CITY/COUNTY MEETING AUGUST 15

The next Joint Santa Fe City/County Meeting takes place tomorrow, Wednesday, August 15 at the

County Commission Chambers, County Administration Building, 5:30 to 7:30

Agenda is posted here:

http://www.co.santa-fe.nm.us/documents/agendas/agendas/JointCityCountyAgenda8-15-12.pdf

Please attend and participate in the future of YOUR neighbohood!

WHAT NOW?

We attended last night's joint City/County meeting on the status of the stalled Phase II and III annexation. We'll try to summarize the meeting here for our neighborhood homeowners and interested parties.

Reading between the lines, the situation seems to be this: both the City and County feel obligated to complete the annexation, as it resulted from a Court-mandated settlement. The major stumbling block is money - how to pay for the services required.

Presentations were made by the City and County attorneys, the City Police Chief and County Sheriff. Unfortunately, although the City and County Fire and EMS department patiently waited, the meeting was adjourned without their testimony.

Unfortunately, there was NO discussion of finances,  just a push to "get it done". Not one word about how much it will cost to bring roads up to grade, plow them in the winter, provide water/sewer, or trash collection; or hire the additional required law enforcement officers (currently, both the City and Sheriff forces are understaffed and have vacancies as it is).

No presentations by anyone from a budget or finance committee? Phase II and II involves almost 10,000 acres and several thousand homeowners, and we don't know how it will be paid for?

A few excerpts from coverage of the meeting in today's Santa Fe New Mexican:

"No formal action was taken at the meeting, but councilors and commissioners told their staffs to keep working on the details of the transition."

"...asked staff to come up with new estimates on how much each jurisdiction will give and take to comply with previous agreements about public safety, roads and utilities."

And, from The Albuquerque Journal North:

"How are we going to pay for these things? That’s really where we’re at,” said City Councilor Patti Bushee in a joint meeting between the Santa Fe City Council and County Commission."


Ultimately, the meeting set off alarm bells as it is clear there is no formal plan, budget, or roadmap to successfully completing annexation and providing required services. Several residents asked the governments to halt future annexations.

WE believe it is time for residents of Phase III to come together and form a coalition to look out for our best interests. It is clear neither the City nor the County has any intention of doing so.


UPDATED DOCUMENTS
Copies of documents circulated to City/County Staff last night available here:

Packet Material/Documents

Packet 7-19-2012 Part 1
Packet 7-19-2012 Part 2

HERE WE GO AGAIN.... with UPDATE

Updated Thursday, July 19:
NOTE NEW LOCATION AND AGENDA

July 19, 2012 5:30 PM
Ballroom A Santa Fe Convention Center, 201 West Marcy St.

AMENDED NOTICE Change of Location

Notice of Joint Santa Fe County / City Meeting
New Agenda: 
Amended Agenda 7-19-2012

All concerned residents of the "Phase 3" annexation are encouraged to attend tomorrow's joint City/County meeting on the state of annexation. Details and agenda below:

http://www.santafenm.gov/archives/151/07-19-12%20Joint%20Santa%20Fe%20City-County%20Meeting.pdf

Be sure to read the related article in today Santa Fe New Mexican:

City, county officials to reopen annexation talks

See you there.

Budget woes prompt city to reconsider annexation


Although is has been seemingly quit for a while, once again things are happening "behind the scenes". Thanks to Santa Fe New Mexican reporter Julie Ann Grim for today's article that tells us that "Three members of the City Council are sponsoring a plan to renegotiate a settlement agreement with Santa Fe County and private developers that called for the city to expand its jurisdiction by thousands of acres before the end of 2013".

Read the full article here.

We pointed out the cost-challenges to the City at every step of the Annexation process. The Santa Fe New Mexican ran an editorial in August, 2010 pointing out the problem. The Police Union stated they were not prepared.  We were promised "Community Planning Meetings" in the aftermath of the final agreement for annexation of Area 1 - so we are surprised to learn of this development from the newspaper, rather than from the City. We are reaching out to City and Count representatives in an effort to learn more. Stay tuned

UPDATE: RESULTS FROM RPA MEETING

Here is a brief report from the August 17 RPA meeting.

