City Council - Special Meeting

I'm going to just click okay. That'd be okay. We are now live. Okay. All right. Thank you. We'll get started again. Welcome to Gallup City Council special meeting Monday, June 29th, 2026 at 12 p.m. noon. City Council Chambers. With that, we'll start with the roll call.

Councilor Garcia? Here. Councilor Yazzie? Here. Councilor Peano? Here. Councilor Molina? Here. Mayor DePauw?

Here. The next is the Pledge of Allegiance, but I wanted to tell everybody that this weekend we had a longtime Gallup resident pass away, Joe Zecca. He was a veteran. He owned American Bar. Their family's been here for almost the same time as my family, about 120 years. Good people. His dad was actually a state senator at one time. But anyway, when we're saying the Pledge of Allegiance, I just want you guys to keep his name in mind.

Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay, the first item is the discussion on action topics. It's going to be the permit application for the July 4th Stars and Stripes event. And Matt Robinson is our speaker.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Thank you for having me before you today. Yes, for your consideration is a permit to approve a road closure for our July 4th event. As a reminder to you all in the community, we have our July 4th event on Saturday. The public portion opens at noon. We're going to be starting with vendors, food trucks, the gourd dance, some activities, recreational kind of stuff, games, all that good stuff. Moving out through the day, we'll move into our concert series about 7, and then we'll have our drone show about 9, 20 or so. And then throughout the day, we'll also be having a softball tournament. So that's kind of the event in a nutshell. But we are here before you today to have authorization for our road closure on Park Avenue between Zuni Road and 4th Street. And with that, I'll stand for any questions.

Well, thanks, Matt. Very important event, 4th of July, 250th for our nation, 100th year for the Route 66. Anyway, at what time does it start again?

The public portion begins at noon. The road closure itself begins about 6, 7 o'clock in the morning. 6 o'clock, okay. Yes, sir.

All right.

Thank you. Yes, Councilor, Mayor, Council, there is no charge for entrance and there's no parking fee. It's completely free across the board.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I have a question. So this means that people have to enter off of 602. And will there be signs up on 2nd Street noting that people should go around to the other entrance?

Mayor, Council, yes. Historically, we have traffic control plans in place to let people know what detours are and what areas are closed and accessible or not.

This is the same closure that we did last year?

Mayor, Council, yes, that's correct.

Okay, thank you.

We have a motion.

Motion to approve the permit application for the July 4 stars and stripes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Thank you.

The next item is resolution R2026-24. It's the RRGS. It's the Program Amendments and Interconnection Agreement. And our speaker today is Chuck Norris.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. So I'm just going to go ahead and go through a little bit of the history of how we came to this program and some of the changes that way anybody who hasn't been here before is brought up to speed as to how this thing came into be. So before discussing the proposed amendments contained in Resolution R2026-24, I'd like to briefly go over this. The program was originally established in April of 2009 through Resolution R2009-7. At that time, the city created what was referred to as the Customer Owned Renewable Resource Generating System Program, commonly known today as the RRGS program. The primary purpose of the resolution was established the requirements necessary for customers to safely interconnect renewable generating facilities into the city's electrical distribution system. The original program established a maximum generating capacity of 10 kilowatts, and while not explicitly stated, was largely intended for residential customers interested in offsetting a portion of their electrical consumption through renewable generation. In April of 2011, the city expanded the program to resolution R2011-18. This amendment allowed governmental operated facilities to participate in the RGS program and increase the allowable system size for those facilities up to 75 kilowatts. This effectively established the participant categories, residential customers with a maximum system size of 10 and the government facilities with a maximum system size of 75. While these early resolutions established a framework for participation, many of the technical and administrative standards necessary to consistently evaluate applications were not specifically addressed. As a result, previous electrical directors developed internal practices and guidelines to administer the program as participation increased. For many years, participation in the RGS program remained relatively small, with only a handful of customers entering the program annually between 2010 and 2018. Beginning around 2019, however, interest in the renewable generation increased significantly, and the City began receiving substantially more applications each year. In January of 22, the city adopted Resolution R2022-3, representing the most significant expansion of the program since its creation. The resolution formally expanded eligibility beyond residential customers and governmental facilities to include commercial and for-profit businesses. As a result, the participant categories evolved into residential customers with the maximum size of 10 and non-residential customers with the maximum size of 75. Resolution R2022-3 also formally established the renewable systems could be sized to offset up to 100% of the customer's historical electrical consumption. Prior to that time, previous electrical directors had generally administered the program using an 80% rule guideline. Although that limitation had never been fully adopted by council. The resolution further clarified customer eligibility requirements related to liquid accounts and for the first time established a formal methodology for calculating the avoided cost rate used to compensate customers for excess renewable energy delivered back to the city. So the question is, why is staff proposing these amendments? One of the primary goals of our resolution R2026-24 is to consolidate the city's RRGS program requirements into a single governing document. Previous resolutions established and expanded the program over time. However, many of the standards used to administer the program existed only through administrative practice. This resolution formally incorporates those requirements into Council policy while reserving Appendix A solely for the avoided cost calculation methodology. As participation in the RGS program has grown, the City has encountered operational, technical and contractual issues that were not fully addressed under the existing framework. Resolution R2026-24 and the amended Renewable Parallel Interconnection Agreement are intended to address those gaps by establishing clear participation requirements. system sizing standards, battery storage requirements, program capacity allocation, and administrative procedures necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of the program while protecting the reliability and financial stability of the city's electrical utility. So that was kind of a long-winded rundown of the history. But what I want to do, I don't want to necessarily read it verbatim, word for word, of this resolution. So I'm just going to go into each section, and I'll give you a reason why they were all included into this resolution. And if anyone wants to jump in, counsel, if you want to jump in at any point, go ahead and stop me, and we can address questions as they come up. So starting right here on Section 1, definitions. So Section 1 adds definitions that were either absent or not clearly defined in the previous RRGS resolutions, including AC capacity, DC capacity, permission to operate, and the definition of residential customer and non-residential customers. So why was it necessary? One of the primary goals of the resolution is to consolidate the program requirements into a single governing document, as I stated before. Previous resolutions established and expanded the program over time, but many of the terms used to administer the program were never formally defined. These definitions create consistency for both the customer and staff and establish the foundation for the sizing participation administrative requirements contained later in this resolution. Nobody has any questions? We'll move to Section 2. About 10?

Preparing myself for the mental on-closures.

Of what coming? I'll try and move quickly.

No, that one seems self-explanatory.

Yeah. So moving on to Section 2, custom participation limitation. Participation is limited to one RRGS agreement per customer, regardless of the number of service accounts, facilities, buildings, or utility meters under common ownership. So why was this necessary? The existing program language effectively tied participation to individual utility meters. As commercial participation increased, staff began receiving requests from customers with multiple buildings and multiple electric meters who wished to install separate generation systems at each location. While each individual system complied with a 75 kilowatt limitation, the combined generation capacity could exceed the intended limits of the program. This amendment ensures the limits apply to the customer as a whole rather than each individual meter. It also helps preserve available program capacity by preserving a small number of customers from utilizing a disproportionate share of the program and ensures participation opportunities remain available to the broader range of customers.

Mr. Norris, can I stop you for a second? Can you explain about capacity and why there's a limited capacity?

Sure. I'll explain in more detail as we get into the other sections, but I can briefly go over it real quick. So Basically, when it was originally started, this program under the continental divide and the PNM power purchase agreements, they had no provisions to where our load ended up. Now with Guzman Energy's contract, we are effectively following a month-per-month forecast for the next 15 years. And so if we deviate below that, so the more people that jump onto this generating program of ours, if they start bringing our total load below 15% of what our forecast is, we are going to get hit with what's called a shortfall load charge. So, basically, our power provider goes and gets us what they expect our loads going to be. And if we fall below that, we're required to pay that back to them under a specific charge. So we have to make sure that the program, the program now has a very specific limit as to what its capacity is able to be generated. So we want to make sure that everyone plays fair. So we don't want to see the entire amount of the allocated capacity drained by, let's say, a bunch of commercial customers when effectively this was intended more for the customers, the residents. So we're trying to basically preserve and protect that.

So we're obligated to buy so much power from Goosebump.

Correct. Is it annually or monthly? They're checked monthly. We'll pay our bills to them.

So essentially, if Gallup has too many solar-powered customers, then we don't buy our projected load, and then we are... We get hit with a fee. It's from Guzman.

Correct.

But the projection, we'll know the projection for Guzman, right? If we have more and more solar production... And when we know our project, we just reduce our projection. There's no penalty if we give them the correct projection, right?

There's not a minimum. Right, but they have to agree to what it is that we're asking for. So if we want to change the forecast, we have to have a meeting with them. We have to discuss it. We have to provide justification for changing that forecast.

it's not just automatically given there question there too so just on that you said it's limited per customer not for site so i know it's more for residential not for corporate but i mean so essentially you're kind of penalized if you have multiple you know businesses

It's not I don't want it to be viewed as we're penalizing them as so much we're reserving capacity, which was originally intended for the residential customers. So resident most residential customers have one meter per house. So we want that to be fair as far as the people who apply for the program. Commercial customers can have all kinds of meters on one lot. So we want to make sure that that is seen as not. a interconnection of a renewable source per meter as it is per customer so we're kind of tightening it up i wasn't thinking that there isn't one lot i was thinking like their one business would have one meter but they're saying they've got multiple so that it makes it unfair i i i understand yeah that's why we we changed and we put that verbiage in there to kind of protect it Okay, moving on here to section three. This is maximum system size. The section maintains the existing participation limits of 10 kilowatts AC for residential customers and 75 kilowatts AC for non-residential customers. So why was this necessary? These limits have existed in previous versions of the program and have generally worked well. By specifically identifying system size in AC capacity, this resolves, this resolution creates consistency with industrial standards and establishes a clear distinction between AC capacity and DC capacity, which becomes important when evaluating solar system sizing and inverter loading ratios. So, there's a reason why we're calling out specifically kilowatts AC versus just kilowatts DC in the previous resolutions. They just said kilowatts. And so that made it kind of complicated in it. We needed to clean up that distinction. Section 4, can I ask a question?

