? I feel like we have like 10 different capital lists and it feels a little scattered. And so does it have to be on one of our existing capital projects list that we should? **Shawn Moody**: The state law puts it this way, that it should be, to be eligible, it should be a project that is one way or another approved by the governing body. Got it. Okay. So it has to be on one of those lists that we've said, yes, go do that list. Okay. That's really helpful. One concern that I have heard is that previously developers have tried to find out what happened to their impact fees and were not able to do so. What are we doing to make sure that's not happening in the future? I can't speak to what occurred in the past. I, you know, not. **Shawn Moody**: Yeah, that's a good question. You're exactly right. There hadn't been a strict accounting in real time or which paid fees, that is a developer associated with the charges he was charged and paid, goes to which capital project. You're exactly right that hasn't been strictly accounted for and it ought to be. The way that I'm going to approach it, and I'm confident of it, is that I can work backwards from the balances we have now in the accounts, the four impact fee accounts, back to the most recent capital project, to the second most recent, to the third most recent. So I can rebuild the connection between the fees paid, the individual fees paid, and the capital projects they devote to. It'll be forensic, but I have all the information drawn out of our systems to do that. Okay. Wonderful. So there is a way to find. **Shawn Moody**: There is a way. Okay. And then I know another issue that I believe we've had at some point in my time here is that we have seven years to spend these out, correct? And that doesn't always. **Shawn Moody**: Yes. So. That maybe it didn't happen. What happens if we do not meet our deadline? **Shawn Moody**: The seven-year deadline is relevant to us for a couple of reasons. One is that I believe it's written into law. I'll just say that I think in state law to signal to local authorities that if they put it on the list, they have to be serious about doing it. But there isn't a penalty as such, except that once the city has expended any impact fee money on a project, then it must be completed in that time frame. Completed, completed. So that has to do with the time frame that we have to complete a project if impact fees have gone towards it. **Shawn Moody**: That's right. Can we just have our impact fees hanging out in our impact fee account for however long we want? **Shawn Moody**: Yes, we can. Okay. **Shawn Moody**: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That's different. **Shawn Moody**: That isn't the case. That's definitely doable. Okay. Good to know. That's different than what I had understood in the past, that, you know, there was this concept of like, oh my gosh, we didn't spend out the money that we got in seven years and now we have to give it back with interest. If interest is important, whether we keep however we account for that interest is super important. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And then just so I can again wrap my head, I'm learning a lot right now. The four categories that we're concerned about and that go into the separate are residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional. And there are four different things that that can be spent on. But. **Shawn Moody**: That's right. So within residential, we could spend it all on parks, correct? Even if it came in for the for Park Streets, fire, police, do we have to spend it proportionally to those? **Shawn Moody**: No. It would be a 4x4 matrix just like you imagine. Got it. So that the fee charged for a residential development would be four parts to the fee. One would be roads, parks, fires, fire emergency, and police. And it would have to go to that category. So there's actually the fee that the developer pays is actually four fees at once. Got it. Okay. Thank you. And then I've also, I know that there's been challenges where the CIAC was kind of, I mean, it was defunct for a little while. It wasn't meeting at all. What is going to be the plan going forward? Are they called on an as-needed basis? Do we have regularly scheduled meetings for them? How does how does this process work? **Shawn Moody**: Yeah, I'll take just a moment to say it's an excellent group. So the city chose well and I'm very grateful for the service that the committee members are putting in. The individual challenge is reviewing and providing comments on the ICIP, on the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan. That is reviewing how the plan was developed, the justification for the fees, and the eligibility of the individual projects that are put in front of them as a basis for choosing projects. They're using last year's ICIP list, and I'm going to try to fold in this year's if it's adopted timely. So, that's their work that's going to be cut out for them to produce a report that'll be put in front of the governing public hearing and then governing body by about August. So