Reed Liming did indeed announce that Dr. Reynis has been retained to conduct the fiscal impact statement for thew City.  The report is due by the end of this year. Also, the City will not petition for Phase 2 until the very end of 2011 and that it will take the better part of a year, so that means Phase 2 would not be completed until 2013. Hence, it looks like 2014 for Phase 3.

Reed Liming noted that the most difficult part of the Phase 1 has been solid waste collection for the newly annexed areas.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE: AGENDA POSTED FOR AUGUST 16 RPA MEETING

The agenda has finally been posted for Tuesday, August 17, Rehional Planing Authority meeting. Here is the link.

Of note, City of Santa Fe Director of Long Range Planning will give a brief update on the annexation and the fact that tthe City has hired Dr. Reynis at UNM-BBER to conduct a fiscal impact analysis for Phases 2 and 3.

Please attend!

UPDATE: One Year Later, Where Are We?

We have become aware of a upcoming meeting of interest. According to a recent news release from Commissioner Virginia Vigil:

The Santa Fe Regional Planning Authority is scheduled to meet on Tuesday, August 17, 2010, at the County Commission Chambers. The meeting will convene at 4pm. An update on the City-Initiated Annexation Plan will be presented at this meeting. For a copy of the complete agenda, please contact Melissa Holmes at: msholmes@santafecounty.org

NOTE: When we contacted the above email address, Melissa Holmes responded that we should contact Reed Liming, City Long Range Planning Director. When we contacted his office, we were told "Reed Liming is out of the office and will return on Monday, August 9th." We are continuing to attempt to obtain an agenda for the August 17 meeting, when available, it will be posted here.

(Here are all the contacts for the Regional Planning Committee)

In case you missed it, the Santa Fe New Mexican ran this editorial on August 29:

City land rush ignored the costs

As Julie Ann Grimm reported in yesterday's New Mexican, City Hall is facing up to the costs and benefits of annexation. To which we'd say, it's about time, considering that our city councilors blithely ignored long-range planner Reed Liming's calls for caution when they were licking their chops over 10,000 acres they began putting under municipal jurisdiction in 2008.


The process is being done in three phases — a good thing, given the city's precarious finances and the price tag for providing services to territory long at the mercy of slick developers notorious for making — but less than famous for keeping — promises to homebuyers.

Anticipated costs were always in front of the council — yet most of its members chose to avert their eyes, focusing instead on some imaginary sales-tax windfall that would come with so much more property under their control.

Liming, say City Hall insiders, had suggested that it might take an across-the-board property-tax increase to cover this expanded realm. But again our local politicians flinched. Now they're floundering, and waiting for the results of a cost analysis — something they told Grimm was under way a year ago, but turns out to have only begun this month. This gives those elected leaders a chance to think about their rashness some other day.

But the residents of Menford Lane need action now. That roadway near the intersection of Richards Avenue and Governor Miles Road, just north of the freeway, now has an arroyo through it, owing to recent rains. And — surprise! — the city has no legal obligation to repair or maintain the lane.

What? Weren't the folks there told — by city employees, they claim — that, once annexed, the city would take care of their road?

The neighborhood was annexed this year, but it turns out that Menford and other lanes are private property. That, say the left-in-the-lurch homeowners, was supposed to change when they became part of the city.

Sorry, came the answer from their new government; we can't do anything for you.

Maybe not, on strictly legal grounds; annexation and roads have always been a bunch of statutory spaghetti. Short of condemnation procedures to gain governmental control, say land-use experts, the lane would have to be brought up to municipal standards before the city can accept it.

This is a Catch-22 case: Make the road worthy of public ownership, or it remains private — and it's up to the people who live along it to keep it passable. So where was the attraction in being annexed?

Surely some imaginative official at the city or county level, even at a time when the public paving of a church parking lot has raised civic ire, can call in a piece of equipment to push dirt into the ditch — while neighbors gather to divert it. Or must they pass the hat and rent a front-end loader for short-term relief? Meanwhile, they must be mighty proud to be part of our fine city ...

How many other annexees are finding themselves up the creek? And what can City Hall do for them without angering longtime city residents who also aren't getting the municipal services they should?

