Quality of Life Committee Wed, May 20, 2026 · Quality of Life Committee https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/988 == Executive Summary == The Quality of Life Committee met to discuss several key issues, including the reclassification of Assistant Fire Chief positions, amendments to the Uniform Traffic Ordinance (UTO) regarding reckless and aggressive driving, and the allocation of traffic fines. The committee approved the reclassification of two Assistant Fire Chief positions to at-will employment, aiming to align with executive-level city standards and enhance operational flexibility for the Fire Chief. They also debated significant changes to the UTO, which would eliminate minimum penalties for reckless driving while raising minimum fines, and create new definitions and penalties for aggressive driving, including mandatory court appearances. A major point of discussion revolved around how fines collected from traffic violations, estimated at $124,000 annually, should be allocated. While some councilors advocated for these funds to go into the general fund for broader city needs, others strongly supported dedicating them to law enforcement and fire support services, emphasizing public safety as a priority and the need for stable funding for these departments. The committee also received updates on planning and land use initiatives, community services, and upcoming events, and passed an amendment to a public safety resolution to broaden the definition of "public safety" to include all road users. == Key Decisions == - Approved the reclassification of two Assistant Fire Chief positions from employment status to at-will employment. - Approved amendments to the Uniform Traffic Ordinance (UTO) to eliminate minimum penalties for reckless driving, raise minimum fines for reckless driving, and create new definitions and penalties for aggressive driving, prolonged tailing, unsafe sudden stops, and throwing items from a vehicle. - Passed an amendment to a public safety resolution to broaden the definition of "public safety" to include pedestrians, bicyclists, and "any other person using the roadway." == Motions & Votes == - Approval of Agenda — Passed by voice vote. - Approval of Consent Agenda (as amended) — Passed by voice vote. - Motion to approve the reclassification of Assistant Fire Chief positions — Passed (Councilor Fagali: Yes, Councilor Barrett: Yes, Councilor Chavez: Yes, Councilor Casset: Yes, Madam Chair: Yes). - Amendment to a public safety resolution — Passed (Councilor Fagali: Yes, Councilor Barrett: Yes, Councilor Casset: Yes, Madam Chair: No). == Public Comment == No public comments were made during the designated public comment period. == Topics == - Aggressive Driving Ordinance - Fire Department Employment Status - Employee Leave Policies - Public Safety Funding - Land Use & Development - Summer Youth Programs - Affordable Housing - Senior Services - Community Engagement == Full Transcript == Please just let me know when we are live. Mayor: Madam Chair, Councilor Castro, we are live. Wonderful. So at 5:01, I would like to call to order the Quality of Life Committee. If I could please have a roll call. Actually, yes, a roll call. Councilor Fagali: Here. Councilor Barrett: Here. Councilor Chavez: Here. Councilor Casset: Here. Madam Chair, you have a quorum. Wonderful. I'm so excited. We can do voice votes. Approval of the agenda. Anyone? Move to approve. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed. Motion passes. We have no, we have a few things pulled off the consent agenda today. Marcel, what do we have? We have item B, and that is a request for approval to reclassify two Assistant Fire Chief positions from employment status to at-will employment to align with executive-level city employment standards and enhance operational flexibility. And item D, this is a long one. Consideration of Bill Number 2026-9, adoption of Ordinance Number 2026-2BD, a bill amending Section 12-6-12.3 of Article 6 of the Uniform Traffic Ordinance (UTO) to eliminate minimum penalties for reckless driving and raising minimum penalties from $25 to $250 for first convictions and from $300 to $500 for second or subsequent convictions. Creating a new Subsection 12-6-12.4A of Article 6 of the UTO, Exhibit A to Chapter 24 SFCC 1987, to define, criminalize, and penalize aggressive driving, amending the UTO Schedule A traffic violation penalty fines. Aggressive driving fines, as well as all Schedule A penalties, except those to be dedicated to traffic calming, shall be split equally between the Law Enforcement Fund and the Fire Support Services Fund, and to require a mandatory court appearance for violations related to aggressive driving. Creating a new Subsection 12-6-12-2.5 of Article 6, engaging in prolonged, deliberate, and/or excessive tailing of another vehicle, and establishing a penalty in Santa Fe's UTO Schedule A traffic violation penalty assessment schedule for the same. Creating a new Subsection 12-6-12.26 of Article 6 of unsafe sudden stops and establishing a penalty in Santa Fe's UTO Schedule A traffic violation penalty assessment schedule for the same. Creating a new Subsection 12-6-12.27 of Article 6, throwing items outside of a vehicle at another vehicle or at a pedestrian, and establishing a penalty in Santa Fe's UTO Schedule A traffic violation penalty assessment schedule for the same. Nice work. Move to approve as amended for the consent agenda. All in favor? Aye. All opposed. That motion passes. So, we will go on to those items. I will go ahead and the first item was pulled by myself. We do have Assistant Chief Rizzo in the room. Do you want to give us a little presentation or go straight to questions? Straight to questions is fine. Madam Chair, it was also pulled by Councilor. And I'm so sorry, but we do have, it looks like we have some folks in the room for public comment. So, we're going to go ahead and do that first. It's on the agenda first. So, anybody in the room for public comment? No. Okay, then we will go ahead and go on to the, thank you. I just wanted to, I saw you walk in and wanted to give you the opportunity, questions right away. Yes, ma'am. I think so. Wonderful. Okay. So, I will start with mine. It's really quick and then I will pass it over to Councilor Casset. The reason I had a little bit of a question