Regular Finance Committee Meeting - Last Monday Mon, Aug 24, 2026 · Finance Committee https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/955-finance-aug-24-2026 == Executive Summary == The Finance Committee met on 08/24/2026, addressing a range of financial and operational matters, including the planning for a Children's Fishing Derby, internal audit updates, and a contentious cease and desist order for a cannabis business. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing the proposed Children's Fishing Derby at Nichols Reservoir. While the committee approved moving forward with the planning, concerns were raised by Councilor Cassette regarding environmental risks, fire safety, and the lack of detailed protocols. Staff were tasked with gathering more information and coordinating with various departments before the event. The committee also received updates on the FY26 internal audit, including a detailed review of the city's recruitment process. Recommendations focused on improving HR staffing, training, and communication. For FY27, the committee approved an audit plan that includes reviews of grant management, cash management, and capital improvement programs, with a particular emphasis on integrating the Munis financial system with other departmental software. A major point of contention arose during the discussion of a cease and desist order for Betty Nuggs Cannabis. The business was accused of operating without a proper retail license and being too close to a school/daycare. The business owner's attorney requested a postponement, citing insufficient time to prepare, but the committee unanimously denied the request, expressing concerns about ongoing illegal operations. The committee then moved to approve a cease and desist order for the business due to these violations. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda. - Approved the consent calendar as amended. - Approved moving the Children's Fishing Derby resolution (Item 7N) to be discussed earlier in the meeting. - Approved the FY27 internal audit plan, focusing on grant management, cash management, capital improvement programs, and follow-up on open audit findings. - Denied the request for postponement from the attorney for Betty Nuggs Cannabis regarding the cease and desist order. - Approved a cease and desist order for Betty Nuggs Cannabis due to operating without a proper retail license and being within 300 feet of a school/daycare. == Motions & Votes == - Approval of Agenda — Passed (4 Ayes) - Approval of Consent Calendar (as amended) — Passed (4 Ayes) - Motion to move Item 7N (Fishing Derby Resolution) prior to presentations, after public comment — Passed (4 Ayes) - Motion to approve an unspecified item — Passed 3-1 (Councilor Garcia: Yes, Councilor Bustamante: Yes, Councilor Faulkner: Yes, Councilor Cassette: No) - Motion to approve the FY '27 internal audit — Passed (Councilor Garcia: Yes, Councilor Bustamante: Yes, Councilor Faulkner: Yes) - Motion to deny postponement for the Betty Nuggs Cannabis cease and desist order — Passed unanimously (Councilor Garcia: Yes, Councilor Bustamante: Yes, Councilor Faulkner: Yes) - Motion to continue with the case for tonight (deny postponement) for the Betty Nuggs Cannabis cease and desist order — Passed unanimously (Councilor Garcia: Yes, Councilor Bustamante: Yes, Councilor Faulkner: Yes) - Motion to approve a cease and desist order by the city for Betty Nuggs Cannabis — Passed (Councilor Garcia: Yes, Councilor Bustamante: Yes, Councilor Faulkner: Yes) == Public Comment == No public comments were made in person or online during the designated public comment period. During discussions, Councilor Cassette expressed concerns about the per-child lottery system for the fishing derby, suggesting a household-based lottery, and also raised concerns about the watershed and lack of information. Mr. Jones, attorney for Betty Nuggs Cannabis, repeatedly emphasized his unpreparedness for the cease and desist hearing due to late receipt of the hearing packet and missing crucial documents, denying the allegation of falsifying documents and offering to cease operations during a continuance. He also requested that any cease and desist order be limited to retail operations, allowing manufacturing to continue. == Topics == - Cannabis Business License - Fishing Derby Location - Watershed Safety Concerns - Stakeholder Engagement - Proximity to Child Care/Religious Institutions - Planning Process for Events - Allegations of Fraud - Legislative Vetting Process == Full Transcript == Leon, if you could make me and Monica panelists, please. Yes, I'm working on that. Give me one moment. Just to verify, is she Marie on the account? That's me. I've got to change my name. Okay. So, do we have Councilor Bustamante? I'm here. Yes, he is online. Hey. Let's call this meeting to order. Are we live? Hello? We are live. Okay. Let's call this meeting to order. Can we get a roll call, please? Currently, Madam Chair, Councilor Cassette? Here. Councilor Castro is excused. Councilor Garcia? Here. Councilor Bustamante? Here. Councilor Faulkner? Here. Madam Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you. And good approval of the agenda. Any changes from staff? Madam Chair, there are no changes from staff. Any from the committee? Move to approve. Jackson. Can we get a roll call because we have someone on Zoom? Councilor Cassette? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. That motion passes. Okay. Now onto the consent calendar. Any changes from staff? Item 7N was pulled this evening for discussion. Alright. Anything from the committee? Move to approve as amended. Second. Roll call, please. Councilor Cassette? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. And that motion passes. Madam Chair, can I make a request that we hear consent before the presentations because I will be leaving early, and I was the one that pulled 7N? Sorry. Do we want to have a motion on that, Councilor? Move to move item 7N prior to presentation. Oops. Sorry, I forgot about public comment. Prior to presentations, after public comment. Second. Roll call, please. Councilor Cassette? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. And that motion passes. Okay. On to that order of business. Our next item then will be item 7N. It is consideration of Resolution Number 2026-TBD, sponsored by Mayor Michael Garcia, Councilor Paul Bustamante, Councilor Pilar Faulkner, a resolution suspending the annual fishing derby in Santa Fe River, approving a children's fishing derby event on city property in Nichols Reservoir on 09/26/2026, and directing the City Manager and designated city staff to take the necessary steps to organize the event. And this evening, we have with us Javier Martinez, Constituent Services Manager. Thank you so much. Javier, I apologize because I'm not sure that you are the individual that can answer some of my questions, but you might be. Maybe you guys have had these discussions. So, if there are some that are not within your realm, I completely understand, and I will be sure to reach out. I do have reservations about this, primarily, it being in the watershed with it being one of our driest years on record or an extreme fire risk, extreme drought, and the detriment if there were something to happen in the watershed. I think the likelihood is low, but the risk of what could occur is pretty, pretty scary. So, I wanted to get some more information about the planning. In it, it says, "all necessary precautions," you know, to make sure that this is safe. And that's a pretty broad term, so I'm curious what "all necessary precautions" is covering. Again, I think there's a lot that may not be within your wheelhouse, and so I understand. So, if you need me to reach out to other people, just let me know, and I will. Sure. I understand. Finance Committee, Councilor Cassette, members of the committee. So, my team, along with other individuals from several departments, to include Public Utilities, primarily water, risk, risk and safety with Kyle, and different organizations off the top of my head, we've had several meetings to start the planning effects, not really to roll them out primarily because we're anticipating or waiting for the status of this resolution to move forward. But, in order for this, so a large event of this magnitude to get going, we need a little bit more time. So, we've been, for the past few months, kind of meeting with key individuals from city staff to, I guess, if you will, brainstorm and collaborate on what the possibilities of this as, as my department, you know as well that we do host and do the egg hunt, which is a large event that takes, you know, over several thousands of people to show up, the Halloween event. So, we take all the precautions from parking, any safety measures, any of that right now. So, we are aware of the dry climate that we're upon us on this year. But we did coordinate an in-person visit to the reservoir, if you will, last week with the water department staff to get a good scope of what safety issues that we need to bear, we need to deal with. Right? So, we've been in contact with the fire department for maybe having a fire brush truck there on standby. We're looking at reaching out to the fire department to have an EMS, medical, bus standby on there as well. We're not going to allow anybody from the public to drive up themselves in the vehicle if everything is going to be controlled. Or is the plan is to be controlled by the city to bus all residents to and from the location from designated city locations. So, all those parameters to make sure that, you know, the children are accompanied by an adult or guardian, set parameters as to how close they can get to the water. I mean, there are quite a few factors, but I think that the main things regarding the concern for the environment have been set out there. Right? We're looking as to what areas to border off, what the safest place for children to get close to the lake for fishing, and point out any hazards, and then have any of the brush removed and taken out by the water department. Okay. Thank you. So, as I'm hearing it, plans are not, we actually, so the game plan is not set. And I think this, I actually, I told Chief City Manager this the other day that maybe this is just my style. But just putting it out there, you know, not necessarily for you, but, you know, maybe actually Deputy City Manager is probably more relevant for you. Before things come to me, I prefer all of these relevant details be worked out. I don't want the, "okay, go ahead and figure this out" piece because what concerns me then is then we get this comment around like, "Hey, the governing body has said go do this thing. We're going to go do this thing." Well, my, you know, view about it, my opinion on it might change based on all of these components that come next. So, I think there's been a couple instances. And so I'll just put it out there because I think sometimes people are worried that if they do something and get all the information and do all the research before we give the go-ahead, that we think things are