Yes. Do we have many customers who seem to be needing more than that? I just have no idea if this is a reasonable limit. Like, are people going above that and needing more? Or is this nobody ever reaches 10 kilowatts for a resident?

We have a few residents that go over that, but we want to put the hard ceiling at 10. Most of the customers usually see anywhere from two to five kilowatts. That's usually the normal. 10 is exceptionally high. So we have not seen too many customers asked to breach that. And we don't want to anyways, because now they're drifting outside of what the normal residence would be. And as far as the 75 goes for the commercial, we have not seen anybody breach that. That's a very large system. Okay. Moving on to section four, large customer self-generation. Customers seeking renewable generation systems larger than the RGS program limits may still pursue those projects. However, they will be reviewed separately outside of the RGS program and may require additional engineering studies, operational reviews, and contractual requirements. Again, why is this section necessary? The RGS program is created to support customer-owned renewable generation within defined limits. As renewable technology has become more common, staff has reviewed inquiries regarding systems that exceed the program limitations. This section establishes a pathway for those larger projects while ensuring they receive the additional review necessary to protect our electrical system. So this primarily targets the new annexed area, the carbon coal road. Almost every single one of the applicants that we've seen that's wanting to develop in that area is wanting to see upwards of very large solar capacity. If we were to include them into this, because before there's no verbiage saying they couldn't, they would deplete the entire amount. So we want to make it very understood that this is for these customers. Anyone who breaches that who wants 100 kilowatts or something, that's going to be handled separately and through another process.

Sorry, can you get this projected up for the audience?

Do you have a PDF of it?

Just thought it might be helpful for people to have it on the screen.

They can also download it on the city website. It was uploaded as an attachment if somebody wanted to.

We can keep talking.

We just want to get the resolution. I'll read the rest of the stuff. Yeah. The proposed resolution.

Council like me to continue?

Yes. Continue with that. The load-based system sizing.

Got it. Section 5, load-based system sizing. Renewable systems will be sized to offset no more than 80% of the customer's historical electrical consumption based on the most recent 12 months of actual usage. Future or anticipated loads may not be used to justify a larger system size. Customers may request expansion after one year if increased consumption can be demonstrated. So why was this necessary? This section addresses several issues staff is encounter while administering the program. First, customers have requested systems significantly larger than their actual historical electrical needs, resulting in excess generation and accumulated credits that the city was required to pay back. Second, the previous resolutions did not formally establish the percentage of customers' electrical consumption that could be offset by renewable generation. While prior administrations generally utilized an 80% guideline, that standard was never formally adopted. Third, staff has received requests for systems sized to future expansion plans that ultimately never occurred, resulting in oversizing systems being installed. The purpose of the section is to ensure systems are sized based on actual demonstrated usage and to reinforce that the RGS programs created to offset a portion of the customer's electrical consumption rather than function as a revenue generating program. Section six, solar array sizing requirements. The resolution establishes a maximum inverter loading ratio, ILR, of 1.3 and formally defines how DC capacity and AC capacity will be evaluated. This is commonly referred to as an array oversizing. Why is this necessary? Solar panels produce DC power while homes and businesses utilize AC power. Because of normal conversion losses, it is common industry practice to install more DC solar capacity than AC inverter capacity. This section formally adopts industry standardizing practices and provides clear guidelines to contractors while preventing excessive overbuilding of generating facilities. Going on to Section 7, battery energy storage systems. This section establishes requirements governing battery storage systems connected to RGS installations, including installation, inspection, operation, and charging requirements. Why is it necessary? Previous ROG resolutions and interconnection agreements contain no guidance regarding battery storage systems. As battery technology has become more common, staff needed clear standards for reviewing, approving, and operating these systems. This section establishes those requirements while ensuring exported energy remains tied to renewable generation and not utility supplied power. And that was very critical that we put that in place. And moving on down here to section 8, and this Chuck can ask a question on that.

So the installation of these units are, I know you said that they're governed under.

Yes, they will be inspected under the CID.

Okay, so the CID looks at them, and so they're the ones determining the batteries, this particular item or the city?

The city, that's part of the engineering process to make sure that that interconnection of the battery storage is tied directly to the customer's generation. So we make sure that the programming inside of those new batteries monitors that. Because otherwise what will happen that we're ultimately trying to avoid is we don't want customers tying it into our system with a battery charger and then them or the customers to be charging their batteries off of our city power and then turning around and claiming it as theirs. So that's what we're checking for in the engineering portion.

So I know that no one from the Gallup Solar has got a lot of this stuff lined out for people, but... So if I want to put solar in my house, we'll go through the arrangements, go through all the regulations, CID, then we get our electrical inspector. And that's done first, or is the engineering done first on the solar system?

So what it does is typically a customer will come to us and say, we're interested. And that's what that interconnection agreement is. That's the start. That's the starting phase. You guys first then. Right. So we determine what it is that you want. We check to make sure that it's in compliance with what our resolution states. And then the next step after we've gotten that approved and signed, we say, okay, you're building X size system for your meter. And everyone's happy with that. Then it goes off and we say, okay, you're clear to go build. So they go off and they build their system. They get it inspected by the state and then they return to us and say, okay, it's all done. We're ready for the next steps. And then we will send our staff out there to go over some last minute changes. Make sure that we, we make sure that nothing changed between the installation from the planning section. Okay. Once that's done, then we go ahead and we issue a PTO, which is a permission to operate. We change their meter mapping systems in the two net, and then they're on their way. So that's kind of a eagle's eye view of the process. And the new two net meters read... Current going both ways, right? That's correct. So they get their credit. And that simplifies the process because in the past, we had two meters that we had to have on the house. We had one for solar production and then have the regular one. And then we had to do a lot of internal calculations to come up with the net. So now with our new AMI meters, it's one click of the button and it will track all of that bi-directional data for us. Great. Thank you. Okay, moving on to section 8 program capacity allocations, the resolution establishes separate participation limits of 4.77 megawatts AC for residential customers and 10.23 megawatts AC for non residential customers. So, effectively going back to what we were discussing, Councillor. 15 megawatts is what we're basically carving out as per the allocation of what we can provide to the customers for this RGS program without being hit with that shortfall charge. So we broke it up into those segments. Why was this necessary? When the RGS program was originally created, the city did not have the same power supply requirements that exist today. Under our current power contract, it is important that we maintain accurate forecasts of how much electricity our customers will use. If too much load is removed from the system through renewable generation, it can create financial consequences for the city. These participation limits provide a way to manage future program growth while still allowing new customers to participate. So currently we have about 130 residential customers on this program and their allocations about 17% of the overall usage. So there's plenty of room for them to continue to apply for the program if they're interested. And for the non-residential customers, we have about six and they've used about 18% of their portion of this.

And you're talking about the 15 megawatt?

Yes. Percentage of the 15? Correct. Now, we didn't just say one big pool for residents and non-residents. We actually cut it in half so that we have the residents are reserved a fixed amount. Okay, and then we're getting here to the close section 9, the administration. So, basically, this section formally identifies the electrical department director, which is me, but it could be someone else in the future as the administration of the program and authorizes the establishment of technical and engineering requirements necessary to implement the program. And we're doing this because previous resolutions contained limited administrative direction. This section formally establishes responsibility for program administration and provides authority to address future technical and operational issues as they arise. And then the last one here, the grandfathering. I don't feel I should need to go over this, but basically it protects people who have already been established in the program with their PTOs. They won't be negatively affected by this. So this will be for future applicants moving forward. And then lastly, we have the, the, the appendix, a, which is attached, which is the avoided cost mythology. And I don't know if you want me to go into those details, but it's there and it just shows how we come to that. Avoid a cost number at the end of the year for the.

Maybe it would be good if you could just explain it with the avoided cost. And how people can, because maybe the more people may become interested in putting solar panels up after with this presentation. Here, let me pull that up real quick. Give me a second.

So the avoided cost mythology, basically what it comes to is the bottom line, what we pay back for kilowatt hours if the account is in excess. If you were in positive excess of your net, that amount at the end of the year is basically what gets credited back to your account at the end of the year. Around January, I think, of the first of the year, and then it resets whatever bank that customer has had. So it goes back to zero. It's applied to the customer's account at the beginning of the year, and it starts all over again.

So if they used solar and then they didn't have whatever access they had that they did use in power, that's what they got? I don't really understand how this works, but I obviously haven't gone through this program, so. That's fair.

Sure. So, okay. Let's say they have, there's really good generating months of the year, starting in April. April, May, June, July, August. Those are when solar systems usually are up producing as much as they can. And then if people really don't use a whole lot of power during the day and they manage their load at night, they will have a net positive of their generation. So they'll be up and they'll be banking. So every month, anything that's not used by them that they generated creates a bank. That's an excess. And so it sits in their account in a bank. And every month it adds up and adds up. Now, some months they are in a net negative. So that means that they've used more than they generated. And so then they don't bank any of those credits. And so then at the end of the year, whatever they have left over is what gets paid out to their, it gets credited to their account. In addition to the months where they were generating and they generated more than they were using, they also get paid out at the end of the year through this bank system.