from now till then, their other responsibility is to deliver an annual report to the governing body, and I'll be authoring that primarily to account for the fees and the projects we've completed. And that's all their obligations under state law and under city code. That's the only written obligations. In the past, as you said, they had had a role with an idea of evaluating individual projects as they came up. I will say that there isn't guidance in either state or local as to which projects we choose to fund. And I'm imagining the prior leadership in the city, that would have been a liaison for the committee. I can imagine they were thinking, "I would like a citizen committee to evaluate whether it's time to do this project." But that isn't written into their obligations in state or local. And my sense is that if the governing body had wanted it, they were written into the role. **Councilor Casset:** Yeah. And that actually speaks to one of the larger issues that we've been talking about, capital projects. I've had this conversation up here with a number of different colleagues around how we tackle the problem of prioritizing our capital projects. How do we understand the full litany of needs across the city, whether that is new needs or maintenance or repairs, whatever the case may be? And then, how do we as a body have the opportunity to say this is what the priority is? And to your point, we might find something that is such a priority that we're saying, "Hey, go ahead and fund this 100% with impact fees," or, "Start putting these towards these different projects while we're collecting different funding sources." So, sounds like this will be a fun conversation as we move forward with that. And I know that's something I've talked to Deputy City Manager Phillips about, and we've talked with everybody about this, honestly. So, we'll be talking to you, too, I'm sure. That was all that I had on here. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk about this. I think this is one of those revenue areas that there is a lot of, and there's not a ton of understanding about it. It can kind of fly under the radar. So, I'm happy to see we're finally getting things moving again with it. I look forward to seeing this report, what is recommended for funding, and getting some of those dollars out into the community again. So, thank you so much. Nothing further. **Mayor:** Thank you, Councilor Casset. It looks like Councilor Castro has some questions. **Councilor Castro:** Thank you so much. And I apologize for being a little bit late, but I came in right in the nick of time. Councilor Casset had some really amazing points around the needs, and I've been having some conversations around recreation, and so I noticed that that's missing on this list of impacts. Is there any way that we could potentially, and I know that lots of parks are part of recreation, how do we plan for things like the GICC or the Genoveva Community Center? That's a good question. My reading of the code and law is, I can only report that, but is that a recreation facility could be in the category of parks? I don't, I'll be checking with my consultant and I'll be happy to do that. **Councilor Castro:** Wonderful. And I think, you know, part of the way we like to write legislation is to leave it open to some interpretation. And so I wonder if under the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee, one of their charges is to advise the city of the need to update the Impact Capital Improvements Plan. Do we have a plan that has priorities at the top of the list? Is that a way that we could sort of show what the committee is most interested in? So what it looks like, and what I started with, was last year's adopted ICIP. It, I want to say it's a fairly robust accounting for what the city has chosen as a capital plan, and it comes with prioritization. Now, the impact fee report won't deal with prioritization at all, and at least in this iteration of the committee, I don't think the committee is going to be taking the liberty of prioritizing on behalf of anyone. So, I'm thinking mechanically that the prioritization could well occur within the governing body rather than in some algorithm that staff might come up with or committee. And I think that that's part of what we're trying to do in the new budgeting system and really setting some priorities. So hopefully this will be easier for you. Thank you so much for your work. No further questions. **Mayor:** Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? I'll just make a couple of comments. I do think that, oh, okay. Sorry about that. Thank you. I think I understood that as a no. So, you know, in regards to keeping track of everything, and I think that's one of the challenging things for us as a governing body or even a finance committee to know where everything fits. And I think that's where we've been in trouble in the past over keeping track of certain line items of money and so on and so forth and where it goes. And so, very good questions. I do appreciate that. With that, I don't have any other questions