[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6240875,"mediaKeyId","3316247-8fc378377c24c4a2c96adf5a78c64285","parentId",3316247,"title","Santa Fe council adopts FY26 budget after nine‑day review; $3M proposed for affordable housing","audioSeconds",3518,"startMs",2615000,"endMs",6133000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3316247-8fc378377c24c4a2c96adf5a78c64285&start=2615&end=6133","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3316247-8fc378377c24c4a2c96adf5a78c64285/thumbnail_2615000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6240875/Santa-Fe/Santa-Fe-County/New-Mexico/Santa-Fe-council-adopts-FY26-budget-after-nineday-review-3M-proposed-for-affordable-housing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6240875-4d9a79eedcc9f1cf5ce662827315b836/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173640&Signature=KyEziPwmOGkq0JwPTaei~-hRzO-hMX9MZIk7QlMPO9LoSUQto0dand9wIIVlDgHQ53KiYvc8ut5NBEmeM4cAzYcLKLiZFQYrcVX76k0eZFpQz4wfaa4UDRlMVWTyI1A23Qkfk162DvJCXT4BP3hEugwUkkEfIGUe9rkSc7quGd61Pm2EtufWfrroCRVS1BiprcGA8fSMcaOTbwh-tuJVvhk~Ag6UEMjB-wW4rND6JW9OiryWvgBr~Sy9RdqVqDPeUdLrsl~BT-~2pqbFl76yLFKtgcncGRSGG3GAN~5PWnsrIASJNy4fOKobc2TXxBq9YreC6~V8x3s~atjluTqDmQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Santa Fe, NM","date","2025-05-15T03:39:46Z","article","The Santa Fe City Council unanimously adopted the city’s Fiscal Year 2026 operating budget on May 14 after a lengthy review process that included nine days of departmental hearings, multiple amendments and extended discussion about reserves, transparency and the timing of one‑time allocations.

City Manager Scott told the council the budget is “a policy exercise” that reflects community priorities while noting it is effectively flat in revenue growth. He and department directors described investments in employee compensation, utility billing system replacement, wastewater planning, midtown implementation, parks maintenance, homelessness programs, and upgrades to the airport and capital projects. Scott said the budget “provides for” staffing and program changes while acknowledging the budget team expects to manage revenues and “may have to come back and make adjustments if revenues aren't coming in, as we anticipate them to or, if other things occur that impact the budget.”

Key funding and program notes discussed by the council:

- Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Councilors pressed the origin of a $3,000,000 line in the proposed FY26 book. Finance staff and the city’s budget team told the governing body the $3,000,000 was allocated from prior‑year unanticipated gross‑receipts tax revenue that the city had held pending appropriation; the council did not previously adopt a dedicated budget adjustment for FY26, so the amount was included in the proposed FY26 book for formal adoption. Councilors clarified that the allocation is not a duplicate spending authorization from earlier bar actions and will come to the Community Development Commission for competitive award processes.

- Parks maintenance: Finance committee members brought forward an amendment to add roughly $608,000–$630,000 (figures cited in committee discussion varied slightly) of one‑time funding to address park maintenance capacity. Staff described the funding as a pilot that uses internal crews and contracted support while the city examines recurring staffing and space needs at Siler Yard.

- Vacancy savings and staffing: The budget includes a vacancy credit tied to historically vacant positions; staff reported about 360 vacant positions citywide. City Manager Scott and HR noted departments would be able to fill “critical” vacancies when candidates are available, but the vacancy credit and multiyear hiring dynamics were identified as a balancing item for managers during the fiscal year.

- Audit, finance capacity and contracting: Councilors asked how the city will reduce reliance on contract resources used for audits and other finance work. Finance Director Oster said the department’s FY26 proposal continues investment in staff and reduces contract reliance.

- Homelessness and social services: The budget adds program manager positions in youth and family services, funds for at least two new micro‑communities, and funding for street‑level interventions; the council and city manager described these as an integrated package to provide transitional housing and services.

Council members spent considerable time debating budget process and transparency. Several councilors said the timing and format of the budget hearings and midyear allocations limited the governing body’s ability to propose and approve changes earlier in the cycle; the city manager and finance chair agreed to pursue process improvements for future cycles, including earlier goal‑setting and broader council participation.

Legal/charter context and compliance: Council members asked whether placing planned onetime allocations into the FY26 proposed book complied with Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) rules. Finance staff said the city was not in violation of DFA rules and that the allocation represented prior year unanticipated revenue held for FY26 purpose; the council also discussed how city charter grants the mayor budget authority and the council’s path to request changes.

Formal action: After discussion and several line‑item amendments adopted by the finance committee, the governing body voted 9‑0 to adopt the FY26 operating budget. Council members said they expect follow‑up bars and staff reports during the fiscal year if revenues or costs require midcourse corrections.