Okay, so they're not just getting paid out, they're like the credit to actually be paid hard cash?

No, no, it's credited to the account.

So hard cash would be more enticing, but all right.

True, but it's not set up that way.

So currently no one receives payments from the city?

Not unless I believe they are closing their accounts and there was something left over, then I think there's an actual payout. But for that, I'll have to refer to the finance department to see how that's managed. But that avoided cost basically calculates price per. Kilowatt hour, so it's usually anywhere from 2 to 4 cents. Per kilowatt hour, which is much less than what they buy from the city.

And do we do we have any way of enforcing that, um.

Battery charging clause that if would we know if somebody was charging their pretty well versed in can find out if it's not set up the way that we are telling them to have it set up. But if it is discovered later, we can terminate them from the program if we find out and discover it later. So just because it doesn't get caught maybe in the beginning when you do an initial walkthrough, if it is discovered later, this resolution essentially allows us to say, you're kind of cheating from the program, so you're going to have to be removed. So there's teeth in place to where we can enforce it, yes.

Well, thank you. Chuck, any more questions? Any further questions?

What are we paying to buy back power? Do you have a price? A price? I know there's a formula here. What does it come up to?

I think last year it came out to 4.2 cents a kilowatt hour.

Okay, 4.2. That's our price. Is that the same price? Is it kind of similar in different areas?

Yeah, we've done a comparison and it usually doesn't get too high. That's about the range that we find it in other places. This is specifically, this is what it costs us in energy only. And now it's not to say what it costs us to pay for our operations and our maintenance and our personnel. That's why our energy price is closer to 15 cents a kilowatt hour. So this is the actual energy portion of that rate. So we're only paying the fact the energy portion for the buyback credits.

Very good. You also mentioned CID is responsible for the batteries. The whole installation. They've got to be responsible for everything from the meter on, including the solar panels?

Correct. We do not have people that are allowed to do that inspection. And that's a physical construction of it. That's why it goes to CID. Okay. But we will come on the engineering side and look on the software of some of these large batteries that people put on there. And we will ask to see what the software and the programming capabilities are to make sure that it's only being charged by their solar program, by their solar systems.

But CID is responsible for the installation of panels. Yes. Well, the contractor is responsible. The switch. Yes.

Yes. We check to make sure that switch is there.

Okay.

Yeah. We do have a checklist that we go down for these installations.

The CID is responsible for it.

They make sure that everything is correctly installed. Yes.

But it has to be installed by a licensed contractor. Yes. The contractors will have to do the installation.

But that's a part of the process. They understand that they have to go and reach out to the state for inspection. For that, I stand. Are there any other questions?

Any other questions from the audience, public, online? Well, that's most of our people online. Any other comments? If not, we'll go to the motion.

Is Gallup Solar in the room?

I don't see any of them. I think they're pretty happy with this.

Maybe we could get...

I didn't hear anything back.

Any insights on how this might impact the from their perspective. From what I understand, what we really need is a little bit more user-friendly information on our website. So maybe we can work on that as well, especially with the update.

Every website.

Yeah.

We've actually had, Councillor, we've actually had to go onto the website and put some makeshift working parameters in place to give to the contractors. So all this is really doing, because people who have been doing the installation of their systems, They've already been operating under this. This is just simply codifying what's already been put out there for them to understand.

Okay.

Okay. If we have a motion to.

I make a motion to approve the resolution number are 2026 dash 24. Our program amendments and interconnection agreement.

Okay. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Chuck.

Thank you, Chuck.

Our next item is topic number three. It is the approval of Resolution R2026-26, Annual New Mexico Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan, Senior Center, and our speaker, Steve Warhol.

Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Council. We are here to get approval for our ICIP, Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan, which is basically a five-year plan on what we're going to be utilizing ICIP funds for between fiscal year 27 to 32. fiscal year twenty seven we and this basically this plan like i said it's a five year plan and as it states in the second paragraph the costs are not exact these are basically just basic general estimates as the project is planned and programmed and designed ultimately for what we foresee we may need in the future over that five year plan for fiscal year 27 we are looking at furnishings for the new senior center as we're not sure how far the money we have allocated for the senior center is going to be stretched and when you look at the senior center and actually there's a meeting tomorrow at 10 if you have a personal care equipment like the hard hat and what have you you can please come by the senior center and walk through it they've made great progress on it We start at 10 tomorrow, Alicia Keegan and I will be there and you could see where the progress lies. But with the money that we currently have allocated for the senior center, we don't know if it's going to stretch into things like we have a reading room. For example. We don't have bookshelves for a reading room. We don't have places for them. Nice places for our seniors to sit for the reader. We have some furniture. Currently at the senior center, but it's. Aged, I'll just say that. Okay. And it'd be nice if we can fill that center with things that are appropriate for a new center. We're fine with the tables and chairs taking those over there, but other elements, like, in the lobby seating in the lobby, certain certain. furnishings for the arts and crafts room. As you already aware, I put in for a grant for exercise equipment, which we're hoping to get, haven't heard anything back on that yet. But basically the first fiscal year is for hoping for furnishings for the senior center. Fiscal year is 28, 29 and 30 are basically to replace the vehicles. A food truck, what we deliver the meals on wheels type of things. Those meal trucks cost in excess of $120,000 because it has to have the heating element and a cooling element in the back. And they're already at 10 years old. And so we think we can get one to two more years out of them. But they are having to go to fleet often for repairs, particularly on the cooling units and that type of thing. So we're looking at doing those in years 28 and 29. And then our basic unit that we use to transport seniors if they need appointments and things like that, that is a 2014 vehicle. And by 2029, 2030, it's time to replace that. So that's basically what's in our ICIP plan. Yes, Mr. Malino.

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but is Frank on board?

Yeah, Frank's on.

Yes, sir. Yeah, I'm just hearing about the vehicles here. I got something in the back of my mind that we approved a new food truck. For the senior citizens last year, the year before?

That was a van. That's 569. We did get a new van to replace one of the buses. And we did receive that back in February.

Was it a food truck then?

Not to my knowledge. We didn't get a food truck.

No, sir. It was a passenger vehicle for transporting people.

All right. The 14-passenger van, it was put in last year by the previous director, and Ms. Carey and I went and picked it up back in January.

Good.

And we are utilizing that weekly, all the time. Yes.

Frank, I have a question for you. This is Councilor Garcia. Can we mayor and councilors use our discretionary fund to help in any way for some of the lists that they have at your center? Of course.

Of course. I will say that I've worked with miss Santiago on this, the police, if you can help me with this a little bit police were the police station was funded in a similar fashion. Is that correct?

A couple of years ago, Chief Pablo had gone to the legislative session and had requested money. I believe it was Senator Pinto. She had designated money and had given money to the police department to furnish their building, which currently we are they are going to get furniture hopefully within the next two to four weeks um the order was placed prior to um price increase um so we're hoping that with the ICIP that we could approach the legislators to provide additional funding for our senior center. One of the things I did want to add is that for this item and also for the next one that Keegan will be speaking of, the ICIP is not a, we're not, I'm seeking any funding. All this is is strictly is a planning tool. And what happens is that a lot of times the legislators will look at this list and they'll say, is it on the ICIP? And I know at the last legislative session that we had done with the COF at the county, that the governor is also looking at this list. So your projects need to be on this list in order for them to possibly fund it a lot of times.

Al, could you put it up on the screen? The ICIP for the seniors, then also we'll do the ICIP when we get to the next item.

Yes, please do.

Thank you, Alicia.

Yeah, I think that's a great comment, but my question kind of regarding that too is, and maybe I'm missing something, so in this ICP current priorities, I realize we're going into the next fiscal year, but it's not showing 2027 with the furniture. So then how does that work with it? You're saying like it should be on the list so that state reps and centers can see the list, but it's not showing 27.

So, so, uh, counselor piano, this list is. So the, the state, they always work a fiscal year ahead. Oh, so everything that was on 27, we had approved last, last year. It was in last year's ICIP. So our ICIP, just so, and I know my family gets confused when I'm working on the two of them. So our ICIP, the Infrastructural Capital, is the state's plan. When we all sat in the session with you all for the CIP, that's the city's plan. And that one goes out 10 years. This with the state is for five years of planning.

So for the CIP, for the city plan for 2027 fiscal year, you're saying you're looking at furniture, which we haven't received. So that's not for the state. That's for the city is what you're saying, I'm guessing. And then, because I just can't remember, remind me how much was that anticipated cost? No, for 2027, it's not. There's no furniture there. So you're saying, because Steve just said the furniture was for 2027. So for 2028, you have $725,000 with the cost, but none of those are furniture, right?

There is on this sheet for the senior center. Priority number four is the furnishings and furniture. We're looking at year one for 250,000. So realistically, when they go into legislative next round, they'll actually be looking at this place.

I see. I missed that. Okay. Yes. Thank you. I missed that furnishing. Okay. Because I thought, see, that's a furnishing for 2027. So I see that. So all of these will be for 2028. And then, and that's a pretty large. I mean, it's almost a million dollars and we're trying to get it right. So, I mean, I understand you may not get it. You're just having it on there just in case. So they can see what your priorities are.

Exactly. Yes.