around this item is the at-will employment. Can you tell me about how it aligns with maybe other departments first and foremost? The police department has several people in this status, and it's their executive staff. It's a much larger one than the fire department, but we're, we're trying to do the same thing as the police department. So we're just trying to align the same sort of structures in those two departments. Wonderful. And the reason at-will versus exempt is a little bit scary to me is that means that letting go of certain folks might be a little bit easier. Is that the case? The at-will status, to my understanding, does mean that it is easier. Yes. Is there any concerns around these positions and why might we want to be a little more flexible in some of these hiring processes? Chief Aderkirk and I have discussed it. We're not concerned, but we feel that for people that are moving up in the fire department with the changes in time and service, it will have an effect on their decision to promote into executive-level positions. But I think that one of the points that it makes on the memo that we submitted with this request is that it allows the chief of the department to be able to choose his executive staff more effectively and to deal with any potential issues that he has with them. Great. Thank you so much. And I just want to check, do we have Chief Aderkirk online at all? Okay, no worries. I just wanted to offer Chief the opportunity to give any statements if he wanted to. Again, I don't have too many reservations. I know that we're aligning, but I do want to make sure that folks understand that potentially some of these jobs could be a little bit easier to terminate in the future. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Chief, for being here. A couple, so a couple questions that I did want to understand in terms of wanting the, the organizational equity you mentioned with PD. What are the advantages, both for you, you kind of mentioned with the, you know, Fire Chief that they have, you know, more flexibility in terms of appointing or letting go of somebody that they're not happy with in their executive. For the individuals who are serving in that role, what would be the advantages versus disadvantages for them? Thank you, ma'am, for the question. The primary advantage is the being able to roll over your annual leave every year. At this time, when Chief Aderkirk promoted into Assistant Chief, he lost like 700 hours of vacation. At the end of the year, we are able to accumulate, currently we're able to accumulate 80 hours of comp time maxed, and we just maxed that out super fast. So at this time, we kind of have a lot of the disadvantages and none of the advantages of being in that status. Wait, so I'm sorry. So wait, let me understand that again. So he wasn't, so Chief Aderkirk was in, he was in an AC position, and because he went to the Chief position, explain that to me again. The rollover of leave. When he went from a union position to an Assistant Chief. Okay. Okay. Okay. Let me correct that. He was a Battalion Chief before that, but when he went into Assistant Chief, it changed the amount of time he's able to roll over at the end of the calendar year, time off. Interesting. And he lost all of it. It just gets wiped away. So, in the exempt at-will status, we are able, there is no ceiling to how much annual leave we can roll over, and we're allowed to, we're eligible to sell it back at the end of our career. And is that unique to fire, or is this an issue citywide, or unique to fire and police, quote unquote? I believe it's the same issue with police. I'm not truly aware of how many other employees in the city are at-will and how that affects, but I do know that with the demands of our positions, the availability 24/7, the lack of time being able to really truly take time off, we're put in a position where we can use vacation to try and get rid of it before the end of the year and have it removed, but really we're, we're constantly working that whole time that we're off. And so we feel like we, being able to roll over that time is the big, the big benefit there. Okay. So, so an exempt who's staying an exempt, can they just roll over from year to year? Is it when you move from, I'm, I'm guess I'm trying to understand where the 700 hours were lost and how. The max amount of annual leave you can carry over to another calendar year is extremely low when you get out of the union and into management. Got it. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, it's a difference of what has been protected by the union and what is happening in management. And because there is that exempt status there, there's a, there's a cap there, and it's a different cap for at-will. There is no cap for at-will. Okay. Oh, yeah. I'd be really curious if this is something that's happening citywide, because this, this sounds frustrating. I don't know that there are other at-will positions. I think they're mostly exempt. Like when I was staff, it was exempt, and there was a cap, which I believe was 99 hours for comp time at least. Interesting. Director Lamboy has. Yes, thing, Councilor. The two Assistant Directors for Land Use, they are both at-will. Okay. And do you guys have the same challenge where when they're exempt, they cap, and at-will, no cap? I mean, it, I'm just like, do we have a larger system-wide issue that we need to be looking at? I don't think so. We don't accrue hours like the fire department. Yeah. Okay. It's typically not an issue. Okay. Okay. Interesting. All right. Well, thank you. I, I appreciate you walking me through that and, and understanding that. I'm also, so again, enhanced command staff flexibility, and appropriate, okay, well, let's go through the bullet points. You already said municipal internal equity, appropriate classification for executive roles. What do you mean by enhanced command staff flexibility other than, you know, it being easier, I think also to hire somebody or just easier to let go of somebody? I think it'll affect both. I think it'll have an effect on the people who are willing to promote to those positions, but definitely the latter part of your statement that it gives the Fire Chief more flexibility. Yeah. And I know with, with fire, I mean, that's, it is one of the, you know, one of the departments, the other one being PD, where we have these very clear ranks. Is there any challenge in who gets promoted out of, you know, I guess it'd be, it's Battalion Chief into AC, correct? Am I getting my ranks correct? So, is there any change that would happen with the decisions there, or does that pretty much remain the same? That would remain completely the same. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. I don't have any further questions. Anyone else on the committee have any questions, or Councilor Faulkner, do you have any questions? Wonderful. So, I will entertain a motion to approve. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed. I think we have aye, but we have to do a roll call for this guy. Let's do a roll call just in case, because we pulled it off consent. Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Councilor Casset. Yes. Madam Chair. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilors, committee members. Thank you. Next on our agenda is, I believe, something that we just need to move an amendment on. Oh, Pap pulled it as well. Yeah, Councilor Casset as well. It was only going to be an amendment, but now actually pulled. Okay, beautiful. Do we have a presentation, or we want to go straight into questions? Okay, we're just, I'm sorry. I'm trying to make some time as Chief. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we can move on to questions. Wonderful. Do we want to move the amendment, or do we want to go into questions first? Move the amendment. I, I move to approve Amendment A to the defining address of driving and establishing penalties. Would you like to make a motion to move the entire. Oh, sorry. Yes, I move to approve the bill. **Speaker 2:** Do we have a second? **Speaker 3:** Second. **Speaker 4:** Okay. Now, do we want to move that amendment? **Speaker 5:** We have to vote on that first. **Speaker 6:** No, we have to vote as amended. **Speaker 7:** I move to approve Amendment A, which is just adding four words. **Speaker 8:** Do we have a second? **Speaker 9:** I'll second. **Speaker 10:** Okay. And we can also have discussion before we vote. Do you want to do that? **Speaker 11:** Yes. I think Councilor Cassen had— **Speaker 12:** Oh, just on the amendment at this point. We can vote the amendment and then we can have— **Speaker 13:** Great. So, why don't we go ahead and do a roll call on that amendment, and then we'll still have a motion on the floor. Councilor Fagali? **Speaker 14:** Yes. **Speaker 15:** Councilor Barrett? **Speaker 16:** Yes. **Speaker 17:** Councilor Chavis? Councilor Casset? **Speaker 18:** Yes. **Speaker 19:** Madam Chair? **Speaker 20:** Yes. **Speaker 21:** Motion passes. **Speaker 22:** Wonderful. So, we do still have a motion on the floor, and we are now in discussion. Does anyone have questions? Councilor Cass? **Councilor Cass:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much, DC Valdez, for being here. I just was trying to parse in my brain the different categories. So we have the reckless driving, and then we have the aggressive driving. What I am gathering from reckless versus aggressive is that reckless essentially looks like dangerous behaviors while driving without necessarily a malicious intent or an intent to cause problems. Like they just may be—well, I mean, let's put it this way. So if somebody's being an absent-minded driver, for example, and you know, so if they have a mistake that way, how do you categorize reckless versus aggressive? And with you out in the field, as you're looking at somebody, how are you going to determine what you are supporting in terms of a reckless driving charge or an aggressive driving charge? **DC Valdez:** Madam Chair, Councilor Casset, so what you described sounds more like careless driving, which is someone just not giving their full time and attention to driving, which is still a major concern. But in contrast to reckless driving, reckless driving is driving with wanton disregard for the safety of others. And unfortunately, sometimes it could put a lot of people in harm's way and may cause injury. Now, with the aggressive driving, this addresses issues where people are road raging, is probably the best way to address it. They may be either posturing their vehicle at someone, they may be throwing items out of their vehicle at someone, engaging in lewd acts, and threatening people from a vehicle. Those things would be covered under aggressive driving, tailgating, or following too close. So, if we're looking at someone, I'll give an example. This morning, I didn't catch the driver's name, but we're putting banners up. Traffic was merging on St. Francis, and there were two drivers even in front of me just kind of going side by side, not wanting to let each other into the lane. So, that was a little bit of aggressive driving because they're kind of posturing. So, I had both of them stop, asked them both to be nice, merge, and just trying to get people to drive safely. Aside from that, it was a pretty great morning. But that would be aggressive driving where they're kind of posturing, not letting someone take the lane over, or if they're engaging in, you know, making threats or saying things like, "Hey, I'm going to strike your car," or hand gestures, things of that nature. In addition to that, a lot of the reckless traffic could be someone that is out there, you know, street racing and doing another thing where now it's a concern for safety, and it may be some other charges, too. And those will have steeper increases, penalties for those issues. One thing that we looked at in this bill is to ensure that they're convictions. It's not just you're stopped this one time if it gets dismissed. We would need a conviction through municipal court to be able to go for the second offense. The big thing with this is we want to provide education and a deterrence for people to not be engaged in that type of activity. That's at the heart of this bill. And I try to define it or summarize when I read the definitions in the bill. I think what it is is reckless is more the disregard of the laws in place that would promote safety, where aggressive driving is intent to be aggressive to the point of endangering people while conducting the action of operating a vehicle. It also goes to people who are choosing to use their vehicle or