The budget adoption concluded with councilors urging continued monitoring of grants and federal funding risks and planning additional committee and study‑session work to refine revenue options and process improvements.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Governing Body Meeting 5/14/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Santa Fe City Council on May 14 adopted the Fiscal Year 2026 operating budget after nine days of departmental hearings, unanimous final passage and a series of committee amendments, including a $3 million allocation proposed for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and roughly $608,000–$630,000 in one‑time park maintenance funding.","taxTitle","Santa Fe, Santa Fe County, New Mexico","taxId",2727,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6240882,"Santa Fe details water supply, San Juan Chama return‑flow plan and Nichols Dam rehab; officials flag rate increase",2156,447000,2603000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3316247-8fc378377c24c4a2c96adf5a78c64285&start=447&end=2603","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3316247-8fc378377c24c4a2c96adf5a78c64285/thumbnail_447000.jpg","/articles/6240882/Santa-Fe/Santa-Fe-County/New-Mexico/Santa-Fe-details-water-supply-San-JuanChama-returnflow-plan-and-Nichols-Dam-rehab-officials-flag-rate-increase","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6240882-c41eb42199e6ed49cbbde56dd50fdacd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173640&Signature=Br0EZZsH3qQbUildEZ0h0v12bRKGLbdsj38vhcmhIhqaeS4IzK8HcMz6PiupA8wWk8XOSEZplsGu6PPBl9QDuFeDnhDRveGFJMAqH60X5JETrNxaBSzhVeTZksILMp-2uq9DujAiBAg243OF5I6E2Rz0FVMKM1lBLKtc9x2nGTNCV~2K5R-6fp3F5VLGYk7KQSEShUsaD17YBeoHE3P2moZ0C8z767Kyo6B4EMfBTgJspmhrdiOJJCPfc3xdu9SidB59Vn0WExJdqNGYcE4awaADzYAIlYrmiJaAsZhklHI~Tev5nldXTEdDWytGIbGWxdZmJ~zD5Is5bB~4lcZi5g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Interim Public Utilities Director Jesse Roach outlined the City of Santa Fe’s 2024 water-year results and near‑term projects on May 14, telling the City Council that the utility is using roughly 9,000 acre‑feet of water annually and is pursuing a return‑flow project and major dam‑outlet repairs that together will require new borrowing and likely rate adjustments.

Roach opened the presentation by tracing the city’s water portfolio and conservation success, saying the city’s total production has declined “by 33% even while population during that time has increased by 25%,” and noting the utility now serves about 90,000 people while per‑person use has fallen substantially. He said surface water now supplies the bulk of the city’s needs since the Buckman direct diversion (BDD) came online in February 2011 and that the utility is “using about 9,000 acre feet per year, about 7,000 of that from river water and the rest from wells.”

Roach described the San Juan‑Chama return‑flow project as a resilience measure that would send treated wastewater back to the river below the Buckman diversion, allowing the city to “stretch” its diversion allocation. He said the city has a state‑engineer permit for return‑flow credits, a 60% engineering design, Bureau of Reclamation grant funding and state grants/loans, and that the draft NEPA environmental assessment is expected in September. “We estimate about 12,000 acre feet currently of renewable water available to the utility of which we’re using about 9,000,” Roach said, and added the return‑flow project could raise sustainable surface‑water availability toward roughly 20,000 acre‑feet.

Roach also reviewed the Nichols Dam outlet works rehabilitation. He said the project replaces outlet conduit and installs a metering and filtered drain system, adds an aeration system to the reservoir and will permit new operational flexibility. Roach said work began last July and is expected to finish this fall; he called the project a “big safety concern” with an approximate $20 million price tag. He listed other major capital needs: Canyon Road upgrades (roughly $24 million plus $9 million in additional work), McClure upstream work (~$20 million), and a possible San Juan‑Chama return‑flow project cost that could reach as much as $60 million.

On finance, Roach said those capital projects and long‑term inflation since the last water rate increase in February 2013 make a rate increase likely. He presented a scenario that would raise an average water bill by roughly $2 per month for five years (water only) and said wastewater increases had separate timing and sizing. He also pointed council members to two public webinars (one morning, one evening) and the full annual water report at santafenm.gov/water.

Council members pressed on operational details and planning. Councilor Lee Garcia thanked staff for the historical charts and asked how growth will affect demand; Roach described long‑range planning through 2100, model runs and a tool called STEWARDS that compares supply scenarios with demand projections. Councilor Cassett asked why the Nichols rehab might let the city “turn off the Canyon Road water treatment plant in the winter”; Roach explained the operational flexibility tied to return flows and seasonal priorities of different sources.

Multiple councilors praised the conservation trend and urged clear public outreach before any rate changes. Roach and councilors emphasized the city will pursue grants and loans alongside rate revenue. The presentation concluded with questions about source‑protection work in the upper watershed and fuel‑reduction coordination with Santa Fe Fire and the Forest Stewards Guild.