And I'm just going to add something to probably keep visual. So the thing of fiscal years is that right now we're in fiscal year 26. It ends tomorrow. Right. We start fiscal year 27. So you have to remember that. You have six months of one year, and then you move into another year. The year that we call it is the ending June. So I think this actually needs to say that the start date is July 1st, 2027. Yes. And I think that's your confusion. So it will be fiscal year 28. But it starts. So I think that's part of the confusion. So right now we're finishing up fiscal year 26th. On Wednesday, we'll start fiscal year 27. We go to legislature in January. We'll still be in fiscal year 27. They're going to be looking at the budget that will start July 1st, 2027, but it will be fiscal year 20. So I think that's what I got.

Yeah, that actually was, you thought that was something more confusing, but actually that's helpful for me because I think that's helpful because I- Six months, six months.

Yeah. Two years. Think of the year you're calling it.

Yeah, no, that's, that's actually, that's helpful. Thanks.

So counselors, if you'd like prior to submission, I could go ahead and make sure that all of those dates are changed, especially in on the project start dates and just changing those to July 1 of that year. That way it's not. So I could go in and change the start date to July 1st, 27th. That way we know that that's the fiscal year that we're on. If you would like me to make that amendment. I mean, all of the items would be the same, but see on that column.

So you have the start date in there at 7-1-28. So you want to change that to 27?

I could change that to 27. Yeah, we probably better do that.

28, 29, 30. Yeah, that'd be great. Starting 27, not July, because then that would be fiscal year 2029.

Sure, and I can make that change. Not changing the priority, but actually changing the start date of the project. And the same would hold true with the list that Keegan has.

Okay. Any other questions?

We have a motion. I'd like to make a motion for approval of the Resolution R2026-26 Annual New Mexico Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan for the Senior Center.

Councilor Molina? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Piano? Yes. Councilor Yazzie? Yes. Mayor DePaul?

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Council. Thank you.

Our next item is going to be a continuation of the infrastructure capital improvements plan, but this is going to be for the rest of the city. And our presenter is going to be Keegan McKenzie-Chavis.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. So you've already kind of been led into this. So let me just reiterate what Alicia Santiago said. So this is a planning tool. And I'll give you an example. We did a grant, a matching grant. for the Playground of Dreams. And on the questionnaire for the matching grant, it actually states, is your project on the ICIP? And then it asks you, what's the priority list? So to Alicia's point, this is a planning tool. Other grants may require that your project be on that list to secure that funding or at least apply for that funding. So that's the importance of this list. So now I'll just kind of start approval. I'm seeking approval of resolution number R2026-25, Annual New Mexico Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan. So the State Department of Finance and Administration, the DFA, requires local governments to systematically develop and annually submit a five-year infrastructure capital improvement plan, an ICIP. and the goal is to refine development needs and identify funding sources. The ICIP is then used by all state agencies involved in funding local government projects as a way to analyze the proposed capital outlay bills during the state legislative sessions. For your consideration, the attachment provides a complete listing of all proposed ICIP projects, and there's a total of 46, and these scan all the different departments. Projects are the community improvement plan projects for the next five years as presented and were approved by the City Council during 2026-2027 budget process. All project estimates are conceptual in nature within 25% to 75% of completed project costs and are not exact. So a lot of things factor into that. So we're trying to keep them just due to inflation and supply chain issues, do fairly accurate estimates. Project cost estimates are repeatedly refined as each project is planned, programmed, designed, and ultimately constructed. Projects are not listed in any priority order other than planned years. So Alicia, is that right? They're not a priority listing here? HAB-Masyn Moyer- Or is it the sheet here.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- The priority listing. Yeah.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Okay, so scratch that last sentence. Okay, so last DFA will no longer allow any changes after submission and before the state legislative convenes so staff needs city council's approval and see So tentative identification of the, I'm gonna say fiscal year 27. I'm gonna correct that right there. Top five legislative priorities and approval of the projects as listed in the form of a resolution. Attachment C. Is it fiscal year 28? Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah.

Can you repeat what you said?

Okay. So it's right. So it is fiscal year 2028 because it starts July 27, but it ends June 28. So I got it.

Yeah. So the fiscal year for the ICIP senior and ours goes from FY28 to FY28.

2032 so that date again that where it says start date 7128 will be changed to 7127 right that was but it is fiscal year 20 back to my original explanation about to um changes to a calendar year be so much easier i'm up for that that's really good Karen Hollweg, Alright, so let me get back on there's no direct impact on the city's budget, however, the state icp maybe used as a consideration by the governor state agencies and other state legislature in their grant. approval process. Staff recommends that the council identify the city's top five tentative projects for legislative funding. As a starting point for the city council's discussion, staff proposes for the city council's consideration the following top five projects. Number one, distribution system upgrades. Replace cast iron lines and valves. Number two, wastewater treatment plan improvements, solid process and reuse filtration. Number three, new airport terminal, free trade zone, CRE, I'm not sure the acronym for that. What is that one? Custom.

Okay. Yeah, I don't know.

And then warehouse and then number four new regional library construction and number five new regional animal shelter, so the official fiscal impact is none because we're using this as a. programming list to seek funding staff recommends approval of the IC IP project listing and priorities resident and approval of resolution number are 2026 dash 25.

Thank you so much. And just to go on, because there seems to be some confusion on the rankings, you know, the top five or the top five, but they're funded differently. If it's the water distribution system, it's going to be funded through like the Water Trust Board. or through the Environment Department. Same way at the wastewater plant. So these, although the top five are listed as top five, the funding, there's not going to be any competition between the library versus the item above it, which is the airport, which is strictly from the federal administration. Excuse me, the Mexico Department of Transportation, the aviation section. Or the animal shelter, right? And the animal shelter, I believe, is Health and Human Services and different.

Right, and USDA has some funding. Those come from different agencies.

And the ICIP, the Fed, does look at it also just as much as the state. So these top five and most of these aren't even going to compete against each other. until you get into later years. So the funding is separate fundings. I just want to make everybody point that out to everybody with that. And with any other questions from council?

Mr. Mayor, this is Frank. I just wanted to emphasize, I appreciate you saying what you said. When we go to Santa Fe, we're lobbying equally for Usually stuff within the top 10 where the top five, they're going to look at closer and, and, you know, we're going up equally looking for money for the library, just as much as the wastewater treatment plant, et cetera. Just people need to be aware that there's organized systems for roads, waters. There's already organized programs, but there's not a program for libraries at the state level or, or animal shelter. So again, We are having to lobby it at a different level, I will say. But we're going up there equally for all of these. And I just really wanted to emphasize that.

Yeah, there's public comment. I want to make sure we have public comment. I just have a quick clarifying question, too. You know, one of the things that state reps and senators have told us, I can't speak for like our federal congressmen necessarily or women, but that they really like projects that they could finish. Right. And so a lot of these are like ongoing. And so I guess I'm just going to ask you out loud. How does that affect, you know, we're coming to them for projects. Do they see, oh, they look at it like, Ron, are you okay there too? Like, oh my gosh, somebody got water. Yeah. Like, how does that affect how we ask? Because if we're asking, they say, oh, well, good. You're getting this extra funding from another source. That means like we can complete. I think they like to like complete projects, right? They don't want to start projects that can't be completed. And so I think in some sense that does put the library at a disadvantage because there aren't really other funding sources that we're getting. And so I think the way we approach things is really important because if we can say, hey, we're getting this grant, we're getting this federal funding for wastewater treatment, and if you give us X amount, now it finishes out the project. That's going to be much more appealing to them because it finishes out the project. I've heard many times from reps at center, do you want to finish out a project? We don't want ongoing projects. So I'm just kind of making a comment about how we approach our funding sources and how we look at things.

I can say that Alicia and I have had conversations and with the different department heads that we really need to make sure when they're considering a project first step, get it designed. And so that what we're hearing is that the legislators want to have shovel-ready projects. So it means it needs to have the design phase together, and then we can go for the construction dollars. So we kind of had a plan of attack that we need to get projects designed and then be able to seek out the funding for construction and really make that clear that we're not just During the project it's construction money we can apply because we never had a design so internally we're really kind of pressing that point like let's get this project designed and ready to then get the construction dollars.

Councilors, and then if you'll go back and you kind of look at your CIP when we kind of sat down together, a lot of the projects that we had put on there were for design for that specific reason. We're trying to make sure that we get these projects designed so that then we're able and that puts us in a better position when we're seeking money for construction projects. of projects and so you know it's really it's really important that not only do we have a design but we also need to make sure that we have a site a site where we want to put the that that particular if we're building a new building we need to know where is that building going um because that that's a lot of um That's a lot of what ends up happening. So we just need to make sure that we have all of those pieces in place prior to seeking out construction. Again, as far as... annual or like, for instance, the police vehicle procurement. Since I took on the ICIP after Stan retired and I worked on it with CB, that big police vehicles procurement, that's been on there annually every year. But that's just something that... the state wants so that if police need new vehicles, you know, that comes out of a law enforcement pot of money, but therefore that does stay on there annually. Things like our water distribution, you know, we do have a lot of cast iron lines and so we do need those to be replaced. Unfortunately, we can't do it all in, one shot. So, you know, we've got a plan again, you know, finding it out helps us a lot as well.

Thank you.

Any other questions from Council?

yeah i have a couple so sorry no not for tammy sorry just a minute if i may i understand that we are supposed to have a public input meeting on the icip before it comes to council and from what i'm aware you all did hold one last tuesday when we were all out at the county crawl to that night, that one night that we were all at the county call. However, I received the public notices and I don't believe there was public notice communicated out from the city for that meeting. And so that's a concern to me about how much public input we were actually able to get on this.