their driving methodology to inflict harm, like almost weaponizing the vehicle. **Councilor Cass:** So, in the case that you had just given today around kind of these two drivers that were posturing at each other, if this had been in place, would you have given them—would this be something that would have been an aggressive driving citation, or no, at this point? How would it have risen to that level at this point? I'm just trying to understand what this looks like in the context of out in the street. You know, if somebody flips you off, is that going to be an aggressive driving citation because that's not a very nice hand? **DC Valdez:** That's more of an expression of speech. **Councilor Cass:** Okay. And if it's just that alone, that is okay. But if it's in addition to swerving at someone and the other behavior traits that those will look at, those would be things we would look at like, "Hey, they did this or they stated this while swerving into someone." **DC Valdez:** With the two vehicles today, the way they were posturing, much like Councilor Faulner mentioned, if they're weaponizing the vehicle and making someone think that they're going to be struck, where the vehicles are going to be struck, that's going to be property damage. That would be aggressive driving. Would it rise to the level of a citation this morning? I know people were trying to get to work. I get it. That's the majority of our folks that are speeding and driving safely. They're trying to get to their destination. But in that case, I think it's a good education point that would at least allow me to pull them to the side, let them know that was not nice, to be nice. I think my corrective action this morning sent the message, and they were fine after that. But we're hoping that there's a behavior change. That's what's at the heart of this is so people don't have to be driving their families to school, to work, and have people threaten them with their vehicles, swerving into them, tailgating them, making them feel like they're going to be struck by another person's vehicle. **Councilor Cass:** Got it. Got it. Thank you. And then I noticed that it says that they're engaging in two or more of the following violations. Again, just looking at how you all would be addressing this in the real world, I mean, when I look at these, I can see a lot of them coming together, but if you see somebody that's exhibiting something, do the police start following? How do you get those two? How do you make sure that that criteria is met, or do you frequently just see these together anyway? **DC Valdez:** Usually, you see them happening together. **Councilor Cass:** Okay. **DC Valdez:** And in short time distance. Like it's very quick, and sometimes there are things if there's a traffic violation, we can address a traffic violation, then have a conversation about their aggressive driving. But if it's just aggressive driving, absent of a traffic violation, if let's say tailgating is the biggest thing that we have. If they're tailgating someone, they're laying on the horn, again, that would be considered aggressive driving at that. **Councilor Cass:** Got it. Okay. As opposed to somebody who's just—I mean, I have plenty of people who follow too close that— **DC Valdez:** Some people do because they have a—they don't understand the distance that's needed to react before they strike someone. But again, we're looking at the aggressive behavior and addressing that. **Councilor Cass:** Okay. And from what I'm hearing from you describing, there's a pretty—you can tell the difference. I mean, when you—it's kind of that, you know, you know it when you see it quote, right? **DC Valdez:** Yes. In addition to that, our in-car cameras will likely capture the violation, which we can use as evidence when we go to court. **Councilor Faulner:** One of the examples we used when we were creating the language was someone passes on the shoulder, cuts someone off, and runs through a red light. **Councilor Cass:** Yeah. No, I—and I like there's some of these that feel very obvious to me, but like obviously that one is extremely obvious, but there were a couple others like, "Oh, you passed on the right instead of the left." I'm like, "Oh, I've definitely done that on St. Francis before." And so, but you know, it was not done in an aggressive nature. So just understanding like how this operates with the, you know, some of these that could happen in a way that's not aggressive and how the police will be able to determine. And so just understanding that. Good. **DC Valdez:** That's a good question. The—I think the idea is that's why we have two or more. So yeah, someone could gently not meaning to pass on the to the right or whatever they're not supposed to do and then do one other thing that's a reckless or aggressive, and that totals up to aggressive. **Councilor Cass:** Right. And what I'm hearing from you, DCL, is that there's definitely a pattern of behavior in the way that the vehicle is operated that, and of course, you will have the dash cams that will help. And so, my other question, and this might be one for the sponsors, did you all think about including excessive speeding in here? I mean, besides because racing in my mind is like two cars racing. But, you know, we also see people that are just driving at extremely fast speeds. **DC Valdez:** So, one of the complications with this legislation is the state has jurisdiction over some of the speeding components of the legislation. So, the state doesn't allow you to go over $100 in some cases of speeding. So, anywhere where we could go over $100, we did, but where we did not was because the state controls that, we do not. **Councilor Cass:** Got it. I mean, and again, when you look at the list, chances are they'll be exhibiting these other behaviors as well. And then would you tack them on? Would you say you did aggressive driving as well as speeding? **DC Valdez:** So, the aggressive driving, if there's two of those violations, we will note what those violations are, but we would cite under aggressive driving. But in the case of racing on streets, one of the requirements, elements of those crimes, is two vehicles engaged in an exhibition of speed, or it could be a single vehicle engaged in exhibition of speed, and that could either rapid acceleration and high acceleration. So