Work Session Meeting December 9, 2024

MINUTES

Work Session

Monday, December 9, 2024 @ 1:00 PM

City Council Chambers, City Hall

PRESENT: Councilor Johana Bencomo, Councilor Yvonne Flores, Councilor Becki Graham, Councilor

Becky Corran, Mayor Eric Enriquez, and Councilor Cassie McClure

ABSENT: Councilor William Mattiace

1. JOBS OF THE WEEK 1.1 Sarah Raney, New Mexico Workforce Connection presented Jobs of the Week.

2. PETS OF THE WEEK 2.1 Carol Nielson, Animal Services Center of the Mesilla Valley presented Jobs of the

Week.

3. AGENDA ITEM 3.1 REALIZE LAS CRUCES PHASES 3: FINAL REVIEW AND REFINEMENT

PROGRESS Sara Gonzales, Economic Development Project Manager introduced the topic.

Dawn Warrick, Freese & Nichols gave the overhead presentation.

Sara Gonzales continued the overhead presentation.

Dawn Warrick continued the presentation.

Judy Berryman, Member of the Public said I am the current Chair of the Historic

Preservation Commission. I will share my 10 minutes with other members of the commission that may want to make an additional change. As Chair it is important to

recognize the work that has gone into the current draft of Realize Las Cruces, particularly the changes made to Chapter 2, which is now Chapter 35. In terms of historic preservation in many cases Chapter 5 is a stronger document. Items such as historic resources don’t need to be in a district to be protected. The city is now liable for demolishing historic structures without due process and the topic of deconstruction has been added. The revised document also reflects the need to add two additional existing historic districts into the Legacy Zoning. As noted in Realize Las Cruces historic preservation is an important component within the document. Much of the material found in Chapter 35 which is now originated from Chapter 40, the value of this document is clearly demonstrated with a transfer of the definitions, duties, procedures into Realize Las Cruces. However, work still needs to be done to reflect the original intent of the historic preservation ordinance. These two changes to the draft that are critical to operationalize the intent of Realize Las Cruces and securing the place for historic preservation in the future of our city. To meet these goals stated in Section 2-1 and I am asking the following two changes to be made. One, that HPC be retained as a commission not a committee and two the position of Historic

Preservation Specialist be spelled out and be reinserted within the document. So, the retention of the term Historic Preservation Commission or Committee, why is that important? We have been told that we need to align the term commission or committee with the Muni City Code of Ordinance, and I want to go through that very briefly. So, the Municode city ordinance Article IV Division 3, Subdivision 16, was adopted February 5th, Division 3 defines nonstandard boards, Section 16 title is

Historic Preservation Committee. Now if we assume this is an error then it is an error, but it is sort of immaterial at the moment. The further Sections 576 use the terms commissions throughout the document. However, within the Municode, if you go into the supplemental history, it clearly states that Council Bill 20-011; Ordinance 2903. It states to add a new nonstandard board, the Historic Preservation Commission. This change was adopted in December 2, 2019 by both Planning and Zoning and by the city council by unanimous decision. So, what does this mean? The discussion of committee versus commission is really immaterial unless the council is planning on changing Municode the administrative code it stands as HPC is a commission. I am not going to go into the duties of the commission because I believe we all agree as to what that is. I would also like to point out that the City of Las Cruces has become the tenth city of New Mexico to gain CLG status. In brief CLG is an acronym for Certified

Local Government is a unit of local government that has been certified to become a participating partner in national historic preservations. To be eligible to apply community must make historic preservation ordinance which the city has into it clearly states establish a local preservation commission, which it has. To close this argument there really is no basis for us to be discussing committee or commission. HPC is a commission. The second item which we would like is to reinsert the term Historic

Preservation Specialist in the current Realize Las Cruces. The term Historic

Preservation Specialist has been replaced with the term Community Director or a designee appointed by the Community Director. I would suggest the wording be changed to if we cannot use the word Historic Preservation Specialist, I would change it to say the Community Director, a designee or a consultant that meets both state and federal guidelines so that would meet the needs of the CLG and that would meet the needs of what is established under the Municode. The Historic Specialist must meet qualifications under state and national preservation laws. The position of HPC is not a generalist that can be appointed as needed. It requires one with specialized training

and experience. If this position is important enough to be hired and filled it should clearly be listed in the glossary and within the document outlining job responsibilities.

So, in conclusion at this time, we are requesting two items. Reinstate the term commission in Realize Las Cruces, two reinstate the position of Historic Preservation

Specialist rather than a general appointee. I would also suggest that the definitions referring to historic preservation that are currently in the glossary be put back into

Chapter 35 so that it makes the document easier to read.

Dr. Jerry Wallace, Member of the Public said I am the Director of the Public History

Program at NMSU. I really appreciate all the comments that Dr. Berryman just stated about the future of historic preservation and that is what I would like a couple of minutes to kind of talk about. The two things that sort of outline my brief talk here is thinking about collaboration and stakeholders in the future of historic preservation in the city of Las Cruces. We are the second largest city in the state, and I would just like to see moving forward the ability to expand our historic preservation portfolio. We have a number of communities within our city that are worthy of nomination. This year alone the Bellamah Districts, both the original is 72 years old and then the Loma

Heights is 64 years old. Those alone could add to our historic preservation portfolio.

One thing that I would love to do is collaborate with the city. I don’t think we talk about collaboration enough and I feel that one way that we could collaborate with the city both the Historic Preservation Commission but also where we can get a lot of community buy in in our city would be to create a Historic Preservation Plan and the plan I think would be something that would have a five year plan that would have 1 and 3 year markers in which we could have this sort of common ground between the city, a lot of different community members whether they are neighborhoods or districts in addition to that with the Historic Preservation Commission. I think that community plan or that Historic Preservation Plan could really build a strong relationship and a future for historic preservation within our city. I would love to see within 10 to 15 years us get up to the status of Albuquerque. I am always very envious when I go up there. I go up there several times a month to do research and I am just so jealous of how well organized they are with historic preservation, and I think that we could easily do that if we had a Historic Preservation Plan.