And we only had two citizens on that. I think Alicia did the public notice, but I think next year going forward, we can do things a little bit,

For what I'm aware, there is only a post put out on the city's Facebook page, which is not a really... You are correct, Councillor.

Being as we don't have a daily newspaper anymore. Previously, when I had submitted a public notice, it was through the Independent. It was through the Gallup Center. Unfortunately, I didn't get to the center. So... I was just only our Facebook page. But normally, yes, it would have gotten out to the independent in prior years, only being that we don't have a newspaper source. You're limited in as far as how you're going to get the notice out. You can do the best you can.

We do have several citizens subscribe to the city alerts. And that's what I was looking for. I don't, that's kind of what I'm concerned about. It seems like it didn't get to the clerk's office to be put out in the city email and text alerts that tell everybody about the upcoming meetings. And I don't know if that's just because you guys were rushed and trying to do it before the deadline with that. I think it's really important that people be able to participate in that and know that it's coming up for those who are interested in speaking to the ICIP.

Okay. And as far I'm I just became aware of this whole new process as far as what needs to get approved by Al's office. So all I did was submit to Matt to put it on our Facebook page. Wasn't aware as far as the text messages for the city's alert. I do get the text messages for emergency through the county. I've never received anything as far as Didn't know we had one. Basically, I wasn't aware that the city had a text message alert. So that'll be something I look into So I did, we did try to get it out as best as we could to the public being as this year was a whole was a different Type of way of trying to notify the public. I know that also, Councillor, when Keegan did have her public meeting, unfortunately, there wasn't a huge turnout like we had seen previously, but she did take this information for public input and did post it.

That's the one on June 17th.

Yes.

On the day after. Yes.

We have a small group.

But to your point, I totally agree. I think we need to... hit this a month or two in advance and we need to have more opportunities. So really kind of working on creating a calendar where these things are laid out a month to two in advance. And so that is my goal that we're not rushing and always hitting kind of deadlines. And so the public has more time and also utilizing, I mean, the community meet and greets, they haven't had a huge turnout, but I'm thinking, you know, the more we get in the practice of doing them, we can use those events for all of these things. So Just patience and just continually having those. I think that'll be another forum. But I agree with you 100%. We need stuff to be on calendars and notification for a month in advance before we do any of these. The CIP, the ICIP, our budget hearings, all of that needs to be held differently in this next go around. Thank you. So thank you.

Yeah. And my last comment is that while I understand that these are from non-competing funding sources and we are applying for all of them together everywhere, I also heard Keegan say that one of the questions on the application for the Playground of Dreams was what number on your list is it? And that people do want to see, funders do want to see what priorities these are. And so given that the airport does fall under a more specialized funding stream with most of that coming from the state aviation department, perhaps we could consider moving that down to number five.

I think that's what the discussion is, that we can prioritize those. depending on what you all decide.

I just want to say when I have a neighborhood meetings and if it's time for the ICIP whatever they would come to our neighborhood meetings and I would let neighbors at that time know about those things also. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Our Community means and also our public our constituents.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- I think that would be great. And if I'm not sure where you all is kind of a sidebar where you list. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Where you're having your, your town hall meetings, but that'd be great for me to have that also to know when you're having your events and so we can start to just give more information instead of less

Mayor and Council, on the airport, especially the foreign trade zone, it's the only economic development we have in the top 10. I would hate to move it anywhere down. That is, again, the only economic development that is going to be the future to driving any of the social programs that we will have in the future.

That's right. I agree. That airport's an important project for Gallup in general. They're all important. They're all important.

Mayor and City Council, may I address you now? I just want to remind you of the history of the library. Not only has this been an ongoing conversation for over 20 years, but the selected site between the 2nd and 3rd in Maloney was approved by City Council February 9th, 2021. The Library Advisory Board presented to the City Council on June 20th 2023. The concept design for the new regional library was approved by the city council January 16th, 2024. The library director, myself, I guess I didn't introduce myself, Tammy Moe, library director, was asked by the city manager to identify an alternative site for the new regional library. And this was presented to the library advisory board on April 28th, 2025. The capital campaign for the new regional library was approved by the city council, May 27th, 2025. Capital campaign subcommittee was formed by the library advisory board, July 29th, 2025. A site selection subcommittee was formed by the library advisory board in December of 2025. The committee met twice in January, 2026. The Library Advisory Board met with the City Manager and Planning and Development Director January 26, 2026 to discuss four possible alternative sites for the new Regional Library. It appears that the City Council was not involved in the decision to deem the approved site as unviable. The Library Advisory Board is not aware of this issue going before the City Council. Instead, the decision appears to have been made administratively based on the following rationale. The site conflicted with other projects, being the reconnecting community study that is attempting to raise the rail crossing for pedestrian vehicle safety. If it goes through the building in that area, it would be demolished. But that explanation did not align with the lab's understanding of the reconnecting communities pilot grant program, the City of Gallup's second and third street crossing community planning project, or with the changes proposed by BNSF Railroad and the New Mexico Department of Transportation. So I can go on, but I want you to know or remind you that you've been involved in this conversation all along. All of these things were not a problem until now. And continues to be this discussion about whether we have a design or not. So we have a concept design. as keegan just spoke about this list the icip list is conceptual in nature so there are a lot of people here who showed up today who would like to voice some comment if you would listen to the public about the public library

Good afternoon, Mayor and Councils, Councilors. I'm Janet Leigh Tempest. I'm a former chair of the Library Advisory Board and now a director of the Friends of the Octavia Flynn Public Library. I had a whole thing written out for me to say, but I'm going to just give you extended history beyond what Tammy gave you. I'm here to ask you to move the new regional library into the city's top three priorities in the ICIP. And I understand the funding comes from different sources, but this is not my first time in this room. I stepped before a different mayor and a different council six to seven years ago to make the same request. Our library is 75 years old. It was built in 1951. It outgrew the facility, and it was expanded in 1977. Over 20 years ago, a temporary children's library was moved to its current location. It's been temporary for more than 20 years now. So the demand for library services keeps growing. We have more than 42,000 registered users, more than twice Gallup's population. And last year, the library welcomed over 125,000 visits and offered more than 800 programs. This is up from 500 programs a year from a few years ago. The truth is our buildings just can't keep up anymore. And the council has known about this for at least six or seven years, even more. So the services are spread across multiple locations. There's not enough room for growing collections or programs, and we don't have the technology, study space, or flexible community space that a modern library should provide. So this project isn't about a new building. It's about investing in education, opportunity, and quality of life in Gallup so that future generations can have opportunities here. The people of Gallup and McKinley County have been waiting years for this. The library has been in the top 10 or top five for, I know, at least seven years. But it keeps getting pushed back. Other programs leapfrog over us. It is time to build this library. And we have support. We have a capital campaign that's ready to go. And we just ask for you to advocate for this stronger when you go to the state legislature. Thank you. I appreciate your time and your service.

Thank you, Shannon.

Mr. Mayor, City Councilors, my name is Rose Eason and I am also here today to urge you to prioritize a new regional library within the city's ICIP plan and within its plans generally. And I just want to note that not having a public meeting On the ICIP plan is no small thing. The state requires one. Not only did the city not provide public notice, Facebook is not a public platform. It only provided notice 24 hours in advance of the meeting time. And it didn't publish a draft plan with that meeting announcement. So we didn't get reasonable advanced public notice and we didn't get a draft to review. And therefore there has been no public meeting and the city is out of interest. in violation of the state requirement and i don't know that this icip plan is valid for that reason um now we're being given the opportunity to weigh in at the 11th hour two days before the plan is due at a meeting that's in the middle of the work day but there is strong a strong showing of public support for the library today and i believe there is a consensus in the city that we are long overdue for a new regional library as janet mentioned the demand is clear Given the number of users and program public program participants at the library, we've maxed out our infrastructure. And I also disagree that the library is not economic development. It's key to the quality of life here, which is key to attracting businesses and workforce. It also does a lot to support small businesses. I just talked to an artist the other day about where she could use a printer to file an application for a grant. So the library is economic development thinking otherwise is is utilizing too narrow a definition of economic development. And so I really urge you to put it in the top three, if not the top spot. I also have been to Santa Fe with you all or on my own. But while you all have been there the last five or six years, I've never seen the city advocate for anything that's not in the top three. I just haven't seen it in the published material that goes out to all the legislators. So I really agree with janet and the other folks in the room and the rest of the city that the library deserves to be in that spot we the public deserve it to be in that spot and the future of gallup kind of rests on you guys taking a broader approach to economic development in this manner thank you mayor uh are we in violation of uh public comment on this if we are

This is an action item. So as a regular meeting on an action item, you can take the comment on action.

But do we have, did we give enough time? That's the question. That's what I'm hearing from everybody. We have not promoted it.

For the ICIP. Right. It was published on Friday? Yes. Actually, okay, for the ICIP meetings with the public, are we talking about those public meetings?

I'm hearing that we're supposed to have a public meeting How many days are we supposed to advertise it, did I hear?

Well, those meetings, I'm not sure what the publication requirement is. But I could sit down with Alisha and we could discuss that. But usually, any time that you have a public hearing, you've got to put the public notice out. I don't know if that was done or not.

Okay. I'm wondering if we should take this off the agenda completely until... I can't hear you.

We cannot wait. I'm going to go to the microphone.

So I'll go ahead again.

The list is due July 1st. Alicia has to turn it in on July 1st. Wow.

So we're just going to have to get through it. And then if there's any protests or anything, we'll address those. It's done in a council meeting, and the council meeting was advertised quickly. So we just need to move on with it and find out what happens. But we have to get a DFA by the 1st because we still want to make sure all these projects are eligible.