racing would apply in that case as well. **Councilor Cass:** Oh, wonderful. Okay, glad to hear. Thank you. That's really helpful from me understanding what this looks like. The last question I had had to do with the funding allocation. Is this—is this a new—obviously, this is a change in the allocation. What was the allocation before? Was it going just to one area? Was it not—I'm looking at the law enforcement fund and 50% to the fire support services fund. **DC Valdez:** So, all of our—to date, everything has been going into the general fund. **Councilor Cass:** Okay. **DC Valdez:** But what we did is in order not to impact the general fund by moving the money into these other two funds, the general fund will still receive 10% of any of the revenue brought in through this aggressive driving legislation, and then the rest, the 90%, will be split between these two funds. And these two funds lay outside of the general fund, which is really important to the sponsors because when money goes in the general fund, in most cases, it can be moved around by several people that are outside of the city council. And so what our intent was was to ensure that the revenue, the majority of it, went into police and fire. And where is the 10% going into the general fund? Because as I'm reading this, where was it? Because what I'm seeing is police and fire resiliency funds, and it reads, "Consistent with NMSA 1978 Section 35-15-12, all fees collected for violations of the City of Santa Fe's Uniform Traffic Ordinance Schedule A and for aggressive driving SFCC1 1987 Section 12-6-12.4A shall be allocated 50% to law enforcement fund and 50% to the fire support services, with the exception of fines collected for speeding, which are allocated to the traffic calming program." So, how I'm understanding this, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that not just aggressive driving but also anything that is in Schedule A of Exhibit A of Chapter 24. Oh, wait, no, is that where I just read? I just lost my place. DC, do you have? I actually think what happened is one iteration had 10% going to the general fund, and I think the last iteration had it just being split 50/50. Okay. So what I'm trying to understand is that all reckless fines would be going 50/50. Aggressive is something else. So I'm trying to understand which fines are going, and I'm sorry, I lost the paragraph, which would have been really helpful to read it. So, traffic calming is a fund that existed that none of us actually knew existed until we dove in and got into the legislation. So, could staff kind of dig into that a little bit about? Well, that's actually not what I'm. So, it says, "For all fees collected for violations of the City of Santa Fe's Uniform Traffic Ordinance Schedule A." So, what would that include? Because I saw that the speeding fines go into traffic calming, but I think that there are more things in the UTO Schedule A. That would be anything outside of what specifically is taken out of. Specifically would not be included in Schedule A. Where can I find Schedule A? The only ones I'm seeing are divided 50/50, except for that speeding. So I'm not sure. I'm looking at page 11, lines 19 through 25. Specifically, I'm looking at all fees, the 20 and 21. "All fees collected for violations of the City of Santa Fe's Uniform Traffic Ordinance, Schedule A, and for aggressive driving." So I'm trying to figure out what that includes. Look at the table, Jane. And is that Schedule A? Yes. Correct me if I'm wrong, staff, but that's my understanding that the table that's in the legislation is the Schedule A items. D. Common name offense. Oh, Christine's here. Hooray. Madam Chair, Councilor Cassid, I apologize, my computer isn't working, so I can't pull up the language. Schedule A should be attached to the end. So there are two schedules within the UTO. Schedule A, and I can't look. Oh, thank you. So Schedule A is like. Because I'm seeing things like, and I'm not, there's nothing attached at the end. I see. Oh, it's, oh, my apologies. So it's, it looks like page seven. Let's see where it starts. It starts on page six through page 11. And so this is all things like traffic violations. So like failing to stop or not using your blinker or turning left at an intersection, things like that. And then there's, Councilor, I'm going to go on to city code. Like unsafe median use, windshield. Is all of this included now, and these fines? So all these fines are now no longer going to the general fund but instead will be split between these two funds. Yes, Councilor. And how much money are we discussing? It's in the FIR, I believe. These are all estimates because it is up to the judge's discretion. So, sometimes they impose these fines, and sometimes the judge does not. It really is up to the judge's discretion. Let's see if I can get. In the FIR, it says 2025 totaled approximately $124,000. So, not a huge amount. It would be more with the increased fines, but hopefully not that much because we don't want people breaking the law. Okay. I will say, this is one of the areas where I get hesitant in assigning funds. I mean, just for example, there's been conversation around where are we going to find money to open up the libraries on Sunday? So, this is an example of more funds that might be restricted that might want to go to police and fire, or people may want to put it towards community services, towards some of the other work that we look at, when we take that comprehensive view of public safety. So that's my concern on assigning funds, is that it locks us in where this might be something that we're like, "Hey, right now we need more funding for it." And great, we have that decision, and we can make that choice. But it doesn't allow us to mix and mingle. And I know $124,000 doesn't sound like much, but I believe we're looking for what, $200,000 to get a library open on Sunday. And so that's, I have a concern with the complete dedication of dollars and not having flexibility. I prefer to where we can move those around as needed. So I would prefer to still put it back into the general fund. I obviously don't have an amendment today, but I think I will be bringing that amendment because I do, and I understand, we want to support, but I also like, some days we, some years we really want it here, and some years we