myself. So, Thank you. **Mayor:** I guess we can get a motion on the item if we. Move to second. **Mayor:** We have a motion and a second. If we have to call the roll on this. Yes. Let's get a roll call. **Clerk:** Councilor Casset. **Councilor Casset:** Yes. **Clerk:** Councilor Castro. **Clerk:** Councilor Garcia. **Councilor Garcia:** Yes. **Clerk:** Councilor Bamonte. **Councilor Bamonte:** Yes. **Clerk:** Motion passes. **Mayor:** Thank you. Let's move on to the next item that was pulled. **City Manager:** Mayor Pro Tem Garcia, if I may interject, just for the record, we accidentally skipped over section six for public comment. But just to note, we have no members of the public with us in the room and no members of the public online this evening. **Mayor:** Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Standing in for Councilor Faulkner, Chair Faulkner, I missed that. So, thank you again. On to the next item. Item R, consideration of Resolution Number 2026-2 to be determined. A resolution supporting the placement of the remnants of the Soldiers Monument in the New Mexico History Museum on a temporary basis, authorizing the city manager to work with state officials to enter into a temporary loan agreement. And tonight we have Palmer Anderson. Thank you guys. Thank you, Mayor, and Mayor Garcia, for being here. And it looks like Councilor Casset also pulled this. You want to just ask some questions or would you like a little bit of an overview from the Mayor? **Councilor Casset:** I think I'm good on overview. I think this is pretty straightforward. I do have some questions. Thank you for being here, Mayor. That's helpful. So, the reason I pulled this is I actually, I've, I was feeling okay with this, and then after our last meeting, I started to feel like I maybe am not as, it's not not okay with this, but we've already spent a good amount of money on this, and I'm having some heartburn on really the dollar amount of, you know, spending about $25,000 to move it once, then it's temporary. So, in theory, potentially another 25 to, you know, with inflation, maybe a little bit higher, to move it again. And I feel like after this last meeting, what I really heard is that there didn't seem to be as much concern around whether or not the pieces could go back together. What I heard from a lot of people was, "Hey, you know, rebuild this or don't rebuild this." But from the rebuild side was, "Go ahead and use the new material, just make sure that we can get this to where we need it to be." I also am feeling like we might be closer to a potential solution than we've been before. So that, you know, and as I said that day, I'm more than happy to work on this. I, you know, emailed Marcos right away to volunteer myself as, as I mentioned, you and I have been here the whole time. And so that was my feeling is that, you know, stop spending money, find a solution. And so right now with, with this moving forward, with this being a potentially temporary solution, although maybe not, to be perfectly honest, if we don't know what we're going to do next, I think that that's another really big question of not wanting to really spend dollars on another temporary solution, especially when I feel like we're making progress and moving forward. So that was my bigger concern and heartburn over this. Now, that said, Mayor, I'm glad you're here because one of the things that we've done with the De Vargas statue is we put it in a place that it was really accessible to the public. So, they don't have to pay to go into the museum. They don't have to pay an entrance fee to see the statue. My understanding is that wouldn't be the same with the obelisk. It would actually have to go into the museum primarily because of how big it is and how much it weighs. Is that there are some other considerations? I know that this would direct the city manager to start working with the state officials. So maybe this hasn't been determined yet, but has that been a discussion point of whether or not this would be behind a paywall, essentially? **Mayor:** Mr. Chair, Councilor Casset, we're actually in discussions with the state on that topic. It's my priority to ensure that the remnants of the obelisk are safe, and given the destruction that's happened to it, it's again, through the discussions we've had, it's in the best interest of the remnants of the obelisk to have it indoors. So we couldn't place it outdoors like we did with the De Vargas statue. The De Vargas statue was outdoors since its inception. The obelisk, same thing, but it has had destruction that has now severe cracks in the actual sandstone structure, and to ensure that there is no further degradation of the material, it's the intention is to be placed inside the, at this point, the museum. Now we're currently exploring if the museum is an actual location that could accommodate that. If not, we would work with the state of New Mexico to determine its location. So, **Councilor Casset:** Okay. So, the, so, wait a second. So, so this may not be able to go into the History Museum? **Mayor:** Or the New Mex, so the New