Faith Hutson, Member of the Public said I also want to echo what Dr. Berryman has said. I want to speak about the HPC remaining a commission. It is not a power trip, it’s not ego, it is about following the letter of the law. Ordinance 2903, Sections 2-582 to

587, which was adopted on December 2, 2019, added a new nonstandard board,

Historic Preservation Commission. Ordinance 2938, Council Bill No. 1-005, adopted

August 17, 2020, as amended transferred the duties of South Mesquite Design

Review Board to Historic Preservation Commission. Under the current version of the

Municipal Code, which is October 14, 2024, of what is posted on the website. It is also in the hyperlink that is posted in Chapter 2 of Realize Las Cruces. Only in the title is

HPC is it referred to as a committee in the rest of the ordinance the word used is commission. So having said that the language clearly states that HPC is a commission and unless council will be voting to amend the administration portion of the chapter in the language of Realize Las Cruces they must follow the current ordinance and the HPC must remain a commission.

Dr. Paul Deason, Member of the Public said simply as a Certified Local Government

with a commission and a Historic Preservation Specialist there is a great deal of money available for historic preservation, cultural preservation from the federal and the state.

John Moscato, Member of the Pubic said I am here because the Homebuilders Group asked me to speak about a couple of items. Fortunately, there are not very many items that which we have problems at all with the document. We look forward to council’s adoption early next year but there are a couple I would like to speak about and there might be members that want to mention one or two more. The first item is simply a process item. As Sara mentioned the set up in Realize is that there is a use designation which is zoning and a character designation whether it is either rural, suburban or urban. Our understanding is either to amend or to change zoning and character it would require a two-step process. You would have to go through a zoning application and then because of the character change you would need to amend

Elevate Las Cruces because of the place type established there. What we would recommend is that somehow the document established a single step process so that staff’s time, council’s time, and developer time would not be taken up with a lengthier two step process. Mostly I would like to talk about Section 5.5, which is parks. Couple of items before I get to the main event. In 5-5C there is a calculation for how to come up with the amount of park land to be dedicated. We really don’t have a problem with that calculation because when you run the calculation if you had say a 100 lot development you would need park land needing to be dedicated that is less than ¾ of an acre. You would have to get up to at least a little over four hundred lots to require the three-acre dedication. However, later in the document there is reference to a three-acre minimum. What that is going to do is actually decrease the number of parks being developed in this city and there is a very simple reason for that because if you had say 20 acres that you are developing and you have a three acre minimum you are going to be required to dedicate 15% of your total land mass for a park. Well no developer is going to want to do that. The net result is they are going to do the fee in lieu which means the city will get funding, but it won’t get parks. So, there would be fewer parks not more parks so why not just stick with the calculation in 5.5C which establishes the calculation for park area dedication. Why include on top of that a three-acre minimum that would actually decrease the number of parks being developed in the city. Another somewhat procedural issue that is mentioned that the dedication would be required to take place before recording of the plat before the city signs the plat for the plat to be recorded. Well, the plat recording is how the dedication takes place so to say that the dedication has to take place before the city signs the plat which would lead to the recording means that you’re really putting the cart before the horse. You need to have the plat recorded for the dedication to take place, but the bigger issue is really what we don’t know and what we don’t know is what the total impact of the exclusion of reimbursing to the developer for the cost of parks what that will do to the overall cost of housing. The reason why Planning and Zoning

Commission recommended that the Section 5-5 be paused until after establishment of the new Park Impact Fee is just because we don’t know what the impact is going to be. The last time the Parks and Recreation Department’s consultant recommended an increase in Park Impact Fees, a little over five years ago it was a doubling of the Park

Impact Fee. If that happens again and if council would adopt that increase that’s going to be over a $5,000 increase in the Park Impact Fee on top of that the developers cost of construction would be passed on to the home builder which would be passed on to

the home buyer which would result in another $2,000 to $3,000 charge to the home buyer. So, the home buyer would be paying through that charge to the home builder that would be paying over $5,000 Park Impact Fee. They would be paying over $2,000 or $3,000 in the cost of construction of the park that is no longer being reimbursed. So, you are looking at a total of $7,000 or $8,000. If you had a smaller townhome, say $150,000 to $180,000 townhome that is going to result in a 5% to 6% increase in the price of those homes and those are the lowest priced homes for both of the populations who couldn’t afford a more expensive home. So why is that being done now in advance of the Park Impact Fee being set, I can’t really answer that other than to think that maybe it is easier to push this through now not knowing what the impact is. I would recommend to you that you really should know what the total impact fee is going to be on the cost of housing which you don’t know, I don’t know, nobody knows because the Park Impact Fee hasn’t been set for next year yet. I also wonder why all of a sudden there is a need for this extra funding where the developers are no longer being reimbursed for the cost of parks. For the last 10 to 12 years the company

I have been associated with has built and given to the city of about 15 parks. Probably more than the city has ever seen developed in that length of time. During that time the

Park Impact Fee total available collected in the fund has gone from 2019 to now from $4 million to over $7 million. So, if there is that much money consistently in the Park

Impact Fee in the fund be spent why all of a sudden, well we are told that there is a need because we need that funding for community and regional parks. But I think all of us know that community and regional parks have never been funded through Park

Impact Fees. There is never going to be enough Park Impact Fee money just from unless you raise it from $10,000 to $20,000 per lot which I don’t think you would want to do. There is never going to be that much money. There are other sources of funding for community and regional parks. To put it on the burden on home buyers and that is really where the burden is, is not really on the developer, it’s not on the builder, it’s on the homebuyer to put that burden on the home buyer for community and regional parks which are citywide amenities and place that specifically as a burden on these new residents in neighborhoods doesn’t seem to me to be a fair way to approach it. Especially when you look at the overall impact which we don’t know what it is going to be but it could be $7,000, it could be $8,000 nobody knows so why not put a pause on the adoption, just of 5-5. Sara mentioned there is going to be an 8- month review. By the time that 8-month review comes around you will have set the new Park Impact Fee, you know what the impact will be. I don’t think there is any detrimental harm to the city in waiting another 8 months especially since the system that has been in place for the last 10 to 15 years has worked very well anyway so why rush into it. Why not take your time, come at it with eyes wide open later next year and just deal with 5-5 at that point.

McKenzie, Member of the Public said I am here to speak about the RV Parking Code that a full-size RV parked over one ton parking in the front yard on the property not the street but on the property. So right now RV parking is allowed but when we are trying to partially use it for business, for example set up what I did partially set it up in the Farmer’s Market as a display even though it is only 3% of the time that I am using it and 97% of the time I am still using it as a regular RV and then I cannot use it. I would have to move it to a commercial parking lot. That is what I am facing right now.