want it elsewhere. Chair: Can I say something? Councilor Travis: I will say, I get Councilor Cassid's concern, but I would be more so concerned if it wasn't a priority of the city, which is public safety. I'd also be more concerned if we've actually purchased things we've promised to purchase for these two departments, which we haven't done, right? I know fire is in great need of, like what we've been talking about, a new firehouse for how long? A while. There's a lot of things that we've been talking about for a long time. There's equipment that's needed. There's things like these are two underfunded departments based on how quickly the need is growing. So that fact, alongside with the fact that public safety is a priority for the city, we all sat around a table and put that on a piece of paper. I think that growing a fund around public safety could never be a bad idea. And I think the fact that there is a fund to grow is actually really great and strategic in meeting some of the needs that have been ignored around public safety, or just we haven't got to. I shouldn't say ignored. We haven't got to. Even though some of them might feel like it's been ignored. Got to is smart. So I think, yes, it would be a concern if those two things weren't facts that exist. But I think that this fund is absolutely needed around public safety right now to make some progress with purchases that I think will support the team that works hard to keep us safe. Because I've heard a long list of things that have been waited for that we haven't gone to, and here's an avenue to possibly get that. Yeah, I can respect that. I mean, and yeah, I believe that that is absolutely true. And yes, we do have public safety as a priority this year. But we don't know what the priority is going to be of the governing bodies in four years or five years. And there's also nothing saying that we can't use these funds for those things. So, I mean, for the fact of the matter that we probably need more funds for all of the things that we want. And I mean, I think that you're getting to, in my opinion, some of our larger issues that we talked a bit during budget hearings around this concept of, you know, this capital planning piece and this component of every single department. First of all, every single department's pretty much underfunded at this juncture. And that's where I guess my concern becomes, is that this, you know, for the next one, two, three years, we may be like, "Hey, this is really, you know, we're going to focus on getting some of these resources and putting some of these things up." But there might be something else that shifts later. And so then it takes, it's a, I feel like it's a lot more challenging to unassign funds than to assign them. Because then it feels like, you know, it's like all of a sudden this money is not going to be there. And so that's, that's where my concern becomes, is that this sounds really good right now, but we don't know what is going to be the necessities in five years, 10 years, as things change. And yes, I understand that things can shift, but we do have the ability and we have the discretion every single year to allocate dollars as we see fit. Well, we're still working on that process. That's, it's one of our challenges with balance of powers. So, so I, yeah, I mean, I agree that that's definitely a priority this year. We voted on it, and this governing body did, but I, you know, I don't know what's going to happen in the future. I would say if there's a priority that doesn't change, I hope it's public safety for the sake of Santa Fe, though. Because like, we were just talking about our vacancies and the great job you've done, DC Valdez, but like, the need has outgrown. So like, what do we do now? Like, it's just, we're in a place where I don't know how much we're going to shift from that having to be a priority anytime soon. But yes, I understand what you're saying, but I think if there is a place that we could say there will be a sustainable need, a long-term need for additional funding, it would be around public safety. And Councilor Faulkner, you had some statement. Also offered that one of the things that hit the city hard during COVID is that our first responders, like police and fire, were funded mostly from the gross receipts tax. And so when that dropped, we had, we had to drop our force down. And so one of the logics we used in coming up with this idea of two funds that are particular and exclusively for police and fire is that if we don't start getting our critical departments self-funded in some capacity, if we hit a space where we have an economic crisis, for example, and people can't travel. We're facing some of that right now. These funds allow us to put money aside for police and fire that is not GRT driven, that then is a more reliable fund of money. It's a little more consistent. Thank you so much, Councilor Gotley. A question for, sorry, I'm not sure your title these days, but DC Valdez. So, speaking of funding, if this money is going to the police department, does that mean you'll be enforcing this more because that would, I think, increase some public safety? Would that have any impact? Madam Chair, Councilor Fagali. So, now that we have more staff that is available to help out with some of the challenges that our community has faced over the last, you know, six, eight years, especially coming out of the pandemic, we're going to be identifying ways to have a strategy to address aggressive driving. That is at the top of our list. We just did some training for our traffic officers so we can continue to train motor officers to be out there on motorcycles. We just got our bicycle officers up and running so we can put up bike officers on the plaza and on bike trails in our community. So I would say with the additional staff, there is a high likelihood that there will be additional enforcement and education because by virtue of having more resources, we can address those issues. The other byproduct of that is going to be, hopefully, a reduction in crime overall. That's what we're trying to do, and when you're consistent and deliberate in doing these types of things, we've seen that there's been changes in behavior. So that's what we're trying to do to get to the heart of it. Ideally, I would just love for everyone just to drive nice and