Mexico History Museum is many museums. We can do that or if Palace of the Governors, I think, is on that, is on the resolution as well. So, we'll, we're working with the state to determine the appropriate location where one, it could be safe, two, people can access it, and ultimately lead to getting the public input needed. That way, we can continue to move forward. **Councilor Casset:** And what are the list of potential locations? I mean, I would have to look up, I, I mean, I can Google it, but if you happen to have it, I. **Mayor:** I don't have those at the time. **Councilor Casset:** I'll Google. **Mayor:** We're, the hope is that it can be accommodated. We're again, it's going through that feasibility process right now with Cultural Affairs Department. **Councilor Casset:** Okay. Okay. Got it. Thank you. I appreciate that. That's helpful. Again, that was just my big challenge is we've, I feel like we're close. I feel like we've made a lot of progress, and I also know that we're coming up on a rough budget year. And so I am having heartburn over spending more dollars on a temporary solution. And I have to say, I think the best money that we've spent thus far was when we actually, which we should have done six years ago, done an assessment of what the structural integrity is. I really wish we had done that a long time ago. I think that would have been beneficial. We did not. So those are my thoughts right now. And I appreciate you being here. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you. And Mr. Chair, if I may. Yes. So, I understand the concerns and I see this as not necessarily a cost straight out, much more of an investment that's needed to continue to have us move forward. Let us not forget that this obelisk has been tucked away in storage for roughly six years. And it's incumbent that not only the governing body, but the public has access to it. That way appropriate recommendations can be made. As I mentioned a couple weeks back, we need to allow for folks to kind of ultimately eliminate by seeing, so to speak, because there are still folks to this day that believe that that obelisk, the existing pieces, can just be put back. It's not the case. And until folks are able to actually see with their own eyes the condition of the monument, we're not going to be able to move forward. And this is a critical component that needs to happen for us to move forward. Now, I agree there are many steps that should have been taken, which I had been calling for in the previous administration, would not allow to move forward. Now, we're at a different point in time where I'm not looking at it as $25,000 is going to stop us from making a decision. $25,000 is much more a better investment than the $300,000 that went into chart or the $500,000 that went into the litigation. This is an investment in moving forward and this will allow us to ultimately get there quicker because if we continue to store this obelisk in a space where it is tucked away, it literally is tucked away in a safe space. I think we're only going to prohibit a decision from being made. And I agree, Counselor, we're close, but I think there are two things that can come from having folks see the obelisk. One is help us with the decision. Two is help with folks to actually have that sense of this is what actually happened to this object. We have to remember when the events transpired in October 2020, the obelisk was quickly taken and put away. 99% of our community has not seen that. I would venture to say 99.5% of our community has not seen it. We owe it to the public to, just like we did with the Devarus statue and with the Katua and Umpua statue, we bring them out to the public. This is how we have discussion. This is how we have dialogue. This is how we ultimately provide the space for. So, just wanted to provide some additional comments. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any other questions from the committee or follow-up by Counselor Casset? Yeah, I do just want to clarify, just for the record, that I think that bringing it out is important. So, I would like us to figure out, again, where's the permanent location going to be? And maybe that's a better, oh, well, and of course, we have to figure out what we're going to do. But as you've said, and this has nothing to do with whether or not an obelisk is rebuilt or is not, those pieces cannot be utilized. And so, but I do think, to your point, that finding a place where these pieces can be displayed is going to be important in a final solution because regardless of what we do, as we have all said, talking about this history, talking about what has occurred, and I understand the concept around investment, but again, it was, I think for me, it was really what I heard from the community, which was a lot of people saying, use new material. Looks like that's the best option to rebuild. And what other potentials we have for really showing this. But I want us to just be, to your, I mean, you listed out a lot of the dollars that we've spent and it has been expensive. And so, that's where I understand, I