So that is how it can be interpreted, and I just think that is something that needs to be changed because New Mexico State has changed the Cottage Food Act for small

business to have a better business environment to succeed. Normally when people are trying to start up you would just be using part of it. For example in the same part of the code it says there is 25% for home occupation business, you can use 25% of the house which it doesn’t address on that part of vehicle over one ton parking on the property so the proportionality doctrine says the purpose of a regulation must aim to achieve legitimate public interest, necessity, the regulations should impose more restriction than necessary to achieve its purpose. The balance and regulation benefits must outweigh the burden if imposed on individuals which right now this is kind of a burden on us when trying to start a small business with is just only three persons which is insane.

Jo Ruprecht, Member of the Public said I am a long-term resident. I want to speak just very quickly about some of the history of historic preservation efforts in Las Cruces and this is why I think you have heard a number of us making various pointed arguments and deeply felt arguments to keep historic preservation as a commission and historically because it originates out of an Ad Hoc committee that worked for years to get to the point of getting something approved or put forward for city council and to get to a point where you actually have a commission and to go backward now to a committee is a slap in the face and it disregards a lot of the work that has gone into getting this point. The other thing is that I don’t, and I think some of you are aware that the commission has been laboring under a number of difficulties is these start up years. This is a commission that has only been up and running for about four years and it has been on unchartered territory and it has gotten very mixed messages at times from city staff some of who are no longer with the city about what the commission can do, what the commissioners can do, what the purpose is and the current Chair Judy Berryman and the current commissioners, I’ve seen them get this sorted out and they deserve to be able to keep that status. Maybe what you could do is put in a review clause so that the status of this committee question rather than commission is reviewed after a certain number of years. I think for almost anybody that you could talk to on the street commission is seen as a more permanent body with a stronger standing and with a quasi-legal status that you have to pay attention to what the recommendations are.

Lisa Parrot, Member of the Public said I am a resident of District 6, and I have in my hand a duly recorded Warranty Deed, Joint Tenants dated October 30, 1997, proving that Dan and I own our residence. This deed incorporated in reference protective covenants filed September 11, 1989 by the owners what is known today as High

Range which I also have. These protective covenants which are “binding upon the respective grantees, their successors, and assigns” state in part. “The purpose of these covenants is to ensure the use of the property for attractive residents for purposes only to prevent nuisances, to secure each site owner the full benefit and enjoyment of his property.” “All lots described above are hereby declared to be residential lots and no lot shall be used for other than residential purposes. There shall not be allowed on any lot any structure which allows more than one family to reside therein.” “No building shall exceed two stories in height.” “No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon on any lot nor shall anything be done therein which may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood.” Will all due respect it is my opinion that while as elected officials of we the people we do have the authority establish codes and ordinances which affect our

real property, you cannot however create and/or pass any code or ordinance that has the power to supersede, or usurp the protected covenants that were filed for the purposes of protecting our property. For purposes of discussion only if the council did have the authority to totally disregard the residents’ protective covenants and proceed.

George Pearson, Member of the Public said I am Vice President of VeloCruces, the bicyclist and pedestrian advocacy organization. I am here to ask that bicycle parking be required for certain existing properties and not just for new property. People won’t use bicycles if there isn’t a secure location to lock their bicycles at their destinations.

Commuter bicyclists would stop at stores on their way home. Some bicyclists have no other way of transportation choice, so this is an equity issue. Why is this direction from city council reflected an ordinance needed? We can speak to local business owners and often convince them to install bike parking. However, when we speak to corporate businesses the response is that is decided by corporate, and I can’t do anything. Council can step in and tell the Walmart and Albertson that don’t have bike parking to add bike parking. You have shown that you can tell the corporations what to do with your shopping cart ordinance for example. The consultants presented a slide to P&Z that would require specific requirements for big box style properties. This is the type of requirement, so it doesn’t have to apply to every business but to the ones that are really needed. Adding bike parking needs to be one of those requirements. I have eight pages of signatures on a petition asking for bike parking.

Please include bike parking requirement in the final adoption in Realize Las Cruces which would fit under the 5-2. N.5.ai and another letter to require for existing properties of certain size and I would like to submit the petition to the clerk.

Jim Wilcox, Member of the Public said I am part of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory

Committee, but I am not speaking on that behalf, I am the bicycle representative. I want to expand on what Mr. Pearson just said pointing out that many people do not have access to cars because they are too expensive for their budget or because they have lost their license or because they have a mental condition, and it precludes them from being able to get a license. So, this is an equity issue for people who want to that have to use a bicycle don’t have adequate parking and if that bike is stolen that is their only means of transportation they are out of luck. Now you might think I can understand that. That is certainly important but consider this when I park my car and yes, I do drive a car, and I use a bike but when I park my car in parking lot and go to say Albertsons and I go inside when I buy something the cost of that parking lot is included in the cost of the food. Those parking lots aren’t free. They pay taxes on them. They have to maintain them. So, when I go in and use my car, I am paying a little bit to maintain that parking lot but somebody riding their bike, who has to ride their bike goes in, pays for a product, pays for part of that parking lot and gets nothing in return. That is just not an equity issue, that is not fair and so we need to require these vendors and businesses, start out with the ones like supermarkets where a lot of people are going and we expect over a certain amount of time, we have time to maybe save up maybe $1,000 to install bike parking or give them a year or two but require it. Require it for equity and require it for fairness.

Donald Wilson, Member of the Public said I am the current President of VeloCruces and I just want to reiterate our request for the city council to consider the adoption of

bike parking requirements in the Realize Las Cruces upgrade. I have lived in this city since I was four years old. Ridden a bicycle since I could go to elementary school and then middle school and Jr. High, that is what it was called back then, in High School, the university, and I ride a bicycle now often and I run into this problem that they have talked about. Which I get to a business and there is no place for me to lock up my bicycle. I go to my bank, I have to lock it at a flagpole that is out in the parking lot. So,

I would just like this to be something city council considers. This is the time to do it as you upgrade the Realize Las Cruces. The equity issues that Jim talked about are real.

I work with the community bike shop, and we have a lot of customers that come in that bicycles are their only form of transportation. I want them to be engaged and be part of our community, be able to access businesses, business opportunities, and bike parking is a simple thing that the city can advocate for so that individuals all have access to our business community.