Pardon me, Mayor, Council. What we can do is if you all approve today's list, I can reach out to DFA, to my contact who does the ICIP. My understanding is this list doesn't get published until October, November. So once we get the list submitted, as soon as it's submitted, I can reach out to her, ask her, Kat, you know, we're always able to make changes to the list, but not add new projects. Now we can reprioritize if you'd like at a later date. but knowing that the projects that currently are on here are the ones that are going to stay on here. And if the public would like and those who are here regarding the library, we can go through Further discussion with you all as far as reprioritizing the list, but that's about it. You know, that's all I can say as far as. The publication, the list would have to stay the same. We can't add projects, but if you approve today's list, then we can reprioritize at a at a different. But then why can't we prioritize now? Why can't we move something up? Well, I mean, that's all up to you. And I'm just saying based on every, if you all want to.

Let me make sure everybody understands. The question was not a prioritizing the list. It was, are we in compliance? Did we advertise correctly for the DFA, for the ICIP? We're not too worried about the prioritizing the projects. Are we in compliance with the advertising at the previous date? So if we didn't do it, we didn't do it. We're just going to take the hit. I mean, we're not talking about prioritizing. Ron's question was, are we by any chance in violation from Rose's comment?

In all of the trainings that I have attended, there is no like... It doesn't state I have to have so many days to advertise. And the last meeting I went to and the last training that they have, as far as I know, and I've attended all of the trainings all of these last five, six years, I have never heard of them saying that you have to advertise so many days prior to your public meeting.

And right now we're advertised 3, 3 or 4 days or 3 days for this public meeting and we're going to approve. So I think we'll, you know, we'll just stay with that. Ron, if that's okay. Sorry, did you have anything else?

My comment is more and it's not going to do anything at this point, but my comment is, this is. not the first time, not the second time, not the 10 time where we've received items as a council the day before it's due. I literally just, I don't know what to do to change that. And I understand the city is busy and we're all busy, but I mean, and this isn't to blame the speakers. This isn't to blame any one person. That's not what this is. But it hasn't always been ICIP. It's been numerous items that have come to us where we said, well, let's table this because we think this went wrong and say, oh, well, you can't because it's literally due tomorrow. Well, you can't. It's literally due in two days. Well, I personally don't like my hands being tied like that. I think it puts the council in a really tough space and it makes us feel like we have to approve things no matter what. And You know, that's really difficult. You want the city's involvement. You want the community's involvement. But then we get forced to vote for things because it's due tomorrow. I'm just going to say, I don't love that. Actually, I don't like it at all.

Councillor, I totally agree. And that's the goal needs to be that we put these things on a calendar and we have a month to two month advance. And that's my goal moving forward as I'm kind of understanding how things work. Yes, I totally agree and totally apologize. We need to do things differently. And so going forward, both for the CIP, the budget, the ICIP, we need longer timeframes. So totally understand your frustration.

And that wasn't to blame you, Keegan.

No, no. No, but the system needs to change. And that's the calendar. And we need to kind of shift mentality from, you know, us... running to the last minute to advance. We have time. Everybody has time. The public has time. I understand the public's frustration of wanting to be involved. And then we also need to have more venues, your neighborhood meetings, our meet and greets. We need to have more than one option. And so we need to be more aware of that. So totally who are you? Totally understand.

I don't know if we have the people at City Hall to do all this. We might have to hire somebody else eventually and go ahead to you. because of the load that's put on our grant administrators and trying to do an ICIP at the same time.

I would love an admin. I would love to duplicate. I've been saying that all along. We have a lot of grants, and so we also do need more people. So yes, but completely aware of how we need to shift and be ahead of the game, not last minute. Completely understand your frustration. Thank you.

Okay, let's continue. You'll be happy to know that I'm very short and sweet in what I'm going to say. Mayor DePaule and the counselors, thank you very much for letting me speak to you today. My name is Gwen Wilton. I am the mother of four readers. I am a lover of libraries. In fact, I have five library cards and I'm a member of the library site selection subcommittee. And so we've been very involved in the whole process with the library. I want to thank Mayor de Pauli. I want to thank the counselors, in particular my counselor, Linda Garcia, for her support of the new library and tech center. I think that this administration has the opportunity to do something very exciting and to bring to fruition something that the community has been asking for for so many years. So I leave it on you guys to face this exciting challenge and make a new library happen as dr seuss said in his book the lorax unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot nothing is going to get better it's not and so i'm asking you to consider moving the library to the number three priority because that's so often what they look at And I would also like to remind you that we do have a conceptual design for the library. That is something that has already been approved by the council and is a lovely conceptual design. If you've not seen it, please go to the library and look at it. Thank you.

Hello, Mayor, Councilors. I hadn't really been prepared to speak here today, but did have the opportunity.

State your name, please. Pardon?

Oh, I'm getting to that. Christina Feiflis Eason. And so having listened to the conversation, I think I'm just going to do some bullet points. One, I am an attorney. I am not the city's attorney. I think the mayor is correct. There's either a legal flaw in the process or there isn't. And with that in mind, I think it is necessary that those who have raised the objection are are respected as maintaining the objection to the potential unlawful process here. But I'm not going to speak to that other than to say that there's no waiver of that. That's a standing objection. But interestingly, Alicia mentioned that there was difficulty in publicizing the meetings because we don't have a newspaper anymore. So that brought to mind an anecdote when I spoke to a librarian in Kyiv, Ukraine, She said the library in Kyiv has become the only place where accurate information can be found by the public. Of course, they go there for food and they go there for shelter, but they go there to get correct information. So that highlights and the part of her presentation was. how critical, especially when communities are in crisis or struggling with problems, libraries are to promoting accurate information. So that is a use of the library that's very critical and hopefully will be incorporated in the new library. Number two is, yes, This has been going on for a very long time. I'm very heartened to hear that there's no hierarchy in the numbering of the top five projects. I think that it would be a great benefit to the public to have that memorialized. I assume it's memorialized in the minutes here, that the intention is not to promote a hierarchy or prioritize matters. and make sure that that's understood when going to Santa Fe. My personal opinion as to airport versus library is there is no airport versus library. I am a huge supporter of the airport, a huge supporter of the trade port. I think those are two more recent developments that are really going to drive economic development here. And we need to maintain that. I'm not familiar with all the details, but it's my understanding that it can't even be conceived as airport or library, meaning which one gets the higher spot, because the economic role of the airport is... not impaired by perhaps putting the airport behind the library. It is mostly commercial purposes, as I understand it. We need FedEx. We need UPS. We need the Customs and Border Protection, TSA, people that Alicia was talking about. But it seems to me that what is necessary for the airport is is to enhance its role, primarily a commercial role, and that it's not going to be detracted from or detract from the library if the library is given a number higher than that. And if it truly is not a hierarchical structure, then I think the longevity of the process for the library, the two years of community input, which really needs to be respected. It was such an amazing effort. And we paid $60,000 for this plan. This is a real plan. So I want to highlight those features as if in spite of whether or not this process is appropriate, given the lack of public notice, I think that that should tip in favor of giving a higher number to the library. I also want to emphasize that not only is the longevity of the focus on preparing for this important, but Between 2024 and 2025, the library had over 125,000 visitors. And that's a huge number. Pre-pandemic, there were 220,000 annually. So there is huge use of this airport. Not, I mean, a Freudian slip. I hope there's huge use of it. But that needs to be respected too. And the other hugely important fact, essential to me, is that our schools in the Gallup-McKinley County School District, there are over 12,000 students who do not have libraries. And there are no librarians. And I am not aware of any particular school in Gallup that has a library. There may be one, the one that I would guess, which shall go remain unnamed.

There are schools that have libraries. Red Rock School has a library and a library agency.

Okay. So there are two of them?

There's more than that. It doesn't.

Oh, it doesn't? It's a surprising data point. And one school... that I would have expected to be on the list of having a library has to have the library come and do a pop-up. They do a library on location and Tammy can speak to that better, but they don't even have a library and they have huge resources that they can apply. So I think that's important. And let me, if you just indulge me for a minute, I really do believe that the library and the library as designed could be a significant economic driver here. It's a beautiful design. You all have seen it. The capital campaign is going to hopefully achieve significant private donation and thereby not cost the city money. And it's a huge number at $44 million in the end, but we're looking at 25 million raised privately. So, and... The capital campaign cannot succeed. Did you just say two minutes? Okay, I'll end.

It's repetitive. Everybody said the same thing.

Sorry. Yeah. Far be it from me to think what I have to say is unique. So I'm going to wrap up with... We have been stymied in the capital campaign because we don't have the full sign-on we need. And we need to, even if we can't yet get a site, we need the city's commitment. And if we can get a spot on the priorities that's higher, we can go out and start raising that money. Right now, we're totally stymied.

Thank you, Christine.

Oh, go ahead.

Hello City Council and Mayor. My name is Rachel Brown and I am a teacher at Miamara High School. I wanted to reiterate one of the things that Rose spoke to which how much of an economic driver the library is. I haven't always had the resources that I do know and I understand I'm really grateful to have a little bit more money than I used to in my younger years. But when I was trying to get into college, when I was applying for scholarships, grants, when I was looking for jobs, I didn't have internet at home. And that wasn't here in New Mexico, that was in Oklahoma. But the public library was where I could go to fill out job applications, to research different opportunities for grants and for college, for schools. And I think it is an oversight not to look at how much of an... how much of an economic driver that libraries can be for the people at the bottom who are really trying to improve their lives. We also had different programs on Excel and computer programs at our public library that were very helpful, again, in getting certificates and training for entry-level positions. And so I encourage you guys to look at the library as something that is needed, not just for books and for children's programs and all of this really, really important, but that a lot of people look to, to have the resources to better their lives that they don't have at home. And thank you.