The council did not take formal action on Roach’s presentation; staff will bring project procurement, bonding and rate proposals back to the Council for separate formal votes.

The city posted the report and webinar links on santafenm.gov/water and Roach said staff will follow with the draft NEPA and engineering milestones as they advance.","Interim Public Utilities Director Jesse Roach told the Santa Fe City Council on May 14 that the city is using about 9,000 acre‑feet of water per year, has shifted from mining groundwater to surface water since 2011, and is pursuing a San Juan‑Chama return‑flow project and Nichols Dam outlet rehabilitation that together will increase resiliency but require new borrowing and likely rate increases.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6240869,"Santa Fe council approves rezoning for 214 Camino de los Marquez despite neighborhood opposition",1557,7824000,9381000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3316247-8fc378377c24c4a2c96adf5a78c64285&start=7824&end=9381","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3316247-8fc378377c24c4a2c96adf5a78c64285/thumbnail_7824000.jpg","/articles/6240869/Santa-Fe/Santa-Fe-County/New-Mexico/Santa-Fe-council-approves-rezoning-for-214-Camino-de-los-Marquez-despite-neighborhood-opposition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6240869-70bd7606d4625afe436a8ae62129a7d2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173640&Signature=bjnETTYwu9oNJXbsO4V0S3q6XiJRkWKPHf9yA04be3vY5eYayYBjS3HZPzBKtI6dTzCtPQ7netbylSrWK~9Z1DMYYpzJQQCyc9o15FZ341o6ax~GgJRQWbfcqxmVDlDLWazfTP8lTfIa8Bn3KLVKbUJ-r5aGBq5NIvEWrpxPp27b2laR2EOb1FKHM9Hp9OHwnnk2qtbTHsRqqzJm~WMK~IV5Vzz5mFivh9UGHhzYp7qDdMzQFBy9eImFWiCjtiZL2UDfMPXMOxjeV7kKOY~0S2PjjSW25AnKPEonmA0LPZGszOUyirrpXbfVZWnzkGwiDEmb8A4ZC~vjg8Z81VIjhQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Santa Fe City Council voted to approve a rezoning request for an approximately 2.5‑acre parcel at 214 Camino de los Marquez on May 14, moving the site from R‑21 (planned unit development) to R‑29 (29 dwellings per acre). The final vote on the ordinance was unanimous.

The case had generated public comment and a legal question about the planning commission quorum when it had recommended approval. Rebecca (staff member) presented the commission‑related analysis the governing body requested, noting the code defines a quorum as a majority of appointed members and that the commission acted with a quorum present. She recited code provisions and the relevant guidance from Robert’s Rules of Order used by boards: the planning commission had seven members at the time of the hearing; four members heard the case and three voted to recommend approval, which staff concluded met the code’s “majority of a quorum” requirement.

Neighborhood opponents said the rezoning primarily benefits a specific institutional tenant and expressed two principal concerns: increased traffic and constrained sewer infrastructure. Opponents also argued the housing would be used for short‑term stays (interns and visiting staff) rather than long‑term community housing. Stephanie Benonato said she was “opposed to this because I do believe it only benefits the opera,” and other speakers raised similar worries about traffic at nearby intersections and existing sewer problems.

Staff and supporters said the change advances general‑plan policies favoring compact infill and a greater mix of housing types close to employment and services. City staff advised the council that the rezoning analysis must be limited to the rezoning request itself (zoning classification), and that future site‑specific details — parking, sewer hookups and construction design — will be evaluated in subsequent development‑plan review processes. Supporters and some councilors framed the rezoning as a tool to encourage redevelopment and add housing capacity in areas already served by utility and transportation infrastructure.

Council debate focused in part on process, the planning commission recommendation and neighborhood impacts. Councilors said that project‑level details would be handled later in development review; several councilors expressed sympathy for neighborhood traffic and sewer concerns and invited staff to monitor those conditions during the development‑plan review.

By approving the rezoning, the council advanced the request to the development stage; any specific construction, parking, or utility changes will require follow‑up permits and staff review consistent with code requirements.","The council voted to rezone an approximately 2.5‑acre tract at 214 Camino de los Marquez from R‑21 PUD to R‑29 (29 dwellings/acre). Opponents cited traffic, sewer capacity and short‑term occupancy concerns; staff pointed to general‑plan guidance favoring infill and to regulatory criteria satisfied by the planning commission recommendation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Santa Fe council adopts FY26 budget after nine‑day review; $3M proposed for affordable housing

Santa Fe details water supply, San Juan Chama return‑flow plan and Nichols Dam rehab; officials flag rate increase

Santa Fe council approves rezoning for 214 Camino de los Marquez despite neighborhood opposition