Kent Thurston, Member of the Public said I am a home builder, land developer and also I sit on the Planning and Zoning Commission, there is a couple of things that when I was on the commission that caused me to reflect and figure out is this being done right so I am not necessarily for or against what I am going to say as of right now. It is more of I think it needs to be actually discussed a little bit further but there were things that weren’t totally clear to me, and it really has to do with just the fundamental changes with the parks side of things. So here is a couple of fundamental things that I thought were some key points that I wanted to point out.

Number one, neighborhood parks are no longer reimbursed. Number two there is also a creation of the new park fund outside of the Park Impact Fees. How is that going to be established and controlled? Number three the park fees study wasn’t complete.

Without it being completed we don’t have the full data to really make a decision as to which way to go. Those were some of them, I am going to run out of time but also, I will just have to email you guys my sheet of what I really had. I had all my parts are red noted and there was a whole bunch of things in there. I think there is a lot of good things in there that will be a shift of what we need but then it really does come back to the last point I want to talk about is just the affordability of the houses. There has to be a way that we have some give and a take that we are getting better parks for the city but then also being mindful of how do we do that to not affect the housing market prices to increase. We understand that parks are good for us, it creates all of the other health benefits for us but also not being able to own a home also can create other detriments to us. Those are some points that I would want you to just focus in on.

Nick Chignaly, Member of the Public said I am a student at NMSU. This is just regarding the housing code. There is an endless amount of data that indicates that housing is a primary social determinant of mental and physical health. Housing security is correlated to everything from clinical depression to low birth weight. By allowing higher density housing we are providing an opportunity for the diverse lifestyles of Las Cruces. These multi-unit residences and accessory dwellings help provide Gen Z and millennials with opportunities to save money as they enter the workforce. It allows service workers to live closer to their place of employment and seniors and Veterans with fixed incomes to have appropriate accommodations. These accessory dwellings also provide opportunities for supplemental income as well as a culturally responsive way for multi-Gen families to stay together. I think it is worth noting that the recent literature review indicated that the provisional housing reduces

Medicaid usage by 12%. The use of a primary care physician rose 20% while emergency room visits decreased by 18%. The actual offset cost of housing has mixed data, but one study indicated that secure housing offset healthcare cost by $29,000 per person annually. So, housing security saves money.

Jody Crawley, Member of the Public said I am with the Las Cruces Chapter of the

AARP. I don’t know how many of you are aware, but AARP was founded when Ethel

Percy Andrus found a schoolteacher living in a chicken coop. So, housing has been close to our hearts ever since. The two issues I wanted to commend that people are considering is walkability and the ability to create ADU. Both of these have a lot to do with allowing us seniors to age in place which leads to better health outcomes and better income. ADU’s allow multi-generational families to create this space which is accessible and safe for our seniors and middle-aged moving into assisted living and of course walkability is important for keeping people active and involved.

Ruth Jarre, Member of the Public said I am an affordable housing advocate and spent my career in Washington DC advocating at the federal level for affordable housing and community development programs. First I want to thank the staff and the

Technical Advisory Committee and the consultants for their efforts to modernize our development code. I am sure it is not an easy task of trying to develop a code that will meet our many needs over the next twenty years or so, but we are here and I am asking you to support the draft of Realize Las Cruces that is before you now. In particular I support Realize Las Cruces because it allows developers to build a variety of styles and types of housing that are integrated across the city’s zoning districts.

This would lead to more diverse neighborhoods throughout the city which will accommodate the various incomes of our residents, and they type of homes in which they choose to live. I believe Realize Las Cruces allows us to continue growing in a way that is envisioned by Elevate Las Cruces. I sincerely encourage you to support the current draft.

Beth Bardwell, Member of the Public said I am here today on behalf of the League of

Women Voters of Southern New Mexico to speak in support of the proposed changes to the land development code including the design standards and the zoning districts that are set forth in the October 15th draft. I believe that these proposed changes are an important piece in your collective work of addressing the housing shortage and lack of affordable housing here in Las Cruces. These proposed changes will make it easier to increase housing options and promote a variety of housing styles and types for rent and for purchase such as accessory dwelling units, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and apartments that are integrated within the community. This means all households including but not limited to seniors, first time home buyers and working families will be able to find less expensive housing within city limits close to their work increasing their household incomes to pay for other necessary expenses that allow them to thrive such as health care, education, food, and clothing. So, I want to thank you and staff for supporting the proposed changes.

Liz Rodriguez-Johnson, Member of the Public said when I was a teenager, we moved to Las Cruces from the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas because it was getting too difficult for my dad to get a job so we had to move to Las Cruces and with no money

our only option was to move in with my uncle. It was my uncle and my aunt and twelve kids, that was 14 people. We were 8 kids and 2 adults and that was 24 people in total. We moved into a three-bedroom, one bath, my guess was about 1,200 square foot home. Very small house and I don’t know how long we lived there but it was a matter of months and to describe the logistical and emotional issues involved with something like that would do it no justice but I did have the opportunity to attend New

Mexico State and spent the bulk of my DOD career in the Washington DC area and my husband and my family decided to move back to Las Cruces to retire here. One of my goals is to give back as much to this community as it gave me. So, to that end the proposed changes in Realize Las Cruces land development code will make it easier to increase housing options and promote a variety of housing styles and types for rent and purchase that integrated in the community benefit families like mine.

John Holtsman, Member of the Public said I am the Chair of the State Council of New

Mexico Dark Sky International. I am a local resident, and I wanted to provide some additional information on what staff mentioned about outdoor lighting in Realize Las

Cruces. Dark skies is an incredible resource we have in Las Cruces and in New

Mexico in help to attract people here. Unfortunately, we are gradually continuing to lose them. Fortunately, it has been recognized at the implementation of responsible lighting can preserve our dark sky heritage and its benefits for human health, ecology, environment, cost and energy savings while at the same time actually improving safety and security. It is just simply using as much light that is needed and putting it where it is needed and using light of an appropriate color. I commend city staff for incorporating many principles of responsible lighting in Realize Las Cruces. However there have been some recent developments that have indicated the need for some improvement. About a month ago my parent organization Dark Sky International released some new model template ordinances and also announced a program by which ordinances can be certified as dark sky recognized and it would be super cool of Las Cruces could be the first one. I passed on the draft ordinance to Dark Sky

International and their consultants identified a number of areas at which the ordinance could be improved and indicated the changes that would be needed to achieve certification. Making all these changes right now is probably a little too much to ask given how far along we are in the process as staff indicated. Hopefully the council will come back and revisit this in a larger picture in the upcoming months and I encourage you to recommend that. In the meantime, I think there are two I think small but really highly impactful changes in the current version of Realize that could be made to improve things. One, refine the definition of what is meant by shielded lighting to incorporate the most modern definition and two, to restrict the color of new lighting across all lighting zones. Right now in Realize it is just across a couple of lighting zones. So, I have communicated details to staff, and I would like to request that the council direct them to consider these.