Yeah, thank you. So, you know, we have libraries and we, and the library works really well. I've been going to that library since I was five years old, you know, um, this is a new library that's going to replace that library. Just in case people in the schools or everybody wants to know, we have a fine library. And if schools want to shut theirs down, they're always welcome to come to our library. Octavia Flynn.

Thank you.

In closing, I would like to add that we are limiting the number of participants we can have in our programs because we have limited space and limited resources. So that does impact the community. Also, in our design concept, we have included the finishings and the furnishings. So this is not something that was overlooked. And last but not least, Navajo Times is a daily newspaper that you can publish your notices in here easily. So thank you so very much for listening to everyone and for everyone that came to support the library.

I really appreciate all the comments. Also, I wasn't trying to say I didn't support the library, but I do know many schools that do have libraries. I just want to make sure we have clear understanding. I visit every school. You know, I think it's so torn, right? Because I think the council, I can't speak for everyone, but I think we support all these things. There's so many needs in the community. But I will say that, you know, I do resonate with the comments of like, this has been ongoing to have the library as a top priority. And I get it because it's not that all these are other priorities, but if there's no hierarchy with the number system, then what does it matter? Then why can't we move the library to the third? If there's no hierarchy anyway, and it doesn't matter, Um, I think the airport is extremely important, but it does come from very specific funding sources. So to me, you know, I think that. The airport, we're going to go after those funding sources anyway. And so if it's not competing with the library, what does it matter if we move the library up to number three? Because the library needs more awareness. And I think they're right. I know Linda and I both have advocated for the library and for the animal shelter, but it's not enough right now. And for... years and years, we keep saying the library's a priority, but it's never moved into, it's barely just moved into the top five. So I think it's just, I'm glad it's in the top five, but you're right. Like when we go, we have to really focus. And I haven't been in too many meetings with the governor, with our group, where we've said, these are our top priorities. And the library was like, this is really a big item. So I think if We got to put our money where our mouth is. And if we really value, we either say, look, we no longer think the library is important. We no longer think this is important to our community. We say that out loud or we keep saying it's important. And then we actually make it important and put it in the top three. I think those are and it's not to disagree that these other things aren't important. But again, we just got done saying it's not a hierarchy. They're all equally important. If they're all equally important, we already know funding is coming from other places, then we need more visibility for the library. That's the reality. And putting it in the top three gives it more visibility and awareness. So let's put it in the top three. It doesn't mean we're automatically going to get the money for it, but it at least brings visibility and more awareness. And it makes the people we're going to as funders take us seriously that we're taking the library seriously. By never putting it up above, we're not taking it seriously.

Excellent.

The first two, as you mentioned, the first two, number one and number two, they come from the Water Trust Board, is that correct?

Yes, Water Trust Board or EPA.

They're not competing against one or two. The airport, that's coming from the feds, right?

Or the state DOT, yes.

State DOT, okay. Does any money from the library go to state DOT? I don't think so.

The point I'm trying to make is,

If you're in the top five, and I get what you're saying. I come from business, man. It's like everything's a priority. Everything's a priority. If you want to be number one on the list, I'll put you number one on the list. But I don't know what that does until we get the money to build the place. That's what we're all trying for. Where are we with the money for the libraries?

anybody have an idea i think there's um if i'm correct i can't hear you so so there are two appropriations for conceptual designs and for construction so we know that we pay very much for construction so it's more dealing with maybe site acquisition or or further design. So there's two.

So originally there, the city covered the concept designed twice. Once with 1 tech, and that was looking at other sites and then the most recent 1, which was the 60,000 dollar. A city funded, which is the conceptual design. I ask that you all please remember it's a concept. even the numbers here so realistically even if we're asking for money we do we do not have an actual design ready for construction for the library so if we're looking at if we're trying to get the library funded We don't have an actual construction ready design. We have a concept. We don't have a construction ready plan.

We need $1.5 million for the construction docs and we have been asking for that for the last five years.

And then, and then, as far as the capital. I know Tammy and everyone. It was approved by Council. Now what's going on with the capital campaign Tammy can answer to that because that was just something I also wanted to include that funding as far as in our CIP what has been funded to date, but I wasn't able to get those numbers.

Can I just clarify, you asked what funding there is. My understanding is there's $100,000 and $150,000, correct? Or is there only one?

Yes, we also currently have a $100,000 grant that was given to you all from Representative Wanda Johnson. And then... I believe Tammy said that there's the second one, although we have not received that grant agreement yet. We've only have answered the questionnaire. So realistically, if we receive the second grant and it's for the same amount, 100,000, then we have $200,000 for the library.

And that $200,000 is conceptual design funding site acquisition funding because Wanda Johnson is a huge supporter of this library and she will continue to support it, but she wants to make it so that we can get a site because this has been the biggest holdup. This is the second time we've lost a site for the same building. So once we have a site in place, we can move forward with everything that was approved by the council.

So tell me, do we have a site?

No, we do not yet.

Do we have potential?

Possibly. We're working on that, hopefully.

Will this hold us back? Because if we don't have a site, that's the most important part, because I think they're not going to look at us seriously because we don't have the site.

Yeah, we need to find a site. That's very important.

So, Tammy, one of the things we've been – I've been working with Tammy and looking for a site. There are a couple of places to have the library built. And the main reason why the position of number four, which is not that different from three, is the airport has a site, has a building, has a design. And it's ready to go. The regional library, hopefully after this year, we will have the site, soils testing done, preliminary engineering and architecture done on this new site. And we can move it. And then once that's done, we'll have the confidence to move it up higher on the priority list. But I think number four is a good position for it right now. get these things done, these pre-construction activities and items, have it ready when we go to legislature and fully support the project. Believe me, I'm going to support the project. And then next year, we'll look into see, because it's been a long time and I don't think that it's going from, and we need to keep the airport on a high priority because our next step is to move into construction.

So Mayor DePalle, can I ask, are you committing to purchasing the site for the new regional library should that come into fruition?

The site, the latest one, is between 8th and 9th Street, south of Aztec Avenue. Of course, there's a commitment, but we have to get the money. Because that goes back.

So that's the chicken and the egg, right? If we don't have the money for the site, it would have to be up to the city to commit to buying that site. Right.

Or the legislative grants or something like that. But yeah, of course, the city will do everything they can to get this site because this site makes the most sense, at least to us. I mean, it seemed like your board seemed like it made the most sense.

Because the legislative commitment will not come until the following year. So by then that site could be gone. So that's why I'm asking if the city is prepared to commit to buy that site, should that site come to fruition?

That would have to be done through budget adjustments and stuff. If the site comes to fruition, yes, it would have to be.

Again, you guys got to make comments into the mic.

It's really important that we hear your comments. So the question is, because the site is available now, the negotiation is happening now.

If we get the site, are we able to commit to buying that, having the city pay for it, showing the city's commitment to this library? Because otherwise we're still waiting until next year and it's always going to be, we don't have a site, we don't have a design. It's going to continue to be this vicious circle.

And my comment was, this is FY28. So you have an entire year. You have the entire FY27. And this would go into place if you can get funding for construction or anything else related to infrastructure and capital improvement on that site, FY28. So this is planning ahead for a site location for the library.

We would go to the legislature in January.

Yes. With this plan for FY28. Yes.

Forgive me, but when there's a property on the market, the seller is not going to wait. They're going to sell it. And that's been what we've been aced out of more than just two sites. We got aced out of the Lowe's site because somebody else came in and bought it. So... It's just the reality. I'm not complaining. The reality is this property is on the market now. If I were the seller of that property, I wouldn't sit around and wait. I'd sell it to whoever the highest bidder is. And understanding that this owner of this potential property is also very philanthropically minded. That can't be expected to last forever.

We're not here to debate the acquisition of the property. So let's continue with our regular meeting.

And let me just, last thing, to Keegan's point and Alicia's point, this is more than a concept. And the questions asking what is going on with the campaign, the capital campaign, are answered by the fact that we don't have the stuff to promote. We don't have the sites. We don't have the city's commitment. The $200,000 from Wanda Johnson is a commitment. There's also $20,000 from Jimmy Santiago Baca, who's an author. There's significant support for this. But if I came to you now and said, given what's happening in Gallup with this library, will you all donate $10,000, $100,000? What are you going to ask me? Think of that. Those questions can't be answered.

so i am looking at the dfa guidelines for the icip we i just want to let the council know that we are allowed to request an extension um to july 31st we have to request the extension by july 1st but we could request an extension um in order to hold that public meeting and be in full compliance and just to um for me it's in the interest of public trust and that even if we hear the same comments again in that public meeting we can say that we held it and we did the proper notice and we listened to the public's comments as i'm guessing that what we're going to hear is a lot more of what we're hearing today i think there's going to be more cases um of the of public um interest in HAB-Masyn Moyer- Moving the library into number three and possibly even the animal shelter which we haven't discussed much today, but I don't even know where we are if we have a design for that, like we do for the airport. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Even if we don't end up changing it. I think it's important to go back and do this properly and be in compliance with the DFA process. and to be able to say that we did our due diligence in collecting all of the public input that was to be heard. And I mean, for my part, I just wasn't on top of this, didn't see it coming. I know I could say I'm new, but I do wanna hold a community meeting and would love to do that and to bring this to my district and to talk with people. If there is interest in that, I think it's important to do. I'm just putting that out there as an option that our hands, you know, because I feel the same way as Councillor Piano, it doesn't feel like we have much of an option when things are down to the wire. So I want to put that option out there as well.