happening behind our back. I do not think that. I think that in this sense, I just then have the information to actually be able to make an informed decision. And so, you know, that's, there's both, I find this both a little concerning but also encouraging because one thing that, and I apologize, I did not get it in today. I want to make sure that the, you know, inclusion of the fireshed partners and other relevant community partners are, that they're in this planning and that they are, you know, giving a sign-off that they feel this is okay. When we heard from the ordinance, there was a lot of concern stated. My understanding is that some of the community groups did not feel that their opinion was welcome, and that there might be some hesitancy to actually give their opinion this time, which makes me hesitant to feel okay with, you know, what's going on here. So, that's, you know, a piece that for us to look at. But, I mean, when would we be able to have, you know, if say this does get approved on Wednesday, when would we have all these details actually ready? And what is the scenario that we may say, "Hey, this is a no-go. We know that we said this is okay, but based on this, you know, research that we're doing or this planning that we're doing, we have discovered." I mean, has that been discussed that, you know, these are the areas that would say, "Hey, just kidding. We can't do this because of XYZ?" So, Councilor Cassette, members of the committee. So, in the past couple months in these meetings, we've had major discussions, but the main caveat of this was said, "You know what? It's not solidified yet. So, we have to do some planning to move forward to have it ready." I guess in a sense, we're in a vehicle smoking the tires waiting for us to let go of the brake and go. Mhm. I mean, if it doesn't happen, we just turn off the car. Right? But we are scheduled to have a meeting on Thursday, the day after the governing body brings this to a vote on this resolution. So, nothing has, I know that Mayor and Sarabu have reached out to the stakeholders. The plan was that I was going to reach out to all stakeholders last week. Okay. But, by the outcome of the last committee where it was voted by all the members present to not pass it, we kind of held off regarding reaching stakeholders because we weren't too sure what the dynamic was on moving forward. But, stakeholders have been communicated with, I believe. And Councilor Bustamante, I believe if you can, you know, chime in here at any time, that, as far as the elected official portion, I think that Councilor Bustamante and Mayor have been really involved with the stakeholders to keep them informed and getting their, mhm, on this. Can we have Councilor Bustamante answer some of this? Go ahead, Councilor Bustamante. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Councilor Cassette. Yes, we have, county in the meeting that we had today, we have met with partners five times now. And that includes partners from the Santa Fe Watershed Association, the Forest Guild, Canyon Neighborhood Association, and the Chusuke Pueblo. So, not all of them were present for all of those meetings, but we have met with people five times now. And I would like to say also that at more than one of those meetings, we asked for input from some of these organizations as to what they do, for example, when they take people out there. So, the Santa Fe Water says Association, for example, in their presentation to the Water Conservation Committee recently, has said they've taken something close to the order of 15,000 people up since 2017. So, we asked in detail for their precautions that they take so that we can incorporate them into anything that we're going to do. They gave some verbal answers at one of our meetings, but we've received nothing in writing yet from them in terms of exact protocols that they follow. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. I'm going to guess a lot of these questions have not been solidified yet. And maybe there's a world that we get to, maybe we get to give a final go and, like, when the plan is there. I don't know that, again, things that I really would like to know about before saying, "Yeah, go ahead and have something in the watershed during, you know, these, like, high-risk years" is what does the, you know, fire protection plan look like in specifics? What does an emergency evacuation look like in specifics? How do we make sure that people, now that they know where the watershed is, don't go back up there during times when we're not there with a brush truck and light up a cigarette and, you know, the thing goes on fire? So, I'm not sure. And, Andrea, maybe you can point. I don't want to keep having to ask you questions that you don't have the answers to because that's, you know, not fair to you. So, Andrea, what's, what's your thoughts here on how do I proceed? Councilor Cassatt, Chair Faulkner, members of the committee, there are still some unanswered questions because we are very much still in the planning stages, and it sounds like there are still some final details to be worked out. So, we can certainly try to provide as much information as we can prior to Governing Body Wednesday night. But I think some of this probably still needs to be worked out once we get the green light. Whatever you have prior to Wednesday night, if we can get that information and if we can make sure that, at the meeting, I'll be pulling this Wednesday, but that the Water Department is here, Fire Department is here, Emergency Management is here. I mean, again, this is, I know it seems, this is different than some of our other events just based on the location. That would be really helpful for me so that I can get some of these answers to some of these questions. What I will say, I think this is more feedback for you, Javier, around, I know that there's been conversation around there being a lottery, essentially, and it being a per-kid lottery, because we're limited on this one. We cannot, we're only bringing up 150 kids and 150 adults. Being in a household, but there are three children, I can imagine a scenario where one of the kids, although we're going to be at soccer, so we want to be a part of this, but one of the kids gets chosen, the other two don't, that's a nightmare scenario for us. Or, for single parents that one of their kids gets chosen, the two of those don't, that don't, they're not supposed to come up. They're going to bring their kids, I mean, because they don't have another option. So I would recommend that if we're going to lottery, maybe lottery by household, because that way, then it's a real family event. At this point, if you have one sibling going off with one parent, this is supposed to be a family event. I understand that this location does make it limited, but just in terms of some of the complications from the parent side, I can imagine some of the feedback that we will get when one sibling is chosen or another one isn't, or there isn't an option for the siblings that weren't chosen, or the parents don't get to come and they want, the whole point of this is that we're trying to do things for families. And this, from my perspective as a parent of young kids, I don't like this design, and I can imagine a few others. So as that's being worked out, I would highly recommend that. I do agree, it doesn't mean that the entire extended family gets to come. We don't get one kid with then both parents and grandparents in it. But if we could look at the households, I think that that would be more beneficial for families that would get chosen for this. Out of curiosity, did we look at any other location that maybe wouldn't have this type of risk/restriction? Was that considered, or, and I apologize again if this is not a question that you have the answer to. Councilor Bustamante can answer that question. Yes, I can answer a couple of them actually. So, yes, other locations were not considered at the time because this is a Santa Fe event. And so, normally, again, we would have had this in the Santa Fe River, but because we didn't have the water to be released into it, the decision was made to have it on something that the city owned, which is Nichols Dam. I'll answer other things when it's my time. I don't know if there was another question you had in there. No, I just, was there any, I know, like, NMED, I've heard of events where they, like, I think they bring tanks of fish. Like, they actually bring tanks, and you can fish out of tanks and tubs. Did you guys, was that model looked into at all? I'm not aware of that model looked into at all. So I know, I remember hearing about that a couple years ago. It's like, that sounds hilarious. Like, what did they do to bring tanks of giant, okay. But it sounds interesting, maybe for another option. Okay. Well, thank you, Javier, for being here, and I really, again, I appreciate it. I understand that this is still like a plane that is being built while flying. I am going to need to get, and Andrea, this is, I think more for you, more of this information before I could vote for this. Again, I know the risk, the risk is low. It is. It's not zero, though. And, unfortunately, with the watershed, I do find that to be concerning. Paul, I do, or sorry, excuse me, Councilor Bustamante, we're in official zone. I would be really interested to hear, and I'm really glad that this conversation is happening, what do the other groups do when they are bringing people up to make sure that there is safety? I know there's a lot of education that goes into it. So understanding that, I think, will be really helpful for me as well. So when we are able to get that information, that'd be great. And then I don't know if we've had more conversations with the watershed, or I'm sorry, excuse me, the Fireshed Coalition. But it sounds like that could be an important group to talk to. US Forest Service, I don't know if they've been in contact, Audubon, Nature, I think you mentioned Nature Conservancy, but there's a large group list of these groups, Councilor Bustamante, that I'd be interested in. Yes, that's why I'm listening. So, no, I'm, I mean, I'm finished. At this moment, I don't have enough information that I can support this, but just telling you the information that I would like to hear before I'd be able to vote for this. So thank you. Alright. Councilor Bustamante. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, I was having audio difficulties. So, yeah, just to address a couple things. So, we do understand that trespassing, for instance, may be an issue. But, again, I want to highlight that the Watershed Association, for example, has taken 15,000 people up there. Is trespassing an issue now? Almost certainly. So, yes, that issue could exist, but I don't see how taking 300 additional people up there adds to that. Also, there's been concerns about an educational component, so that has been talked about. I know Director Roach has said that he could plan to have something, a lecture of some sort to give to the kids on the way up there, so that there is some sort of educational component to talk about the watershed, the history of the watershed, precautions to be taken. I do know there was discussion as part of disclaimers. First off, obviously, no smoking, but also that there's understanding that access is limited to that day for that event only. And so to my knowledge, that information will be out there. Also want to highlight though that we have offered all of the partners space for a table out there if they want to be there to also give any sort of information. At the last meeting we had on August 4, there was not a lot of interest in that, but that could be in part due to capacity. A lot of these organizations don't necessarily have the staff for that. So, but the offer has been made for this out there. Also just want to highlight, like, many of us up on the dais, myself included, have stated multiple times, there's not enough for kids to do in this city. And, here we are offering an event for kids that is going to be supervised, is well planned out, and yet there's significant pushback on it. So just want to highlight that. So thank you, Chair. Right. Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that that's a great perspective, Councilor Bustamante. And I do respect the concerns of Councilor Cassatt in regards to the watershed. I mean, obviously, our watershed is definitely a very, very, very vital and important part of this city. But, I think that perspective that was just given kind of puts things in a controlled environment. You know, and I, the way I look at the lottery kind of things, looking like when we want to go hunting, we put in for our hunting tags. On the day that they draw those tags, not everybody's happy. It's like Christmas in March and April. But, I do share some of the concerns of Councilor Cassatt. However, I do think that it's something that I do support, this opening up the watershed to this activity. And I think that it's, given the staff and your great track record of managing and organizing the events, whatever they may be, I mean, large events, small events, things go very well. And so I think that's, I will support this for those reasons. But I do obviously hear the concerns, and I think they are valid. And so I do appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Anybody else? Once? Twice? Alright. Couple things I will say is, one, I think the city needs to get better at communicating with the community. When I worked for developers, one of the things I found fascinating was the developers were always reluctant to meet with community sooner rather than later because they thought they'd have more issues if they met with community sooner. And what we found was that if you met with community sooner and they became part of the decision making to some degree, they had some kind of skin in the game when it comes to how the event looks. Well, in this case, how the development looked. By the time we got to the Planning Commission, no one was against the project. And so I think, in this case, because I also met with one of the groups today with Councilor Bustamante, it wasn't that there was any actual danger. It is that because the city did not communicate with the organizations that have a lot of ownership in that area, they were left to their own devices to, one, try to figure out why the city wasn't communicating, and two, what was the city not communicating? And I have found as a lobbyist and a community activist and working with organizations that if you do not communicate with people, they will be left to their own devices. And, generally, their thought process is there's a reason we're not being communicated with, and it's nefarious. The information that we want, we are not going to get. There's a lot of trust that gets broken when we don't share information. And I don't think anything bad was happening. I don't think it was intentional. I think it was like an oversight to some degree. But I do believe that this all could have been avoided if we had just gone to the stakeholders initially and told them what we were doing and asked them to participate in some of the decision making. I do think that's 100% what happened here. Because from what I can assess, there isn't a very high danger, but because they were left to try and figure out what was going on on their own, they went to worst-case scenario because they had no information to tell them otherwise. And I have to cut my colleague some slack. He's very passionate and amazing, and he's taken ownership of some of this. He's a freshman councilor. You know, like, you don't know what you don't know. Like, how would you know that all these groups were interested in this issue if you've never been on the council? I'll be honest, I didn't know so many groups were interested. So, I just encourage the administration and councilors, if we're going to move on something, let's make sure we vet it with the community that's the biggest stakeholders, and I think a lot of this can be avoided. I really do. Because I think in the meeting I had today, this group wanted to help. They said if you had engaged us early on, we would have helped disseminate the right information. So I think there's a little lessons learned in this situation, but I am definitely in support of this event. So with that, can we get a motion? Madam Chair, Councilor Bustamante has his hand raised. Sorry, Councilor Bustamante. No, thank you, Chair. I just wanted to, you kind of said it before I could. This was 100% one of those cases where that happened. I thought, oh yeah, hey, that sounds like a great idea. Let's get this. And it was after the fact that I learned of all the multiple partners that were involved or wanted to be involved in a situation like this. So I agree that if we had just perhaps gotten that information out to them a bit sooner, this could be going differently. But I just wanted to back you up on it. Thank you. Alright, thank you, Councilor. Okay, motion please. Move to approve. Second. Can we get a roll call? Councilor Cassette? No. I'd like to explain my vote. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. That motion passes. Councilor Cassette. Thank you. I'm a no today. That doesn't mean that I am a no permanently. For this one, I really want to hear information around the game plan for all of these things that I brought up. And Andrew, I don't know if it's best for me to email you or Javier. I have a number of questions and things that I'd like to tick off. Okay, that'd be great. I'll send them over to you because that information is really important for me in making this decision. I think this is different than a lot of our other big events just because of the location. And I'm still open to it as long as I get the details that I feel I need to be able to make an important decision. Thank you. And on that note, could you make sure that whatever questions are public consumable that you send them to the councilors? I would suggest sending them to the full council or post it on our web so that the community gets the answers as well at the same time we do. That would be awesome. So with that, I think I'm going to go to public comment because we kind of skipped. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to make public comment? Is there opportunity? No? Anyone online? I'm sure there is no one currently online for public comment. On to presentations then. We are going to item six A, presentations fiscal year 2026 internal audit project status update. And this evening, we have Deputy City Manager Andrea Phillips along with Haley Garcia from Baker Tilly, our internal auditor, and I am promoting her to a panelist right now. Good evening. Thank you all for giving us some time. We do have a few items pertaining to internal audit that we would like to bring to your attention. So the municipal code does specify that reporting to the governing body happens through the Finance Committee for any internal audit items. And I think she's just going to go check on the IT here. But maybe just as a bit of background, we hired Baker Tilly through a competitive proposal process. They serve as our internal auditor, and they work off of an approved plan each fiscal year. So about $150,000 was allocated for FY26. And at this point, I'll turn it over to Haley Garcia who can give us an update on those projects. Can you all hear me? Yep, we can hear you. Okay, got some nods. Okay, I'm going to share my screen real quick and go through the internal audit status update, which you all have in your packet as well. Okay, so we are wrapping up the fiscal year. So old projects that have already been presented have fallen off. However, I'll present right here on the screen. We were planning to do a risk management operational review. That has been put on hold, and we will potentially continue. There is pending litigation with the city, and we have decided with legal counsel that that one will be placed on hold. So no further reporting will be coming in terms of that until things are resolved and it's okay to proceed. Next is the recruitment process review, which we are presenting to you all tonight, the final report. Next was policy and procedure support. One of the things that we are assisting the city with is helping them get resources for employees, policies, and procedures across key functions of the city that are identified by management and through the internal audit function and helping them get those resources up to a comprehensive and current state. We've been working on two of them with the city and are continuing those efforts. And the last one is a procurement process review. It is a very large report with a lot of content, a lot of recommendations, and process flows. As a result, it's been a little bit delayed as we are going back and forth with the various stakeholders because there's a lot of different departments and stakeholders that are impacted. So we will be finalizing the report hopefully within the next week or two, and that'll be presented at the next audit committee meeting. That is all I have to share as we wrapped up this fiscal year. Right, on to the committee. Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess just to comment, things are running really smoothly, it seems, all on track, and that's glad to see. So we're happy for that, and thank you for all of your work. Mr. Bustamante, do you have anything? Just want to echo. Thank you, everyone involved for your hard work. Thank you. We're excited to get started on next year's audit plan. So we're hoping to get approval for that tonight so we can continue and kick off the next round of projects for you all. Yeah, we are opposed to audits on the Finance Committee. Just kidding. What I'd like to say about the audit process, and I say this to my clients, and I've said it as a city councilor, the audits should not be a scary thing or a bad thing. Audits are like the way an organization stays healthy. It's kind of like exercising or finances. So I love the direction we're going in. We're seeing a lot of good things happen because of the audits, and I would just caution there's some spaces where we're going to see some things show up again and again and again, and that's because some of the information we need is from so long ago. There isn't a lot of records on them that we can use to kind of defend the position. So I just want the community to know that if you see something pop up again a couple of times, it's mostly because we're trying to find the information to give to the auditor. And so that doesn't mean something bad is happening. That just means we're trying to comply with the audit. So thank you. Are we voting on this thing? Okay, no. This part was just a presentation, Madam Chair, and then the next item is another presentation. This is on the specific project that Baker Tilly just concluded for us on the recruitment process. So they were going to do a quick, high-level overview of those recommendations, if that's okay. Yeah, I just know we had talked about some component of the presentation. Yeah, later on, we will need, or I'm sorry, the committee's approval if you choose to grant it for the FY27 audit project. Okay. Alright, on to the next presentation. We have review of fiscal year 2026 internal audit project recruitment process, and we have Deputy City Manager Andrea Phillips and Annie Rose Favaro from Baker Tilly. And I'm so sorry, my audio seems to have gone out. Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can hear you. I think mine was off. So I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to you, Annie Rose. I was just saying you were the point person from Baker Tilly on the project. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for having me with you all this afternoon, this evening. I'm going to share my screen and give you a brief overview of this recruitment process assessment. Is that visible for everyone here? Yep. Okay. So very briefly, this project was designed to review the city's recruitment process and really think about what are the opportunities to improve how we recruit and bring people, the hiring experience of folks coming into the organization. And this really came from the 2024 enterprise risk assessment where we identified during that assessment that HR as a functional area was a high-risk area and that recruitment and retention, especially in terms of things like onboarding, timeliness of hiring processes, process coordination, that type of thing, those were all identified as challenges. And so we wanted to come back and really have a deep dive into this area. Before I share some of our observations and recommendations in this space, I do really want to share deep appreciation for the HR staff who worked with us in this process and all the city staff who participated here. And we also wanted to recognize that since 2024, there have been many initiatives that the HR department has put into process to support this area, including developing a full draft recruitment workflow, creating standard operating procedures for this area, establishing a user group, and having regular meetings with that group to communicate when there are updates to their recruitment process, things like that, and expanding on the training materials and resources that are available to staff. So there has been quite a lot that you will see here listed in the report, but I wanted to give a big shout out to the significant work that has happened in this area to date. That being said, there are still areas that can be strengthened. And so very quickly going through some of our primary observations and recommendations here. The first is that your HR team is operating with a very lean staffing model. They do not have very many folks in supporting this area in comparison to other standard benchmarks. And so given that, there's a very heavy workload on this team. However, there's also quite a lot of potential process improvements that could be made in this area. So our recommendation is to really focus on reducing some of those manual activities, making some of those process improvements to streamline that work, and then coming back and reevaluating your long-term staffing needs because we don't want to staff the teams against the current process if the current process hasn't been made as efficient and effective as it can be. So that is the recommendation here. Our next area that we focused in on was training and communication. This has been an area, again, where there has been some good work happening in terms of establishing tools and resources, but it is still not yet fully consistent, fully standardized, which means that different members of staff are having different experiences and have different levels of training and resources available to them. This very much varies by department, and that is especially true for different departments that have different hiring needs, which we would expect. Some departments hire very frequently, some hire much less frequently. And ideally, we want to fill in some of those gaps and make that a more consistent experience. So the recommendations here are to make sure that there is a fully established recruitment training program that is provided both internally for new HR staff who are coming in to support this work and to the department staff who are involved in recruitment activities. This is one of those processes that is really cross-departmental, so we need to make sure that everybody is well trained in those processes. Establishing a centralized repository for recruitment-related resources is another recommendation here. There's many resources, but right now, they're not in one central location, which can make it difficult for folks to find. And then finally, formalizing transition and onboarding practices when recruitment responsibilities change. This is a pretty common occurrence that we heard throughout interviews where something has been updated in the process, often something for the better, that we're making improvements to the processes, but those changes aren't necessarily communicated out to the departments or the staff who are involved in these work. So that is an important piece to keep everybody coming alongside as changes are made. The next area that we looked at was the recruitment process itself to see if there were opportunities to improve it here. And we do want to say that, in general, this work is functioning effectively, and timelines are absolutely comparable for what we would expect to see. And that is an important distinction here because, especially folks who might be outside of HR, might not have a general sense for how long these types of processes typically take within a city setting. So it's really great to see that, in general, those timelines are reasonable and aligned with what we would expect to see here. But there are definitely opportunities to further strengthen this process and make sure that the coordination is happening because there are multiple handoff points that take place throughout a recruitment process between HR and the hiring department. So our recommendation here is really to continue the work that has already been started on the recruitment workflow documentation and making sure that the roles are fully clarified in terms of when it is the responsibility of the hiring department to take on a specific task versus the HR department, and when is work happening simultaneously so that recruitments aren't getting stuck at one point in this process and having a bottleneck there. The next area of recommendation that we were looking at was really around your technology that is supporting the recruitment process. Your HRIS system, your Human Resources Information System, is not fully being used to its full extent and capacity, and it's not being consistently used. And that means that there are a lot of manual workarounds that are taking place right now. There's not always visibility into where you are with a recruitment workflow, and it's just slowing the process down in unnecessary ways. So there may be opportunities to better use your existing system and look at those functionalities. So our recommendation here is to have this be a collaboration with IT to make sure that the city is fully utilizing this system to the best of its ability. And once you know that, then you will be able to better evaluate whether or not the system is actually meeting all of your needs in this space. And then coming out near the end here, the last piece that we wanted to look at was also looking at some of the ways that HR analysts support individual departments. So right now, each HR analyst has a specific set of departments that they are assigned to to help manage work through the recruitment process as well as other HR processes. And earlier this year, there were some department reassignments that were implemented. And in general, that is not a bad thing to do to reassign folks around so that you can make sure that folks are having different coverage, that we're having cross-training happening. But that change in and of itself could have been managed more effectively to ensure the departments were fully brought along in that process. So our recommendation here is really just around making sure if there's going to be future analyst reassignments, which again is something as a practice in general, we certainly support that type of a practice that is considered best practice. But we want to make sure that in future, we have a few more things in place to help improve continuity and that staffing transition so that that process is a little bit smoother for all parties involved in the future. So with that, I will stop sharing my screen and see if there are any questions about the information I just presented. Thank you very much, Councilor Cassette. Actually, I don't, thank you so much. I don't have any questions. I just wanted to not make you think that you chased me out. I'm, it's my son's birthday, so I'm going to go celebrate with him. But thank you so much for the work. I'm really excited about this. It was really interesting actually to hear that the timelines are comparable because, you know, those of us not in HR, that was a surprise to me. So this is why we have you and really appreciate that work and looking forward to hearing about how these are implemented and what those next steps look like. So thank you so much, and I apologize that I am going to be rushing out now. Have a wonderful celebration. Happy birthday to baby boy. Okay. So, Councilor Bustamante? No questions. Thank you. Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. Is this question, I guess, is this the first time that we've ever done a recruitment process review? That's a great question, and I believe it is the first time our team has done a recruitment process review, but I'm not sure about the history previous to the Baker Tilly relationship. Assistant City Manager? So thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, and members of the committee. It's, as far as my recent knowledge, this is the only one that is specific to the recruitment process. Now, it did come up quite a bit during the enterprise risk assessment, if you're thinking of that one. Right. But there may have been a prior recruitment process review, you know, in past years. But in recent history, at least in the last three, four, five years, I think this is the only one that's been focused on the recruitment process. Thank you. And the only reason I asked that, and I don't really have very many questions for Baker Tilly, but, you know, cost to benefit. I mean, I hope that we really truly take this information and utilize it. Just in, you know, in my own private business, I kind of know what works, what doesn't work. I mean, we, we use many different ways of hiring people and how do you know, retention and things of that nature. And that's great to know what the standards are. It's really nice to see how this would kind of work, similar or different to other areas. But the thing is, is that we are unique in this in Santa Fe and New Mexico. But just my comment, I mean, I hope the cost for doing the study is a benefit to this community, to the city. And, obviously, we can do reports all the time, but we kind of have a know what works and what doesn't work. The report is great, and so I just basically inform of a comment because I see some of these analyses and reports and studies that we do and cost us a lot of money to do these things. And, and although you do have to back up what you're doing somewhat with data, so I do appreciate that for this specifically. And so thank you for doing the work and providing us with this information. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilor Garcia. I also think this is a huge improvement. I think that our hiring process is cumbersome. And I know that there have been times where we really needed a staff person in a given position, but because of the time it takes to get someone on board, we lose candidates. And so I think this is going to be very helpful to kind of help us streamline that process. So thank you very much. On to the next item. Madam Chair, if I may, just to close the loop on this item. So the next steps, it's been presented to the Audit Committee. They gave us some good feedback. It's now, you know, being presented to the Finance Committee. And then, I'm working with our new director, Monica Acevedo, who just came on when this process was concluding. So I'm going to be working with her on a management response. So we're going to go through this and then respond to each recommendation, and then that will be part of our implementation tracking moving forward. That's awesome. Okay. Thank you, Andrea. Next item, Request for approval of the fiscal year 2027 internal audit plan. All right. Do we need a presentation for this committee members? Let's see. Like, Councilor Bustamante is sharing her screen, if that's okay. Haley, can you share your screen? Oh, she's pulling it up. Okay. Does the committee membership feel we need a presentation? I guess my only question would be if it's going to be similar to what was just presented, I guess we wouldn't. Okay. Is it similar to what we were just presented? No. This is just the approval of the projects. I think it'll be very quick. This is just approval of the projects for this next fiscal year. Okay. All right. Let's go into the presentation then. I can skip to the main event. Do it very quickly. Here we go. I will skip down to here. So in fiscal year 2027, the projects that we have came up with based on the enterprise risk assessment that was done and the internal control review, everything we've learned about the city, including feedback from management as well as the Audit Committee. The projects that we are proposing is a grant management operational review. Right now, the grant management function is decentralized across the city, different programs, different departments that are managing these. So looking at that process and where there might be compliance risks or opportunities for improvement in efficiency or the way that we're administering grants is the first project. Second is a cash management internal audit, which was a higher risk in the risk assessment given that cash handling is done at various points across the city, and there are a lot of different POS systems that are utilized that might not necessarily integrate with Munis and looking at those processes to see, are there good internal controls, good policies, is the integration or manual processes working, or do they develop risk for the city? Third is capital improvement program assessment and looking at helping the city to identify ways in which they could develop a framework or something to start from. The CIBP process is fairly informal, and really the city goes through a process each year, has kind of a wish list, develops what they want to focus on. But looking at in comparison with other cities of your size, what would be a reasonable framework for developing a capital improvement program that can be rolled out and ramped up over time for monitoring and deploying CIP funding. Fourth, to some of your comments, follow-up on open internal audit findings. Again, the goal of these reports and these projects is to have constant improvement within the city. So we are going to be working with management to develop a follow-up process where, maybe two times a year, we go out, we follow up, and we report back to these committees on the improvements across the city or areas that, where progress has not been made. So building in that accountability model, continuing to support management and policy and procedure development, and then the ongoing management of the internal audit program. Hey. Any questions from committee? Sure. Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess my question on this is, these will be recommendations and studies again. Are, are they looking at, are these items that are new to our Finance Department or can be handled through our Finance Department? Mayor Pro Tem, Chair Faulkner, members of the committee. The implementation piece on these will likely rest in finance, you know, where with grants management, cash handling, but it's, there's some citywide implications where other departments have a hand in this. So they're going to be looking at our process. They're going to be mapping it out, doing interviews, looking at best practices, and helping us to come up with better frameworks so that we can manage grants better across the city. Cash handling is, hopefully, more streamlined than it currently is. So that's the goal of these process improvement audits, but then the actual implementation will require staff in multiple departments. Alright, thank you. Just kind of looking at the price tag for each of these, and again, once again, I hope that we take this information and really utilize it. You see that making a recommendation possibly of how Tyler Munis is working. Well, we kind of know how Tyler Munis is working, but again, trying to get the insight of what really will work for the City of Santa Fe. And so, again, for what it's costing us, I do really hope that we do take this information and find out what we know that's working and what's not working for the city. Thank you. Councilor Bustamante? No questions at this time. Thank you. Yeah. So, one of the couple of things, a comment first. We could do a much better job with our ICIP. I think there's a way, I'm really glad we're looking into this because I think there's ways that if once we approve the list, we wouldn't have to drag every project through the entire process. If we did the building of the list correctly and the request correctly, we could cut out a lot of time for a lot of our capital projects. And so, I know I've been talking to staff about some of these things, and we're kind of excited to dig into them and try to make that process better. Are we looking into, I think I heard this, but I want to double-check. Are we looking into how Munis interacts with other software? Like, I know that land use and public works possibly. Some departments prefer different software because it's more designed for what they do. And I know there's some kind of hiccup where how people do invoices and take in fees and all that stuff. Munis doesn't quite, Munis and some of these other programs don't quite work together, mostly because they're competitors, I think. But are we going to look into how we might be able to find solutions around that issue? For specifically for the cash management internal audit, which is one of the areas where we already know going in that there are multiple POS systems that don't communicate directly with Munis. Our goal will be to assess the processes that are in place for manually integrating those to identify, are they properly controlled? Is the data transfer correct? Or are there opportunities to improve, whether that's integration, other add-on systems or connectors that can be integrated? And so, yes, that will be a part of it. And I think that's one of the areas that makes cash management, although it is an inherently risky area given that it is multiple systems that are going in. Looking at all of those different entry points and identifying controls, risks, and opportunities to improve, whether it is another system or just looking at how to improve the migration of the data over to make it more controlled. And will you be looking into how well-educated the departments of the city are in using Munis? Because I also know there's some spaces where departments believe they need this other thing, and in part, they don't necessarily do because Munis can do some of these functions. The department just didn't know they could. That's great input. And as we get further, when we actually kick off that project and understand what Munis and the modules that you have can and can't do, then going out armed with that information, talking to the various departments and doing that information gathering, understanding why they're using different systems, what's the purpose of it, is it the most effective model, or are there reasons where, hey, there's additional training or there's an additional add-on that can be done within Munis that the city should consider. So, yes, that will be an aspect of it. Okay, great. And because one of my concerns is I do want to listen to the departments about what they know works for them, and there are programs that are different than Munis that are better in function for some of our departments. I'm always concerned about compromising security, and I know the more groups we're working with, the higher the security risk is, and there are more opportunities for hackers, for cyber kind of stuff to happen. So, those are just my concerns and comments. Anything else from the committee? Anything else from staff? No. If you are amenable to this project plan, we would just look for a motion to approve the FY '27 internal audit. So right now, we need a motion. Motion to approve. Second. Second. Okay, roll call, please. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. That motion passes. Alright, thank you. Thank you. We're excited. Mm-hmm. Okay, we are moving on to item nine, public hearing. A request for issuance of a cease and desist order to close Betty Nuggs Cannabis located at 1228 Parkway Drive, Suite D, Greenlight Multifactor LLC. Francisco Romero, owner. (505) 394-1599. Code enforcement case 2026-006062. Violations of Santa Fe City Code section 18-1.4a and section 14-5.3g4b. And this evening, we have Heather Lamboy, our Land Use Director, along with Jason Sena, Enforcement Division Manager. Okay, before we dig into the hearing, do you want to go over the process stuff? Yes, Chair Paul Carey. Well, hold on. Talking. Yeah, remember, we have to tell them what the process is for the hearing. Well, I was just going to mention that they had requested a postponement. So, but go ahead and go over the process, and then I'll just. Okay, thank you. So there are 14 steps to this cease and desist order hearing. And would you like me to read through all of them, Madam Chair? Yes. Okay. So we will have members of the Finance Committee disclose any pre-hearing communications regarding the merits of the request, recusal if a member cannot be fair and impartial. Then the presiding officer, which would be Chair Faulkner, announce the order of the hearing, staff presentation, business owner's presentation, public comment, questions from Finance Committee, closing statements, motion, deliberations, and voting. Then Code Enforcement and Land Use staff will summarize the staff report, the business owner's opening statement and sworn witness testimony, along with, if desired, questions for staff. Questions should be directed through the presiding officer, which would be Chair Faulkner. Then we have sworn public comment, then the Finance Committee questions of staff, parties, witnesses, and the public. Anyone testifying to the facts outside of the record must be sworn in. And we do have Javier Martinez as our notary this evening. Item eight, business owner, if appropriate, because new evidence has arisen during questioning, opportunity to ask additional questions of staff, also questions should be directed through the presiding officer. Then staff, if appropriate, responses to business owner submitted evidence and/or testimony, the business owner's closing statement, the presiding officer's closed public hearing. Once closed, further questions of witnesses are appropriate only if the public hearing is reopened to allow response by the business owner. 12, Finance Committee motion and second on whether to grant or deny the request. The member making the motion should state the member's reasoning for the motion. Finance Committee's discussion and deliberations, public or executive session. And then last but not least, Finance Committee's roll call vote in a public session. Government as finest. Thank you. Okay. So any member of the committee have a reason they feel they should recuse themselves on this matter? Oh, okay. On the staff presentation. It would be awesome if we could keep these things at ten minutes. Okay, thank you, Chair Faulkner. Jason Sena is going to be making the presentation. And like I mentioned previously, the applicant is requesting a postponement, but it might be good to have the facts of the case. Okay, good evening, Madam Chair, members of the Finance Committee. My name is Jason Sena. I'm the Enforcement Manager at the City of Santa Fe Planning and Land Use Department. Please bear with me. This is the first time I've ever done this. Well, you're good. I am here to present the facts regarding the enforcement action involving the cannabis business known as Betty Nuggs operating at 1228 Parkway Drive, Suite D, and explain why staff is requesting an enforcement under the city code. Staff is requesting that the Finance Committee uphold the notice of violation and issue a cease and desist order requiring Greenlight Manufacturing, doing business as Betty Nuggs Cannabis, to discontinue retail cannabis operations at 1228 Parkway Drive, Suite D. The request is based on violations of the City of Santa Fe Code sections 18-1.4a, which is a license application info required, and 14-5.3g or v, minimum distance from schools within 300 feet. Would you like a brief summary? So in January 2025, the city received a complaint alleging that Betty Nuggs was conducting retail cannabis sales while operating under a business license that authorized only cannabis light manufacture. City inspectors confirmed retail sales during an on-site inspection and informed the owner that retail cannabis sales were prohibited at this location because it is adjacent to a daycare facility and does not meet the city's zoning requirements for cannabis retail establishments. The owner was directed to immediately cease retail sales and agreed to do so. In February 2025, the matter was referred to NMRLD, which is New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department, for review. According to the memorandum, no enforcement action was taken by the state at that time. In January 2026, the city received a second complaint alleging that the retail cannabis sales had resumed. During a follow-up investigation, staff discovered that the business had obtained a retail cannabis license for the same location. A review of the application materials determined that the license had been issued using a falsified zoning verification letter that had been altered to state that the property met the city's separation requirements and that the retail cannabis sales were permitted at the site. Based on the city's investigation, a notice of violation was issued on 07/15/2026. Retail cannabis is not a permitted use at this location. The retail business license was obtained through submission of false zoning verification information. The owner was ordered to discontinue all business operations within fifteen days. I had some inspectors go out after July 30, which would have been the compliance date, and it was still said that they were conducting retail sales at this location. In your packets, I don't know if you have your packets, but we do have the attachments of the business license that was issued, which was business license 24177 for cannabis retail. Attachment B is the falsified zoning verification letter, which if you read is highlighted with the 300 foot, stating that they were not within 300 feet of a daycare or preschool. Attachment C was the original zone verification letter stating that they were within 300 feet of a preschool daycare. Attachment D is the notice of violation with the case number of 006062-2026. And then Attachment E was the original business license issued for the light manufacturing. So Code Enforcement is asking the Finance Committee to approve the cease and desist for this business. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Madam Chair, I would like to know the reasons as to why. There are two members that are not present tonight. Obviously, there are three, we can still make a decision, but I would like to know why the defendants in this case would like a postponement. Thank you. Madam Chair, just to note, I think we would need to swear them in before they state their reasons for postponement request. Madam Chair, your audio is not on. Thank you. Councilor Bustamante? Jeremy Jones, appearing for Francisco Romero and Greenlight Manufacture or Multifactor LLC. Please raise your right hand and please state your full name and address. Jeremy R. Jones of Richter Jones Law Firm at 313 Paseo De Peralta, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury? I swear in his client as well. Please raise your right hand and state your full name and address. It's Romero, 1228 Parkway Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference for this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalty of perjury? Thank you. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Jones. Mayor Faulkner, members of the committee, good evening. I'm in an unenviable situation that no lawyer wants to be in. I took this case late last week. I have had very little, if any, time to prepare. I am requesting a continuance to the next session of the committee, the soonest possible. Nobody wants to take a case that they're not prepared for, but given the allegations in this matter, I respectfully ask that the committee first address our threshold procedural request. The hearing packet was not posted until late Friday afternoon, to the best of my knowledge. The city seeks extraordinary relief in order broad enough to close a business and affect an existing license. The packet does not contain the complete record necessary to test the city's allegations or prepare the responsible response. Specifically, we've not received the native business license application, the electronic upload audit history, the identity of the account or user associated with the disputed document, complete inspection, and the reinspection file, the underlying photographs, recordings, receipts, or test purchase evidence, the records establishing the protected use's exact location and the relevant operating dates, the city's 300-foot measurement and methodology, or a complete service record. This is not a request to avoid the hearing. It's a request to have one worthy of consequences. On behalf of Mr. Romero and Greenlight, I respectfully request the city staff join in or, at a minimum, not oppose, which they have done. I sent an email last night requesting a motion to postpone item 9A, consistent with the council standing committee procedural rules. To remove any assertive need for immediate merit determination, Mr. Romero and Greenlight will agree solely as an interim accommodation and without the mission waiver that no retail cannabis sales, customer pickups, or delivery fulfillment will occur at the location in question while the matter is continued. In return, we ask that the city maintain the status quo and refrain from additional closure, penalty, or adverse licensing action based upon notice allegations until the continued hearing. Please understand, this proposal does not concede that any violation occurred, quite the contrary. Madam Chair, sorry to interrupt you, but I think we need to discuss whether we're going to hear more information. I don't know that, I mean, this is obviously you're asking to continue business, but I think we have our city attorney here. Oh, that was going to be the question. She has her hand up real quick. So sorry to pause you there real quick because I think we need to rule on the fact that we want to postpone or not postpone, and I think you stated the reasons why. Okay, is it me? Thank you, Councilor Garcia. I do just want to introduce myself. My name is Natalie Collie. I'm an assistant city attorney. I just joined the City Attorney's Office in June, so I'm not sure I've had the opportunity to meet all of the city councilors individually. I did just want to speak up and clarify. I think Mr. Jones may have misspoken or communicated the wrong thing, is that Mr. Jones and I did communicate this morning about the request for a postponement, and I told him that the city staff would be opposing the motion for postponement. I think it might have sounded like we were in alignment with the postponement, but we are actually in opposition, and I'm happy to provide argument on our opposition if the committee would like. That is true. If I misspoke, I apologize. Okay, so on the matter of postponement, are there questions from the committee members? I don't have, I'll defer to Councilor Bustamante, and then I'll make my comment. If staff is opposed, I see no reason to grant the postponement. Councilor Garcia? You know, the only reason that I have is that we are missing two. We can still make a decision tonight. All the information is here, so I really don't have any reason as to not hear it. So I guess I would defer to my other two colleagues. Yeah, and I would say as Chair, if this is being run illegally at this point, based on what staff has said, until we determine that as a committee, whether or not that is in fact happening, we risk putting either your client or the city in a position where because we postponed, we've allowed business to go on in a location where it should not be happening. So, I will make a motion to deny the postponement. Second. Can we get a roll call, please? Certainly, Madam Chair. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Motion to deny postponement passes. Alright, so now we're going to move on to the next portion of the hearing, which is the business owner's presentation. Will you be making the presentation as the business owner? I assume your attorney will. I'll be making the presentation. Mr. Romero is here solely for the purpose of being present and requesting you to continue. If I may clarify, during the continuance period, we would cease all retail operations until we have another hearing. They've gotten that. That may have been discontinued. What I'm asking for, and again, with all due respect, we have already ruled on whether or not we're going to be granting the postponement. So if we can just get to your presentation. Sir, could you please make sure you're speaking directly into the mic? You kind of have to get close to the microphone in these city chambers. Also, this is probably your first presentation before a finance committee, so good job, you guys, as well. So go ahead with your presentation. Are you asking me to? Yes. Okay. Again, I'm totally unprepared for this. Mr. Romero appeared with me, supported the procedural request. His presence does not consent to an unprepared examination with many negative websites that continue. If the committee nevertheless decides to continue, we have nothing more. Your client doesn't want us there. There has to be some information that I can't responsibly advise my client to give any testimony when I haven't had an opportunity to review the underlying record. I will say that my client was recently divorced. His former partner and wife was working with him at the time. He now has this business, and the allegation that my client falsified the document is denied. Other than that, I have not had an opportunity to conduct a reasonable investigation of this. All I'm asking for is a standstill. Mr. Romero will stop completely engaging in business at these premises. In the meantime, we can gather evidence to have a meaningful hearing. Is there any will on the committee to reconsider postponement? The only reason that I have is that there are two members that are not here tonight. I mean, I do want to give business owners due process and time to defend your case. It doesn't seem like they have anything to be able to defend their position, which, on the one hand, doesn't make this a very productive case. All we can go off is what's being presented by the city, which I don't know that this changes the outcome, but it does give the business owner and his legal counsel some time to kind of prepare. I don't know that it changes the outcome of this, and that's the thing is that we would just be prolonging the decision. But that was, that's my fair and honest assessment of what's going on here because it doesn't seem like they're prepared to defend themselves in this position. On the matter of postponement, could I ask staff a question? And Madam Chair and Councilor Garcia, if I may, if this item does get postponed to the September 8th meeting, you do have a governing body study session as well that evening. So we would just postpone that with different dates or brief. Okay. Staff? Yes, Chair Faulkner. Regardless, staff, sorry, Heather. Regardless of whether or not the documents were fraudulent in nature, would that change the outcome about whether or not this location could do the business it is intending to do at this location? Chair Faulkner, the nature of the business is being conducted right now. We've investigated as recently as today. The retail operations continue even though we provided them with notice that that is not permitted according to the land development code. So we have a grave concern regarding this. And we have our inspectors here as well as Ms. Barreya, our planner who did the zoning verification letter, as resources if you like, as well as Mr. Again, to get to the heart of the matter, regardless of whether or not they can prove that this business owner did not commit fraud, but it possibly, from what I'm picking up on, could have been his ex-wife. Does that change whether or not they can conduct the business they want to conduct on this property? Chair Faulkner, that does not. Madam Chair, Councilor Bustamante has his hand raised. Oh, okay. Go ahead, Councilor Bustamante. Thank you, Chair. Director, to your knowledge, the notice of violation mentions fines. Are there fines being assessed or permanent charges expected to be filed in this case? Councilor Bustamante, I'm sorry. We can keep only, in this hearing setting, we can only keep the questions to the question at hand, and the question at hand is postponement. Well, the reason I'm asking about that is because by postponing, are we extending, because it is a per-day potential fine. So I don't want to put them under any undue fine. Oh, that's a good question. Thank you, Councilor Bustamante. Chair, at this time, we're not assessing any fines, and we would follow the lead of the finance committee to assess that. I'm sure. Councilor Garcia. How do, how can we guarantee or know that there will be a ceasing of business activity at this location? How do we know? How can we get that as a guarantee? Mr. Garcia, I have had inspectors go out. Their order to stop the retail business should have been on July 30th. I've had inspectors go out after July 30th, and they are doing cannabis retail. They were doing it after the fact of when they should have been in the compliance date of July 30th. So, I have two inspectors here as witnesses that can attest to that. There was also a website put up online stating that you could come in and place your order, or they will deliver it to you. So there is a website also saying this, but being that we issued the notice of violation on July 15, and the compliance date was July 30, and that they were still selling after July 30, I cannot tell you if they will actually cease retail. So, okay, thank you. I really don't know that this is there's going to be a different outcome here, to be honest with you, just given this information that's been provided in the packet. And so there's nothing that makes me feel like we can ask any more information regarding the case because that's not what we're talking about. After we, if the will of the committee is we are going to hold our position on no postponement, then we can move on to the rest of the hearing. I just, it doesn't seem like we're going to get a cease of operations at this point. Sure. I am looking at that website right now, and I still see products for sale, including delivery options. Okay. So then is it the will of the committee that we hold on the no postponement? If so, can we get a motion on that? I'll make a motion that we're going to motion to continue with the case for tonight. Right. This is I'll second it. Can we get a roll call on that? Certainly, Madam Chair. Counselor Garcia? Yes. Counselor Bustamante? Yes. Counselor Faulkner? Yes. That motion passes. Okay. So I'm going to give you another opportunity. This is your chance to say whatever you think could help your case. Thank you, Chair Faulkner. At this time, again, we're not prepared. I have not received the full file given the nature of the allegations at issue. I cannot in good faith have my client testify at this point. I hope you can understand, and I apologize for that. But these are very serious allegations which are denied. Again, I take that the hearing would be much more productive if we had an opportunity to review the record in its entirety. And I understand that the committee has spoken. So with that, we have nothing more. Alright. Thank you so much. Is there any public comment on this matter? None in the chambers. Is there anyone online? Madam Chair, no. There's no one present online. Okay. So I believe there's no public comment. So, questions from the committee members? So this is the point where your public is, what is the the public hearing is closed. The public hearing is closed. Okay. And so the only questions that I would have had for the applicant is why would you state that the information provided was not true and correct based upon the information that was provided in the packet of falsifying documentation? But they no longer have the opportunity to... No, you can ask them questions directly, Counselor. Okay. Well, I'd like to ask either legal representation or the applicant, the owner, at this point, as to how you can see that these documents were not falsified. Mr. Romero and Greenlight do not concede authorship, alteration, submission, authenticity, or legal effect of the disputed document. We're not prepared to present on the merits tonight. We have not received the city's complete record, and we would love the opportunity to provide a considered response supported by evidence rather than an improvised answer made before the record is available. The fact of the matter is the document alleged to be forged originated somewhere. My client denies it originated with him. And at this point, we haven't reviewed the metadata, the chain of custody, the authenticity of the document. These are the types of things that we would like to be able to do so that we could give you folks a proper answer to this. But with that being said, that's all I can offer you. So I guess my question goes back to when, I mean, a business application is a business application. Was it farmed out to somebody else? Was it being, I mean, did they utilize an outside source to apply for their business license? Yeah. And that allegation is serious, and I can't have my client answer right now. That's precisely why attribution should be based upon authenticated electronic evidence rather than from two paper images. The agenda cites alleged violations of 181.4a and 145.3g45. It does not separately charge Mr. Romero with criminal fraud offense. We're not asking the committee to disregard the allegation. We're asking, did the city produce the evidence before the committee decides who did? Okay. I don't know that I have any more questions. I mean, this doesn't seem like this is a large corporation. It almost seems like an independent. And, I mean, I feel for you guys because, having