Greg Churnov, Member of the Public said I am a resident of Las Cruces and I moved here 9 years ago and I have witnessed a lot. I don’t have much compassion for developers. They build minimal products and land development is substandard.

Housing per your own inspectors other than the national building code, everything else is minimal, it’s deplorable. This city I came through in 1995. It was a great little village then it was exceptional. I was impressed. The questions I pose with the zoning change that you are thinking about, would you want a dispensary next to your house?

Would you want a tea shop? Would you want another coffee shop? Would you want a gas station? Because it is possible. There are issues here that need to come into play. Apartments are not necessarily affordable housing. I worked in the affordable housing market for 38 years in other states. You know development, let’s bring

Corporate America back to Las Cruces. Macy’s pulled out. Let’s bring Panera. Let’s bring Carabas. Let’s bring civilization and expansion in the right way. Section 5C, in parks, I think it is the responsibility of the developers to offer green areas and parks. I think it is their responsibility to finish lots all the way to the streets where rock walls butt up to. They should finish the lots. They have a responsibility to the residents that they market their products to regardless of cost. They pass the cost on to the buyer anyway, what difference does it make? I have deed restrictions and covenants should take precedence over anything else. I bought a house, and I don’t want a gas station next door to me.

Councilor Graham asked first tremendous thanks to staff, to if you were on the TAC could you raise your hand? Truly appreciate the work that everyone has put into this and just even the small sample of comments today show how many stakeholders and sentiments and industries and feelings we are trying to juggle and so what an incredible process this is and thank everyone who has been involved. As I have said before my priorities coming into this recognizes that creating flexibility in zoning codes to allow for greater housing density, greater housing types, mixed use neighborhoods is one of the few things that a local government can actually do in the face of larger state, regional, federal pressures and I am so happy to see that we are moving in this direction. I have said this before that I love my neighborhood in a C2. So, I am in a C2 mixed zone commercial, have great neighbors, can walk to Si Senior Express so I don’t have to sit in the drive thru line so I can even get a little walkability in for my burritos and recognizing the fact that not all neighborhoods look alike. Not all neighborhoods have to be alike, and all neighborhoods are equally valuable to the people who call them home. So, I just wanted to say that, and now to and again I don’t know if I should get this far into the weeds, but can I ask questions about two slides? Actually, just one slide, 34 please. I am going to turn towards DC. To the first bullet, travel lane shall not be wider than 11 feet across all streets across sections. I want to make sure all fire apparatus can respond safely, efficiently, and not just be in the lane but open their doors and I think that we need something a little wider and I know you are not Mark Dubbin or Chief Smith, would you like to say who you are?

Sean Heck, Deputy Fire Chief said right now the average width of a fire truck is 8 to

10 feet depending on the apparatus and you are right. At 11 feet that doesn’t really give us much room to open doors, and it also more importantly doesn’t give room for vehicles to move out of our way so that we can go by them safely and effectively and quickly as most people would want if we are responding. So, I think we are not a fan of the 11 foot at all. We would like to see it 12/13. I know the buses have the same issue as us but I know we are also going in a neighborhood that the buses don’t go and we need to be able to get to those areas.

Councilor Graham said so if that could be considered, I know that we are balancing a lot of different wants and needs here and then the second is actually the second bullet point. So having been in a neighborhood where it was proposed that we were going to get rid of parking on one side of the street, I know that is often contentious for people

who have had that opportunity or that luxury for long term. I just have some personal input from a neighborhood where that happened, and we did end up retaining to side street parking on both sides of the street. The question I know Chief Story had to step away but my other idea is on the enforcement of making that an ordinance I feel that would be pretty onerous for those who would have to be going out and ticketing folks who were parked or I don’t know what that would look like but I would want that considered if we were going to put this in and it can also again lead to a lot of fines and potential repercussions for folks who have been used to having that parking available.

Councilor McClure said the bike parking I would like to see, mandatory bike parking. I think what this document becomes is an example of what our values are and if we do want to move toward that what would that look like for our city. Part of this to is making it equitable in ways for businesses as well. For example, Fiesta Foods, we chain up to the front there. I would love to see some bike parking there and I know that there would be use for that but conversely on Madrid there is a little itty bitty grocery store, we bike there and kind of hope for the best. We tie our bikes together.

So, what would that look like for that complex versus a larger grocery store to be able to offer that to customers. Consider that as parts of routes. Very fundamentally in terms of transit so that would be my commentary for that. Going back to values. I am going to echo what Dr. Wallace said earlier in terms of historical preservation. I think that we have made some huge strides. Especially in last year to clarify what the role is of this organization. I would like to see what other councilors think. I have been going the meetings. There is a lot of passion. There is a lot of fear of losing our history. I think there is component of that but there is also a need to recognize what its role is, and I would like to have that clarified. I would like to know whether or not this council now, how it sees historic preservation because to me I just don’t want loss. I also think there are opportunities. So, I think that there is opportunities for affordable housing. I spoke to Dr. Berryman at one point, and we talked about how their role will be to have these conversations like how you can fix your windows to make it historically appropriate but also to save money. So, I would like to ask a little something to my fellow councilors. What does this look like going forward? How do we envision it? Give them guidance on what they want to see for us with historical preservation. The plan is a great idea. I think we are on the way to get a new

Historical Preservation Specialist. I am curious, the idea of adding that consultant in, does that echo in any other document or other section that we could do something like that, but I do want to ask other councilors. How do you see historic preservation?

How can we see this as an opportunity instead of something divisive?

Sara Gonzales said we were discussing that as it were brought up with a consultant being brought on and that being defined in definition. That is something we can look at. Per the Certified Local Government, you have consultant listed on there as well.

The main reason we don’t like to list positions because positions can definitely be changed, modified and we don’t have to do code amendments every other day when a position changes and so that is definitely something that we can consider as part of the definition of moving forward with some of the departments.