drive safe. That's a utopian thought, but I'm a dreamer. I think that's great. But unfortunately, we're going to have people that will run afoul of the law and they'll have to be addressed. Councilor: Last thing, if police and fire do not have to dip into the general fund because these funds are giving them what they need, then there's more money in the general fund for things like community service, libraries, all those things because police and fire will be getting what they need. So, they won't need to go to the general fund as much for what they need. Well, thank you so much. Councilor Barrett, I just want to offer you the floor. Okay. I do want to just address a couple things and I want to hear a little bit about the amendment. Talking about public safety, I want to add a little bit of nuance in terms of what we discussed in that study session is public safety. And as much as fire and police were a big part of the conversation, I think we were also talking about other parts of the community and how we keep folks safe, in particular around our high pedestrian fatality rates, which is why this amendment came through. I do believe that public safety is going to continue to be a concern. Now, how we come at it, I think we have different opinions and we want to invest in different ways, which is why I'm also very hesitant. I will just anecdotally say that I found the money for the libraries, but it is in a fund that is specifically for the police department. So, we cannot move those funds, which means that we have to dip into a slush fund, which we were hoping was going to be for the future and for us to potentially keep up some of our crumbling infrastructure, right? So, we are making difficult decisions based on what our priorities are. And though we did hear from DC Valdez that we are at 2008 levels, it really is difficult for us. We decided we were going to move forward with data-driven decisions and we don't have a lot of good data right now, to be completely honest. And so we are moving through what we can work with, in particular when we're talking about things like ShotSpotter, and we don't have a lot of homicides, right? Volume-wise, it's difficult. We are in a city that has 95,000 residents, but potentially is looking at 200,000 people here during the day, right? We are supplementing other municipalities and other agencies. So I understand the need in the department. There is need all over the city for funding, which is why I am hesitant to vote for anything that is so specific. I would have loved to see the 10% go into the GRT, even if it was just a little bit to sort of help us. I do think it's a problem that the city is relying on GRT completely, which is why many of us are looking into other sources of income, other taxes, other fees, other ways that we can bolster our financial situation. But I've gone on my rant far too long. I do want to hear a little bit about this amendment from the sponsors and why you decided to put this amendment in this resolution. Chair: So this amendment was brought to me actually from members of BPAC, from our policy subcommittee, who read through this and noticed that there was a discrepancy in the section where the amendment is and the other section that basically mirrors it, and that it was just left like this one was more vague and only said pedestrian or vehicle, and the other one said vehicle, pedestrian, and bicyclist or any other person using the roadway. Which, you know, could be, I don't know what that would be, but who anyone else, if you're on a scooter, if you're on a horse, if you're on, you know. Well, and the reason I asked, sorry to interrupt, Councilor, is that I've heard from folks, for example, that sell newspapers, of folks throwing trash at them and being aggressive. Would this protect folks in that situation? Yes, Madam Chair, it would because that would be throwing something outside of a vehicle at someone. It would be covered under the aggressive driving. Thank you so much, DC Valdez. Councilor Vagner, do you have anything to add? Any other discussions? We do have a motion on the floor, which is an amended motion. Can we please have a roll call? Marcel. Councilor Fagali: Yes. Councilor Barrett: Yes. Councilor Chavis: Councilor Casset. Yes. Madam Chair: No. Motion passes. And I am so sorry, I don't have my agenda in front of me. Christine, can I borrow that? Thank you, Councilor Faulner, for joining us. You are welcome anytime. Next, we have no presentations and we have no discussion. We have no executive session matters from staff. Thank you, Chair Castro. I would just like to provide sort of an update on what's going on in planning and land use. We've been able to reclassify a couple of positions to respond to the needs of the affordable housing division specifically. And so, we've made great progress on that and I'm really enjoying the collaboration with affordable housing and supporting each other. We went to a builder summit this past Friday and we had a representative of affordable housing with us so that we could discuss some or learn about some of the momentum regarding housing and how that's going to impact affordable housing. There was no discussion about the legislative framework at the federal and state level, not as much as I wanted, but we'll learn more about that in the future. So, and with reference to an update on the presentation that we made to the entire governing body regarding the development manual, we mentioned at that time that the survey for the public at large was open for getting feedback regarding the development review process and how to help us produce the development manual. I have some more detailed information, but I just wanted to give you a high-level takeaway from the 204 surveys that we got. So, we got a lot of participation from professionals, from homeowners, and then from community members at large. And professionals want checklists, code interpretation examples, timelines, general timelines at least, and an efficient movement through the system. Homeowners need clear, plain language and a more accessible explanation of the process as a whole, sort of the big picture. And then community members want to understand the process requirements, how decisions are made to inform their comments on applications. Sometimes we use too much jargon, and so that's a lesson learned is remember to use plain person speak or layperson speak. So, some of these lessons are can be immediate. We're also rolling out our templates. So I've dealt with a lot of out-of-state consultants that really don't know what we expect. Our jurisdiction expects on a development plan, a subdivision plan. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. So we've created AutoCAD templates for our civil plans as well as for a development plan, subdivision plan. We're going to be completing those for a commercial building permit as well as a residential building permit just to help people through the process. And we certainly know that those people who aren't professionals that have the honey-do projects that they need to do, we can make it convertible so that they can just do their own drawing and not necessarily have to have AutoCAD to be able to produce the plans. But at least it will have all of the notes. And then the way the plans are structured, it'll sort of give them a reminder, oh, we need this information, we need that information in terms of the graphics and the details that are expected. So, we're also working with the roofing contractors on several things relative to standard details. We've heard some feedback from them regarding some misunderstandings based on different products and how things should be, you know, attached to the parapet and the like. So, we're working with them on getting those standard details just to make inspections better. And then finally, wildland urban interface. We've had a lot of great engagement with the fire department as well as Headwaters Economics. Headwaters made a presentation to the planning commission and we're going to be wrapping that into our Phase 1 2A of the land development code update. We have two workshops on Phase 2A of the land development code update scheduled. So, we'll be meeting with the planning commission tomorrow at 6:00 PM here in these council chambers to do a workshop and sort of envision and prioritize what is going to be done in the initial portion of the land development code update. We're going to be doing regular adoptions in order to really help with the review process and then just also once we get consensus on an issue, we want it to be implemented right away. And then we also have a workshop at 3:30 PM. Times change to 3:30 PM with the Historic Districts Review Board and that will be held in the Councilor's conference room, I believe. And you all are welcome to attend. Thank you so much, Director. Director Emry. Thank you, Chair Castro. I have much different information to share. A few things coming out of community services. First and foremost, this week in particular is extra hard on parents as we end the school year or are getting close to ending the school year. So I just want to share, deep breath, we're going to make it. I just wanted to share a couple of things. Our city summer programs are starting June 1st. They are all fully booked, but there are waitlists available. The Santa Fe Teen Center will be open regular hours in the summer. That is free drop-in for youth 12 to 18. You just have to register with the city. And this is really loud, I'm sorry. Also, if parents or caregivers, adults, grown-ups are looking for activities for their kids, the Community Educators Network Santa Fe has a very comprehensive list of activities for kids this summer. And then last, our library summer reading program kicks off June 1st. That's an online kickoff. You can register if you go to the library webpage. It'll take you right there. Just, you know, understanding that summer is really hard for the grown-ups who have young people in their lives. So I just wanted to mention that for everyone. Really great news out of Youth and Family Services. Our Connect Network has its first tribal partner officially, Nambbe PBLO. So excellent work happening with Connect. Our Senior Services Division is just always has amazing things happening for our seniors. The Older Americans Dance that happened on May 14th had 84 seniors in attendance. Our seniors are going to the zoo tomorrow. And next Friday there will be a talent show at the Meg from 1:00 to 3:00. So, you know, as we're looking for fun things to do in the cool air, those are some things going on. And then finally, our libraries. Like I said, the summer reading programs are kicking off, but the strategic planning sessions are ongoing. I think there maybe isn't one more this week. So, if the community hasn't had the opportunity to attend, please do so. The libraries do take all of the information from the public and they've made many dates available. So, please do attend if you want to hear more about what's happening there. Wonderful. Thank you so much, Director. Do you have anything for us? Wonderful. We're on to matters from the committee. I will start at Councilor Forgaly and just go down in case anyone has anything. I don't have a whole lot, but I'm very excited about the summer reading challenge. I feel like I'm going to win this year. I'm going to get that bingo card. But yeah, that's all. Oh, very important. Friday and Saturday at Railyard Park from 10 to 2 or 3 is Graze Days. So, the goats and the sheep will be there. Thank you. Councilor Barrett. Well, I was just going to say that it's Petakucha night at the Lensic tonight from 6:00 to 8:00. And I know if anybody's interested in going, May has two extra tickets. So, if you want to zoom on over here, if you don't have to go home and pick up your kids and make dinner, you could zoom on over there because those are always very impressive. And I just want to shout out the summer program. I'm excited. My daughter's enrolled, it'll be the first time she's going, but I would love to expand that program because we know there's a big waiting list and there's a big need. So, next year, thinking about expanding the summer program. So, that's all from me. Councilor Thomas, Councilor Kiss. I also am excited for the summer program. I got my son and stepson enrolled. So, we are looking forward to it. So, thank you all. Thank you all for the work. Sure. Wonderful. Thank you so much. And I have, I'm overcaffeinated, so I'm going to stop talking. I think we are adjourned until June 3rd, 2006. Thank you so very much. 2026. Did I say 2006? I'm telling you, too much coffee today.