my own business, there's a lot of things that you have to cross the T's and dot the I's with when you're doing these type of applications. But just with the evidence that's being provided, it doesn't seem as if it's operating legally, number one. And, number two, if there was falsified information that was presented, I don't know how you could corroborate that as being a mistake. And so I still don't see that as an outcome being different coming forward as in the as a postponement. Chair Faulkner, could I be heard? This is Assistant City Attorney Collie. Oh, yes. I just want to clarify for the committee. I understand there's sort of two issues happening here. There's the potentially falsified letter, and then there's the issue that the business is operating within 300 feet of a daycare or school, which is separate from the letter. And so I understand that the attorney for the business owner has not been able to had time to review the entire record, but the city is still able to present information about the location of the business and their repeated conversations with the business owner about the proximity to the daycare and how that does not allow retail sales, which is actually separate and an equally permitted reason to revoke the license separate from whether the business owner actually fraudulently changed the zoning verification letter. If the committee does not want to get into this issue that clearly the business owner is unwilling to testify to at this moment, city staff can still speak about the location of the business and how close it is to the daycare and their previous conversations with Mr. Romero to the effect that he was aware of that proximity. So that was going to be one of my questions was the issue that's before us that we actually have to decide on is about the business license with regard to whether or not they can do the business they're doing at the location they're doing it in. I don't think that it's, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Finance Committee is not to decide something related to fraud. I would feel that's something for the administration possibly. We're being asked just to decide if they can do business at this location based on land use law, correct? Or code? The attorney? Yes, that's correct, Chair. So the discussion about fraud, no fraud, all of that is not at issue in this hearing? It could be a separate legally sufficient issue, but because we are running into these issues with the business owner, I think it would be also permitted and acceptable for the committee to just focus on the land use issue of whether retail cannabis sales are allowed in this location. Yeah, because my concern as Chair is I'm not sure the Finance Committee is a space to decide whether or not they committed fraud. I feel like that's a whole different issue. I know on these cases, they're usually land use driven questions, right? So, I would suggest to the committee that we do not contemplate whether or not fraud occurred. I would offer to the committee that we need to focus on whether or not this business is in a zone where they can do the business they're doing. Okay. Councilor Bustamante? Thank you, Chair. Yeah, that's one of my questions. So in addition, I would like to hear from city staff. So in addition to the distance from a child care facility, I'm looking at the violation. It also states a religious institution, and I believe there's literally one across the street from them, which according to Google Maps, says 250 feet. So I'd like to know if there's any verification on those two businesses if they're within the the concern distance from from this from this establishment. Yes, that's correct, Counselor. There is also a religious institution, and then the the Santa Fe Montessori Child Care Program is directly behind. Can you get closer to the microphone, Jason? Thank you. Yes, Counselor. There is a religious institution and also the Santa Fe Montessori Child Care Program that is almost directly behind the business. Okay. And these these are verifiably within that 300-foot distance? Correct. Okay. Thank you, sir. I have no further questions, sir. Counselor Garcia. My only question regarding this issue is who is our first? Santa Fe Montessori had been there since 2021. Mr. Romero opened his business in 2025. Okay. And so, obviously, that would be precedent. And I know that I was on the Planning Commission when this cannabis stuff was legalized, and there was a lot of talk over, you know, where where are these stores and manufacturing facilities. And I know Councilor Faulkner, who was a co-commissioner with me at the time, there was a lot of discussion over this because we had to decide how it was going to work. And I felt that it was difficult to place cannabis dispensaries in a certain area, how far apart they had to be, where they could be, where they couldn't be. And so there was a lot of discussion over these type of things, and I think that, from my perspective, it is operating within the vicinity of a child care facility, and that's not a permitted use. So, that's my comment. Thank you. Counselor Bustamante, what say you? Anything else? I have nothing further to add. Thank you. I would offer that I was Chair of the Policy Subcommittee for the Planning Commission, and our job for that committee was to promulgate the legislation or the policy around where cannabis could be and where it could not be. And, definitely, it could not be that close to a school. And I know that because I helped write the the policy. So, I feel like the committee doesn't have any more questions. Closing statements from staff. No, I do not have any. Eight closing statements from business owner? Counselors, I would respectfully request that whatever orders are issued this evening, that they be confined to the cease and desist related to retail operations. The original zoning letter indicated that the location is for manufacturing only. Again, what I had submitted earlier in the request for continuance was that all retail and otherwise disputed operations would cease. And, you know, I would certainly welcome an order from the city that would that would cease those operations. But what I'm concerned about is that we go too far and beyond what's really at issue here, in a manner that that ceases this gentleman's ability to conduct business, in a manner that was suitable zoning. Alright. So once again, to the City Attorney, would you brief us on what we're voting on? I've directed the committee. We will not contemplate the fraudulent the issue around fraud. But would you just clarify for the committee what we are going to vote on and what the motion should look like? Yes, Chair Faulkner. So the committee will vote on whether to, and let me just make sure I have the language from the code, whether the business owner should be prevented from conducting any business in the building at the address 1228 Parkway. The city code is clear that a cease and desist order, in response to the attorney's statement just now, a cease and desist order requires the termination of all business at the location. It cannot be confined to just one subset of business happening at that location. So a motion would be to require the owner to cease the conducting of any business in the building at the address in your materials. Okay. So a quick question clarifying. So in regards to the retail sales versus the manufacturing portion, is manufacturing a permitted use within this amount of distance? Yes, Councilor Garcia, through the chair. My understanding is that the original zoning verification letter that was issued said that light manufacturing was permitted at this location. I do not know at this time the license that the business owner has, if that would permit light manufacturing if retail was revoked. But as I said, if the committee decides to issue a cease and desist order, it would require the termination of all business at the location. I think, hold on. We need to make a motion if we're going to ask any further questions. So I'm going to make a motion to approve the cease and desist order by the city, and then I'll make some comments afterwards. So, do we have a second? To approve cease and desist. Second. Okay. Before we vote, we can now go into more questions if the committee has any more questions. I don't have any more questions. I just, I know how hard it is to do business, and there's definitely a lot of rules around that. Whether or not documents are falsified or whatever, I get it. My recommendation is that you reapply for a business license under manufacturing and do not do any retail at this location. That's my recommendation. Thank you. Anything from you, Councilor Bustamante? Chair, I'm just going over the business license as included in the packet, under attachment E. It does state it is for light manufacturing. My concern, however, is that multiple times they have been approached by the city to stop retail services. So again, regardless of whatever may or may have been done to get that license, my concern is that the license was issued for light manufacturing and yet retail sales are still occurring. And I do not want to put us into a position where we could have prevented something. And so that is why I seconded the motion. Okay. I don't have any comments other than to explain my vote after we vote. Can we get a roll call, please? Certainly, Madam Chair. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Faulconer? Yes. That motion passes. Okay. I'd like to explain my vote. I think I agree with my fellow councilors. If the city had notified them that this was the case on July 15 and the order to cease and desist went in on July 30, we are almost a month of illegal sales at this location. And to me, that showed a will to disregard what the city had put into place to enforce what is law in the city of Santa Fe. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. Thank you, staff. Okay. Next item. There are no matters from staff this evening, Madam Chair. Alright. Matters from committee. I have just a couple matters that I want to share, and I will share this again when the full committee is here. But I've been working with legislative staff and the department director and deputy city manager on an initiative to start using the standing committees to vet legislation. And so I'm going to be working with the chairs of the other two standing committees to kind of figure out what the committees want to take as initiatives to vet specific pieces of legislation. Each committee kind of has a wheelhouse, and there might be some overlap in the committees for larger legislative initiatives, but that is something we're working on. So any member of the committee who wants to be involved, who would like to provide feedback, let me know what kind of legislation you would like the Finance Committee to take on as the lead for our council legislative initiatives. That's all I have. So I guess the next meeting is, what's the date? It is actually going to be Tuesday, September 8, 2026. We are off on Monday, the seventh. Okay. Thank you, everybody. You're adjourned. Thank you.