Councilor McClure said I would be in favor of something like that if that might be something we could look at, but I am going to challenge my other councilors to talk

about historic preservation in a little bit more visionary way. We don’t have to make any kind of defined statements, but I would like to hear in terms of what you feel in terms of keeping some of Las Cruces’s history with us.

Councilor Flores said I am 100% behind historic preservation and I have attended the meetings, and I know some of the people in the audience. There is a lot of squeaky wheels out there but there is a lot of passion. Just a lot of passion on preservation and

I know there has been with a former employee here and there was some sort of a falling out but it seems with all due respect to my fellow lovers of historic preservation you seem really upset all the time and so when you come up here or when I go to your meetings and the historic is it a commission or is it a committee and you know I just hate to see the dissonance and to have that but I feel very strongly about preserving our history and having for example would the word commission get you more money from the federal government? It would. Okay they are saying no? You are saying yes. I would just like to see your committee or organization proceed and it seems like that one word is holding you back and I don’t understand that but then I am not there. But I do want to thank our planning people. It is very thorough. I think that the discussion I had with the two of you about Cambera Street, I remember asking Chief Smith about that street. It would be could maybe to go out there and see how wide it is because a friend of mine lives there and I said to her why would you buy a place here and she said it was the only one she could afford. The fire trucks they do fit in the street, but they can’t open the side panels which is where all the lifesaving stuff is. So, if you could look into that maybe 11 feet isn’t enough given what the Deputy Chief just reported. I would like to get past the barrier between the city and the Historic Preservation Committee. My heart does go out to you.

Councilor Corran said I just wanted to share my gratitude with everyone who has been working really diligently and collecting a lot of diverse inputs again similar to what Councilor Graham said in terms of the range of things that you all have heard and assimilated in this process. It is extraordinary and I really appreciate the feedback that you have given to us and the opportunities that we have had and the significant opportunities for folks to contribute to this and I think moving forward I do think there are some things around the edges that I believe that hearing this today we can sort of think about and sort of incorporate. I do think that we should have a big conversation about park funding and how we do that and I think that is part of the idea of the Park

Impact Fee in the future and I think I look forward to that conversation as the place where a lot of those parks that have been built appear so I look forward to those evolving conversations, the dark sky conversation as well. I think we can have a robust conversation about what that means. As far as historic preservation I tend to agree Councilor McClure. I think Dr. Wallace’s comments really ring true with me. I would like for us to have a really clear perspective on sort of where we are headed with historic preservation. I think there is a lot of expertise that can be tapped into. I know systematically we have been sort of thinking about some properties, a small number of properties that the city owns but sort of plan and integrate and understand history as it exists and have a strategy going forward for that. I think that would be a really meaningful role for the Historic Preservation Committee. I think that was part of the original intent of that committee and understanding the research that I have done and understanding the origin of the community and what folks have shared along the way. I would say this. I would think the point of this process is to break down barriers

that have existed historically and I think to be frank I think the Historic Preservation

Commission is advocating strongly for their role to be one of barrier and I just think that this entire process and the point of this is to break down barriers and so I would ask the Historic Preservation folks in the room to think of themselves as generative partner in these conversations more than just a functional group that overrides things.

That has been one of my asks through all of Realize is that things should not be being appealed to City Council like car ports, that is not our area of expertise. There is no reason to have a city body weighing in on things that can be understood better by the experts who are most approximate to the topic and I think that is true of historic preservation as well and I think that the city can do better in the terms of understanding how we interface with that in terms of historic preservation but I also think and ask our colleagues to sort of consider how the historic preservation group can contribute to that strategy of really preserving history and understanding history and supporting that in our building so as far as your request, Councilor McClure that is where I come through on that. Again, I am really happy that probably we are going to hear about carports just as a very symbolic conversation. Our development code is outdated. You all have done extraordinary work to bring it up to a different place and to integrate an extraordinarily broad range of voices. I look forward to hearing the presentations in February and I just really appreciate the conversations that have happened so far. I hope some of the very specific things that we talked about today can be incorporated and I really appreciate the work that you all have done, and I look forward to not having to decide if someone’s carport has to be torn down ever again.

Councilor Bencomo said Councilor McClure kind of called us into that question that is important. I feel like behind the conversation of committee to commission is this current of fear that is this a decision on the road to getting rid of the HPC? I feel like there is this fear and this fear comes from I think years of probably mistrust from both, honestly decades of choices that the city has made that has impacted our historic preservation pretty negatively, right? And so, there is this mistrust. I also feel like we can’t codify trust building here. That really has to be up to the members of the commission, the advocates of historic preservation and to city staff and of course this governing body. There is zero desire in me to see something like HPC go away. I think their role is incredibly important. Their role is necessary. I sit on the Utilities

Commission which is pretty significant and an important commission. I am very serious about who I appoint to things like the P&Z because of the kind of power that they carry and more often than not I am hearing about the ways that members of HPC have crossed the line. It happens really only with this commission/committee with this group of folks that I feel like folks, staff and others have felt disrespected and I do feel like there is an important conversation to be had together about how we continue to build trust. I think there is stuff in here that I am going to get to like some parks things that I am going to have monumental, serious, important, good implications for a long time. Commission to committee I don’t necessarily place on that same category. What

I think needs to happen is for a commitment from members of this advocacy group, members of this committee to come together with staff and talk about how we change culture. How we change the way we interact with each other. That needs to happen. I do also feel that naming a position here feels really odd. Are there any other staff positions that are named, specifically in Realize?

Chris Faivre. Interim Deputy Director Community Development said through Realize

we are trying to get away from staff positions being named for the reasons that Sara mentioned before. So, we are trying to go to a Director or Director Designee when it references a specific city department. Currently there are lower-level staff positions mentioned in Municode and I know there is going to be a larger effort once Realize is adopted to go back and sort of clear those up as well. This is what we did in this attempt with just the land use code.