completely understand the thought that this isn't another delay, that this is part of the process. But I just, I'm still just struggling with spending more money on another temporary solution and potentially that money could be spent on a permanent location for this. And again, I want anybody who might be listening to really understand that by stating that the pieces might go or finding a permanent location for the pieces does not inherently exclude the obelisk from being rebuilt or exclude the obelisk from not being rebuilt. We are still going to have to work together on that solution. So, thank you. Thank you, Counselor. Any other questions or comments? Counselor Bamante. I just want to say that I agree that it may be helpful for people to see this, to see the full impact of the pieces that are left. It's really hard to tell from a picture. And many people hadn't even seen the pictures that we saw the other night at the presentation. So I think just seeing those in person and seeing the full impact of that would be very helpful to get either support from this so that people really truly understand what has happened to it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do you want to make a quick question? Sorry. Go ahead. Yes. Just since we're talking about the multiple locations and I'm still having some trouble finding all of the locations. Thank you, Counselor Casset. We're going to try to Google him, but is there a difference in price tag based on where that could be? Might this change? Mayor: Nope. Mr. Chair, Counselor Castro, no, it'd be here in Santa Fe somewhere. So, it's got to be here in Santa Fe. We're not moving it outside of city limits. So, regardless of if it's at the Palace of the Governor's, Governor's Mansion, wherever, it would be the same price tag. The only hesitation that I have, and I am going to make a motion in a little bit after you have a chance to speak, Chair, we have spent quite a bit of money on this and it is, I am trying to be judicious in how we spend our money. As Counselor Casset mentioned, we might not have the same amount of budget to work with as we thought when we first started this administration. And so, I am trying to be very cautious with where we're spending money. That being said, this is a much smaller price tag than things that we've done in the past and that we're considering to do for historic preservation in the future. So, it isn't a make-or-break situation. I do think that we need to be very cautious with giving the impression that this is a final decision. It is by no means a final decision in any way. But, and we are loaning this to the state, which means there is a presumptive ownership of this monument. Am I hearing that correctly? Mayor: Still my understanding, according to the City Attorney's office, that the city owns. Thank you so much. No further questions. Thank you, Counselor. I'll just make a couple comments from my perspective and the reason I signed on with the Mayor on doing this. I too have some heartburn over what things are costing, but I believe it is a step process in the right direction. It does allow us to put the obelisk portion of the Soldiers Monument in a safe place where it's guarded because given the amount of controversy over it on both sides, and it allows the general public to go and see it or not see it. And it gives us the opportunity to again move on to the next step, which, thank you, Mr. Mayor, for pushing forward and, and, and, you know, let's get to a decision on this. It's been, it's time. And, you know, the reality of the material that once this is all said and done, it may end up in the landfill or it may be that we break it into pieces and give it to people for memorabilia. I don't know. But the reality is is that we've got to do something and we've got to make steps forwards and that's why I signed on to this and I think it is the right decision to bring it out for the general public to have access to it. And so with that, what's the pleasure of the committee? Sorry, I have another question. Oh, yes, Counselor Casset. And I don't apologize for having another question. That's a gut reaction. I have another question. Mayor, have you, when you've had conversations with the state, are there security concerns? And if so, who would be on the hook if there's any financial obligation there? Mayor: Mr. Chair, Counselor Casset, there have been no concerns. Okay. Mayor: At least to me. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. What is the pleasure of the committee? We're going to try this. This is new to me. So, I'm going to make a motion that we move this forward without recommendation. Is there a second on that? Second. There's a motion and a second on the floor. Any discussion over that or any clarification on what that means? Everybody's good. Just for the public, that means that we would not be giving a recommendation from this committee, but it would continue on its process through our committee process and get voted on in other spaces and at the governing body, just to be clear. Thank you. Well, let me see. So, is this the last stop for this for governing body? And it has to pass a committee. So, has it passed a committee already? It's already, it's two committees. Two committees. It did go to Quality of Life on March 4th. It is here tonight at Finance Committee and its last stop will be Wednesday the 11th for governing body. So, it will be a governing body either or, it will be then on an action item then. Okay. Mayor: Mr. Chair. Go ahead, Mr. Mayor. Mayor: Because it's past one committee, it's up for consent, consent agenda unless the governing body member pulls it off of consent. Okay. With that being said, it's, oh, yes, Counselor, sorry. I believe Counselor Faulkner is on Zoom now. Counselor, you are correct. Let me add her as a panelist. Give me one moment. Sorry. May want to repeat the motion for Counselor Faulkner. For the record, we have Counselor Faulkner, Chair Faulkner, or Counselor Faulkner joining us at 5:42 p.m. Thank you. Hi. Sorry, guys, I was having trouble getting access to internet. Have you been following? Do you have any comments? We're about to vote on the motion to move this item forward without recommendation. And is the item R, which is the resolution supporting the placement of the remnants of the Soldiers Monument. Okay. Okay. So, you're good. Yeah, I'm good. I, is there, can we, I guess let's see how this motion plays out and then if it doesn't pass, then we can call for another motion. Okay. All right. With that being said, let's go ahead and call the roll. Counselor Casset. Counselor Castro. Yes. Oh, sorry. This is, I apologize. This is the motion to move forward without recommendation. Correct. Yes. And I'd like to explain my vote. Okay. Counselor Castro. Yes. Counselor Garcia. No. Counselor Bamante. Yes. That motion passes. Counselor Faulkner. Counselor. Counselor Faulkner. No. Motion passes. That motion passes. Either way, it doesn't change. Comments. Yeah, I just, I, I'm happy to move forward with that recommendation in the sense that it gives, it gives a chance for some of these other questions around potential placement and maybe some of these pieces being a bit more ironed out. At this moment, I will most likely still be voting against it at governing body, but I do have some questions around where else might this be placed? Are we going to figure out whether or not this would be access to the public without having to pay admission? We may not have those answers by Wednesday, but those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? We're all good. That being said, there was raised a question about public comment and it seemed like some people walked in. I don't know if they had any kind of comments. I'm happy to allow them to if they like. Looks like Was there anybody in chambers that wanted to speak to the governing body? Nope. Didn't you guys come to make public comment today? No. Okay. Thank you. We just wanted to give you an opportunity. All right, we are on to I am the right one. Yep. Matters from staff. Any matters from staff? Thank you. Members of the Finance Committee, just maybe a couple of quick updates. As you know, we are working on budget reviews. We'll be sending out calendar invites to schedule the budget hearing meetings with the governing body and Finance Committee combined. So just as a reminder, through the budget resolution that you passed to kind of change up the process this year, instead of all of those items going to Finance Committee first and then going to governing body, we're going to do all of those together as one entity. So look for those invites. And then we are hoping to schedule the audit presentation for our external audit next Finance Committee meeting, which would be on the 23rd and then governing body on the 25th. That's pending full release from the State Office of State Auditor for both parts of the audit. So we're still waiting for the single audit to be released. Thank you. And no other matters from staff. Thank you for that update. Any matters from the committee? Seeing none, matters from the chair. We do have the actual chair online. Councilor Faulkner, do you Mayor Prom, she actually disconnected from the Zoom. Okay, so she's no longer with us. The only thing I have from the standing chair or stepping in as chair today is through discussion with Councilor Faulkner, Chair Faulkner, she did want to relay to the committee and to the general public that she is working with staff to make it a point to show where the funding is coming from on all of these items that are coming through on our agendas, which many times can be very confusing for people, whether it's from our general fund or which is GRT or which funding source it is. Maybe it's a grant, maybe it's a pass-through from some place. And so I think that was very important piece that she did want to relay to the committee and hopefully to the public who is interested in understanding where does the money come from and how do we spend it and how are we responsible for it? So other than that, I have nothing further. And the next meeting will be Monday, March 23rd, 2026. And with that, we'll be adjourned. Thank you.