Okay, we'll move with A motion to accept the way it is.

And so we don't want to consider table and extension.

I don't know if it's going to make me a difference with it.

It's not the 1st time we could bring it back to our July 14th meeting if we were if we were granted an extension.

Again, what we could do is like I previously mentioned, we can accept the ISAP as it is right now. I will reach out to DFA asking them because I know we are given a time period, timeframe of reprioritizing. What I'm getting and my understanding from the conversations that are happening is that it's a discussion so far of reprioritizing these projects. If I'm misunderstanding, please correct me, but the way I'm understanding it is reprioritizing the library from four to three. So, I mean, if you wanna have a further discussion, let me get with my contact at DFA, letting her know that we're gonna submit the ICIP as it is, but currently, and then we will, before it's published and the state, they publish it on their website, let us have a continued public input as far as the re prioritization. And again, the re prioritization, you know, that's based on public recommendations. Well, ultimately, you all are the ones who are going to decide whether it moves or not.

Go ahead.

No, I

not too sure the logistics of that how that works if you submit it and then you uh go back and have another meeting i i don't know if that's the proper way to do handle it seems like we um you know if it's if it's submitted it's submitted so at least mayor mayor we have in the past asked them to

move items up or down the list um they're against adding items but they're not against moving priorities but what about continued hearings on the that's all i mean do you do do you do it with hearings or you do it um dartboard now we're gonna have to figure out how to do the hearings it was posted on the web page it was posted On Facebook, I mean, we go Journey. It'll be past the July 14th meeting just because of the dates to get it published and such. I have no issue with putting it as number three and just moving on. Um, you know, we're going to be hitting the separate funds for each of the items. Um, I'm not going to the water trust board asking for a library. Um, but, but we will be talking to different groups, DFA and other groups about the library and really focusing on the national level. Um, especially, uh, arts programs and stuff like that. So, um, It's not really changing. Put it as three. I've always been a supporter of libraries. But I am going to say the council needs to come back and look at the conceptual drawing. Look at that type of stuff. This day and age, it's doubled the price of the building type stuff. And we're going to have to really look at those type of things. And we need to be doing it rather quickly so the foundation can be trying to raise the money.

So just to make sure if the item, if the regional library is moved up to priority three, we won't have any further meetings?

Then if somebody was done, I get more people calling in about animal control than I do about the library. So you might have people coming in then complaining that we moved it that much higher than animal control. We're not going to please everybody. If the council is okay with putting it as three, let's put it as three and move on.

And be done with it.

So that's my if we're not going to request an extension and we're not going to hold a different public input session. My recommendation then is I would support that we would move the library to position three today and pass this and state that we took public input at this open meeting.

I'll motion that to keep it to number three. Library two, three. Priority three.

Are you keeping one into the same or shifting the airport up. Okay, so the same three becomes four and four becomes three.

Yeah, yes.

Okay.

Yeah, make that Make a motion. Make that motion to change. I see I see IP and just switch from 4334 Second, right.

Your microphone on

I just talked. I guess.

Is there a second?

I'll second. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Yazzie? Yes. Councilor Molina? Yes. Councilor Piano? Yes. Mayor Capaldi?

Yes.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Anybody that spoke?

They're not a huge amount of notes. Did somebody grab my agenda that has my notes on it? So if you spoke, could you still get my notes up?

It's a dream and a walrus will be happy.

Okay, our next item is discussion item number five, and it is the funding for the request of use of $55,439 from the general fund to cover the outstanding invoices for the second and third street pedestrian crossing safety project. And this is the Burlington Northern Railway crossing that it's about. So anyway, with that, our speaker is Alicia, who's busy today.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council, Alicia Santiago, Grants and Contracts Manager. Today we are discussing this item. It was previously tabled back on May 26. Just a little bit of background. On July 26 of 2022, Council awarded Wilson & Company's Professional Services Design services regarding the pedestrian safety improvements at 2nd and 3rd Street grade crossings. The project originated from the city manager's office. After an initial solicitation for bids yielded no results, the city manager collaborated with NMDOT rail division to engage Wilson and company given their expertise in rail projects. The city worked with NMDOT rail division staff from the project's inception to secure funding. However, the retirement of the key rail division contact communication was disrupted. About a week and a half ago, I was in correspondence with Robert Fine, who is the Bureau Chief for the Rail Division and submitted our final reimbursement request for these previous projects on 2nd and 3rd. That grant agreement had reverted back on September 30th of 2025. He had stated that the rail division is currently working on new grant agreements and he's aware that the design for this project is still ongoing. Therefore, he stated that we would receive new grant agreements. Unfortunately, because of the billing that we did receive, that was not covered and will not be covered under the grant that had already previously reverted. Mr. Fine suggested at that time that we reach out to Wilson and company and ask them to pause the design for right. Pardon me for right now until we get new grant agreements. I did speak with our city manager French petty and he approved this request. And we made that request to Wilson and they are willing to pause the project until we receive new funding agreements for the remainder of the design. Therefore, we are not requesting to close out these projects just yet. We're waiting on the final reimbursement. And then a discussion will happen in regards to how we're going to close out the two grant agreements that we currently have. What we are asking today is council to approve $55,440 from the general fund. And that would be a budget adjustment with a breakdown of $30,738 for the second street invoices and that would be in professional services and $24,702 for the Third Street project, and that would be for professional services. Therefore, staff is recommending a budget adjustment of general funds to pay the outstanding invoices to Wilson and Company. And I'll stand for any questions.

Here, I have a question. I think this is pretty self-explanatory, but just a clarification. So the money that we're paying them. I think we should pay our invoices. I mean, they finished the work for it, correct?

That is work they have completed to date. Now the design for that pedestrian safety, it's not completed just yet. There were some issues that we ran into and that was the reason for the delay. What ended up happening was because it had to be such a large consensus group. It was not only the city, it was DOT, It was BNSF. So there were a lot of people who were involved as far as in this design piece that it ended up, we had to have everybody's input. And so that was the reason for the delay. And we were hoping to be done by September 30th, but that didn't hold.

Okay. So yes, I understand all of that. So now we're paying them the money that we owe them and then it's on pause and then we'll owe them more money when the new contract begins to finish the project essentially. But when will that be?

According to, I didn't get a firm date from Mr. Fine. He did say that they were working on new grant agreements. I imagine most agreements that we get from the state of New Mexico, they normally come out after July. So if anything, we'd receive our new grant agreements come August or September.

But it will still be with Wilson and Company.

Yes, we'll finish out with Wilson and Company. Okay, thanks.

Just to make sure. Go ahead.

I got a couple of questions. We do have a contract with Wilson and Company, correct? Yes, we do. What's the amount of the contract?

I believe it was a total of $115,000, but that was broken apart between second and third tree.

Okay, so we're giving them about half?

We've paid them about half. Yes, more.

Have they completed half of the contract?

Well, the design at the last invoice that they have, I believe it's both of them are a little over 70%.

Okay. Now, my other question is this. How old is the invoice?

We have invoices that are dated back to October. And then the most recent one is May.

This past October?

Yes.

Okay. All right. And do we not pay as a percentage of the job that's done or is it paid at the end of the contract?

We pay for a design, we pay as we get the invoices.

So why have these invoices not been paid?

Because the way our NavAlign system is set up is that after September 30th, we couldn't pay. And there was no way, as far as anything after September 30th, we weren't going to get reimbursed.

Whoever's out there listening, I just got a bad stomach ache listening to this. Why are we not paying our bills? And I raised my voice accordingly. These contractors, that's one of the reasons they don't want to come to work in Gallup. We don't have a big choice on contractors anymore. We haven't been paying them. We're going to lose every one of them. Who's going to do this work? I don't know who's responsible. I'll talk to Frank about it, but we need to start paying our bills. Thank you.

Mark, I'm sorry. I don't know if I heard about that. Thank you. And just to go back to this item, the 2nd Street and 3rd Street is priority number 6 on our ICIP list, and it's budgeted $2.5 million. And this is a good example. We expect to get grants to cover that from the railroad. What is the grant, the one we're waiting for, Alicia?

Normally, and the last grant that we received, it was a cooperative agreement. And it was actually funding and that was the reason why this grant ended in September 30th, because their money was funnel funneling through. the federal government. So that's why their ending date is September 30th. Normally all grants with the state stop on June 30th, but because their money's being funded through federal grants, the ending date on this one was September 30th.

And the new grant agreement we expect coming out this week.

Well, no, not this week. I'm hoping... By no later than September, because that kind of seems to be when we get new grant agreements.

Mayor, safe streets for all.

Safe streets for all.

That's where we requested the funds.

Thank you. Anything else? Anybody?

I'd like to make a motion for the request for the use of $55,000. $139 from the general fund to cover outstanding invoices for 2nd Street and 3rd Street pedestrian crossing safety projects.

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Can I ask to put the word budget adjustment in your motion?

Okay.

If not, finance isn't going to pay it, and then I'm going to come back in July asking for a budget adjustment.

Okay. Okay. Motion to request a budget adjustment in the amount of $55,439 for the request of the use for general fund to cover outstanding invoices for 2nd Street and 3rd Street pedestrian crossing safety projects.

Second. Councilor Mulligan?

Yes.

Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Piano? Yes. Councilor Yazzie? Yes. Mayor DePauley?

Yes. Okay, with that, there's no more comments and we'll just have a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Second. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.