Councilor Bencomo said I could sit up here and say many things and if that fear is still there than that is what is going to lead the culture of this committee, and I don’t want that to be the case. I think this body has expressed very clearly and not even just this body the previous bodies that historic preservation, there must be a priority on that, I can only speak for myself right and say that it is not a desire that I have is for this group of folks and the duties of this group to go away. I don’t know if that is sufficient or not Councilor McClure, you have the majority of the impact in District 1 but thank you for that question. So much of how I dove into this, and I have been looking at this is through the lens of revitalization. Is through the lens of Metropolitan Redevelopment

Areas. To me those are very critical zoning designations that I hope all of us are really trying to look through that lens of how do we speak of wrongs that have been committed for decades many, many years ago. Decades ago, there was a design that was made. Maybe an unconscious decision that was made about where we place our focus in the city which caused a neglect to many other areas of our city. West

Picacho, El Paseo, South Solano, these areas. It didn’t just happen that they became underrepresented and neglected. There was choices that were made that made them feel like this and so now I feel that with Realize we have an opportunity to correct some of those wrongs and because of that I want us to have that very clear lens of how do we approach many of these with those in mind and I think to me that means with a lot of flexibility with room for flexibility and I understand that there is this push and pull of well if we have standards and if we are always going to waive them then what do we even have them for? The reality though is for now in the meantime areas like the MRAs which I hope by the end of the next year we have many more other than two is that we are cultivating growth and ensuring that we are seeing these areas get back to what they use to be, even better. In Chapter 3, P&Z recommended a couple of things that I feel that I have some concerns with. For the example the special use permits around drive thrus which could impact many things including a brand new bank that going up on El Paseo and also the commercial parking lots. I have several of these in my district like Bite of Belgium, actually Les Combes near

Mesilla, that is still in District 4, and so can you just address some of those pieces?

Give some examples of the implications of this that I don’t necessarily agree with.

Chris Faivre said I think the intent from P&Z was to continue to foster this idea for pedestrian friendly walkable type communities and in that context I can appreciate the desire to eliminate things that are specifically vehicle centric. I think specific to the entire urban area I think it is a very large footprint of the city that would be impacted. It would make any of those businesses within that area that currently have a drive thru or car wash or a gas station at some point they could be nonconforming if that business was to go out and a period of time lapsed before something else came back in so I think that is something for council to consider across the entire urban area so I can see how some of that could be good standards for new development. I would caution against the entire urban area although I know there are some elements of

Elevate that do speak to moving in that direction. I will say from an economic development standpoint that that does add more time and more cost to a new business that could be potentially starting up. Now they would have to go through the special use permit process which would take them through Planning and Zoning, there is additional time, maybe they have loan to pay back so they are waiting on so there are other things to factor in when looking at the need to or the thought of putting a special use permit in place for those specific things.

Councilor Bencomo said Councilor Corran said it really beautiful about this really being catalyst for getting rid of barriers and a feel like making a bunch of these properties, these nonconforming properties actually only adds a barrier to a place where we are trying to put so much attention into so I for one would say not to have these as special use permits for drive thru, gas pumps, car washes those kinds of places in an urban place as well as the parking lots, payday loans, at risk of getting placed on a billboard again I don’t particularly care how many SUP’s payday loans have to go through, the other places I do feel like require perhaps instead of making them nonconforming give them some design options. Some design recommendations for how they can keep pedestrians in mind. Sara there is a couple of things that you mentioned that we should leave that to the technical manual, I feel like that is really important and at least what I would like to see as we come into February and then I think similarly with Dark Sky I do not feel well equipped to say yes put that in here right now. I think we can do a Work Session in the future. With this in particular lighting, landscaping, I also want it to be really mindful again of the flexibilities that we give businesses in the Metropolitan Redevelopment Areas. I just had a meeting with

Chris and other folks from a brand-new business on West Picacho and they are trying to do so much. There were so many barriers in place for them being able to open and

I feel like that is the opposite of where we want to go and so again, I just want to reiterate those pieces. I have really appreciated especially working with the home builders in this new iteration of what park development can look like. I think that while change is very scary, it’s so interesting I found just earlier today an op-ed from Steve

Ramirez from 2013 about the change that happened then from, I think. There was one year where it went from $800 to $2,600. That is major right? In Utilities we talk about this all the time. Not shocking rate payers with those kinds of increases. That is why it is important to evaluate any kind of impact fees on a more regular basis then let’s say ten years for example. In 2013 the vote came to council, and they decided to keep it at $2,600, correct? Is that sort of how the process has gone?

Sara Gonzales said at the time it was actually $800. In 2013 it was approved to be adopted at $2,600.

Councilor Bencomo said I am not just trying to talk about this too long because this is a different kind of conversation. I do just want to say that there is this op-ed that ten years ago talked about similar things that we are hearing today. The fear of how we talk about parks that it will create this inability for people to purchase homes and so all the fear is the same and so I would venture out to say that in the last ten years we have seen a lot of growth and plenty of growth and so what I would want to do is just encourage folks to stay at the table to have these conversations with us and I have really appreciated the boldness that staff has come to council regarding some of the park considerations and so I just wanted to lift that up and appreciate that There are

two things from comments that I wanted to address. One, the parking, the bike parking. I also feel like that is really important. The one consideration I would say is to give flexibilities to businesses and time for that so that we are not holding up business permits if they don’t have a bike rack installed, right? So, I do feel like bike parking is really important. The other piece that was brought up that I thought was interesting and I hope you can talk about is the zoning designation and the character designation about making that a single step instead of two separate steps,

Sara Gonzales said essentially it is going to be a one step process. The way that it would run is an applicant would come forward with a zone change. The zone change would then go forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission and from there it goes to city council. If Planning and Zoning makes a recommendation to adjust Elevate because they do not feel it aligns that would be the recommendation to city council.

City council in turn would decide if it does align or if it does not. So, if you are looking at a bigger area that is impacted that does not maybe meet the neighborhood character and it doesn’t align with Elevate then staff at that point would come back and look at Elevate and see if it is going to meet the needs of that growth or through it as a city and then make their recommendation to council. So, the zoning process is really going to be the step the comes in from the applicant or from the developer. The rest of that portion is going to be for city council to determine if is going to match with the growth pattern should be for the city. At that point we would want to go back and want to change Elevate if it does not align.

Councilor Bencomo asked so for these kind of zoning changes request it would only come to city council the one time?

Sara Gonzales said that is correct unless there is a time, so if I were to submit an application today, I am actually going to Planning and Zoning Commission. So, say if I am taking my Neighborhood 1 and going to a Neighborhood 2, the character areas are all combined within these so you are going to have Neighborhood 1 Urban,

Neighborhood 1 Suburban. This is how the zoning designations will work and so it is going to tell you essentially how to get your densities. So, if I come in and I want to go from a Neighborhood 1 Urban to a Neighborhood 1 Suburban then I am going to submit a zone change. Through that process staff is going to evaluate if it is going to blend with the neighborhood, is it going to meet the intent, is the zone change appropriate? Because it would be no different than the current zone change process of identifying if the spot zoning. We wouldn’t take one zone out of an entire area and say this one can be something very different. So, we are going to look at compatibility.

That would then move to the Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation to city council. So, at one time you are going through one process. The only time the process would become essentially a hold or basically a postponement would be if council determines that it does not meet Elevate. Basically, it doesn’t meet our plan.

Then staff would go back to evaluate how it would meet the plan or what would be maybe best options if we were to reevaluate Elevate Las Cruces because we have not done it at time. So, really it is one process for the applicant it just may have a hold once it gets council if they’re discrepancies if it doesn’t match the plan. If it is not what council wants to move forward but that is also to the discretion of council. If we come forward with a proposal or the applicant comes forward with a proposal and city council determines it does not require Elevate’s amendment then you have the right to

go ahead and approve, amend, or change it as you would need.

Councilor Bencomo asked again just as we talk about these things the goal is to eliminate the amount of barriers, right? That still feels very convoluted to me but again these hypotheticals are really difficult to talk about in terms like this and I know that you have been a huge proponent of that as well and that flexibility and so if you feel that is a process that is going to work then I trust that guidance as well.

Councilor Corran asked one justification that would go for both types of character and zoning thing, right from the applicant?

Sara Gonzales said it is not necessarily justification, it’s just does it fit within your area. So, we wouldn’t want to see necessarily if you are in a rural area going directly to an urban unless there is some kind of justification or there is some kind of plan or if there is some kind of affordability, if it comes as a part of master plan so we would be looking as a whole. We wouldn’t just want to go ahead in the middle next to Organ

Mountains and say that is now going to become in urban area because that characteristic is very different.

Councilor Corran said that was the follow up to what I just wanted to say. Part of the point of this is to have way fewer of those then we ever have before, right? We have a lot of inconsistent I think or historical unchanged, grandfathered in things that I feel like this most of these things are conforming with what we expect now and so it is much less likely that this would ever come into that review process where the people would need to do that. Is that like an accurate description of what the goal of Realize is?

Sara Gonzales said that is correct. A lot of our existing developments will be that way.

We still expect to see new development coming in in areas that may not be zoned but that is where we get those master plans. We are going to see how it aligns and what actual development we can actually get proposed around roads. Maybe from the thoroughfare plan that have not been designed yet.

Councilor Corran said when you said when it comes to council that is when we get all nervous because we do not love an agenda full of 18 zoning changes. Not just because we don’t like that but because we are ill-equipped to make those decisions, and it is better done through comprehensive zoning reform.

Councilor Bencomo said I don’t even want to say that we are ill-equipped. I don’t necessarily think that. I just remember that conversation we had about the carport of this woman who her husband has passed away, it just felt like it didn’t need to go through this process at city. Like it didn’t need to get here, right? I feel like that is like at least the point for me. I feel like maybe double-sided parking on streets could also be a traffic calming situation so it certainly is on my street and so perhaps I would say just to keep it that as well, but I know a couple of folks have already said that. Again, lastly what I want to say is really encourage all of us especially staff to really look at this through lens of MRAs as well and to really consider what it is that we are trying to get done in areas of our community that have been for far too long neglected.

Mayor Enriquez said I just want to say thank you. I don’t think that we can say it enough for the gratitude. This is a code that has been outdated for years, for over 20 years. So, it is a huge task to come together and put this together. So, I just want to thank again Larry and Tim, David Sedillo, Tony Trevino from Public Works. Everybody that came together, the TAC Committee, it is a lot of work and Sara, Chris, thanks for coming in and the consultant. It is much needed and what we are looking for like the big picture. What I am looking at is general, is to talk about a code that is user friendly, that is inviting, and that is affordable and that is what we want for community.

Councilor McClure, you talk about historic preservation, and you know I am all about that. That is how we become inviting. People want to come and live in Las Cruces because of our culture, because of our history, because of who we are. So, I think it is a great idea to have a plan. We need that specialist hired. Whether it is a commission or committee, what it is is a plan of collaboration and working together because that is what makes Las Cruces who we are and we need to develop around that and so I am all for having a historic plan and moving in that direction. I thought that was a great idea. Other things that I wanted to mention, the Dark Skies. I think that is something we need to dive into a little bit more. It is not just about the MRAs, but it is any existing building. It becomes a challenge to bring it up to code, so we need to look at those things and again I go back to affordable and being user friendly and so we really need to look at that for our MRAs and our existing vacant buildings that we want to be inviting so that we can attract new businesses, so we have to look at those options as well. The parks and the timing fees, I don’t what to confuse zoning with fees, but it is something that we need to look at and I think Mr. Moscato brought up dedication and recording if that is something that staff would look at and make sure that we are ironing that out and two, I am with staff to look at the two step process. It might be two steps for us, it maybe one step for them but it is a lot of steps in the process and that is what we are trying to say when I get back to being user friendly and be affordable because when it is all said and done it really is a homeowner and we want to make sure we have affordable homes for people to either to move into Las Cruces to upgrade to another home and it all comes and works together. I think staff has done a great job. I think I have heard it before. Everybody has said that the new code, the plan is 95% to 98% there. Great job, I know that it is a long time coming. We just need to tweak these final things before we come up to February but I know I had some more thoughts and ideas and some things and I will pass those on to the City

Manager but I thank council for all their comments and I thank the public for supporting because it is something that has been outdated and we will look to add into to help our developers and home builders. The one thing that we can do is as a city is expedite things, it’s a timing issue because time is money and it helps our staff that we are not bogged down with is it this rule, is it that rule, is it this step, is it that step? So, this really helps to be more efficient and effective and it is a greater good for everyone and so thank you all for all your hard work and tweak a few things and I think we are good to go in February.

4. ADJOURNMENT 4.1 Councilor Yvonne Flores moved, seconded by Councilor Becky Corran, to

Adjourn at 3:11 p.m.

RESULT: Carried

MOVER: Councilor Yvonne Flores

SECONDER: Councilor Becky Corran

AYES: Councilor Johana Bencomo, Councilor Yvonne Flores, Councilor Becky

Corran, Mayor Eric Enriquez, and Councilor Cassie McClure

ABSENT: Councilor Becki Graham and Councilor William Mattiace

Mayor

City Clerk