While financial experts from The University of New Mexico analyze the monetary costs of annexation, city staff and the council should be considering the political and social downside of expansion. Menford Lane, they're sure to find, is not alone ...


Stay tuned.......

ONE YEAR LATER - WHERE ARE WE?

On Thursday, August 26, 2009, all of the residents of Area 1 were successful in taking a huge step in securing the character of our neighborhoods, collectively known as "Area 1". (See post here for more.)

Now, one year later, where are we? There is an interesting article in today's Santa Fe New Mexican that begins to shed some light on this question.

"City officials have approached a point where they must get serious about understanding the potential costs and benefits of large-scale annexations scheduled for the end of next year."

NOW THEY START TO "GET SERIOUS"?

"Just this month, the University of New Mexico's Bureau for Business and Economic Research began a financial analysis on contract for the city — more than a year after former city officials told The New Mexican a cost analysis was "under way."

"Several of us during the municipal election took positions saying 'We are not sure we can afford all of this.' And that is where I still am," said Councilor Rebecca Wurzburger, who was among four councilors re-elected in March. "I am saying it is time to sit down and see what we can realistically do given the constraints that we have financially".

Read the full article here.

Folks, we were promised a dedicated Community Planning process that has not happened. The process was supposed to address zoning and open space issues, to preserve the existing character of Area 1.

It is time to get involved again to assure the best possible outcome for ourselves, our homes, and our neighborhoods. Please stay tuned and stay informed. There may be opportunities for our coalition to become more involved as the City tries to decide what it will do with the Annexation of Area 1.

SANTA FE POLICE UNION NOT READY FOR ANNEXATION?

Today's article in the Santa Fe New Mexican is evidence why we should continue to be very wary of the coming annexation process. Reminder, STAY INVOLVED.

The first phase of the city's annexation plan that went into effect late last month caught police officers off-guard, wasn't properly planned and is negatively affecting both officer and civilian safety, according to officers' union president Allan Lopez.

Because of that, Lopez, who was elected president Thursday, has filed an informal grievance with the police administration. It requests that minimum staffing levels be immediately increased, that officers receive training to deal with crashes on the Interstate — which now falls under their jurisdiction — and that the city begin finding ways to pay more officers. That's according to a memo Lopez wrote Nov. 24.

The city "has taken a 'wing it and see what happens' attitude with this matter," the memo states. "The Santa Fe Police Officers' Association considers these issues a severe crisis and requests that you take immediate action in order to prevent a tragedy that could affect a member of this association or the public well-being."

Santa Fe Deputy Police Chief Abram Anaya said the department is already addressing the union's issues. A lieutenant is almost finished with a study looking at minimum staffing levels, another supervisor is researching classes that cover investigating crashes in high-speed zones, and the department is actively recruiting new officers, he said.

Furthermore, the first phase of annexation, which went into effect Nov. 24, shouldn't have come as a surprise because two union members were on a department annexation committee, Anaya said. "

All the stuff in the (union) memo we are addressing and we know we need to improve on," he said. "In fact, we were addressing all these issues months before the informal grievance came out."

Phase 1 of the annexation plan fills in the city's boundaries in many small areas, mainly along Interstate 25 on the city's southern border. It brought more than 1,900 acres into the city and at least 1,313 more people based on 2000 census figures.

Phase 2, however, is far more problematic, police and city officials have said. That phase will rope in another 3,765 acres and 13,650 more people based on 2000 census figures. Phase 3 will include about the same number of residents as Phase 1, and about 4,100 new acres. All are scheduled to be incorporated into the city by the end of 2013.

Santa Fe County Sheriff Greg Solano, whose department previously handled the areas now in the city under phase 1, has said his deputies will help the city when officers are not available.

Lopez said he has already noticed a larger number of calls for service since the annexation took place, and that the department's minimum staffing of nine officers per shift should rise to at least 12, if not more.

He characterized the department as "reactive" and said officers are constantly going from call to call and don't have time for proactive patrols. Also, he pointed out that city councilors approved 45 new officers two years ago but have so far only funded four positions because of the failing economy. And that increase didn't include the 27 new patrol officers the department estimates it needs for annexation.

Anaya said the department has eight cadets at the Law Enforcement Academy and five more funded patrol officer positions it can fill if it can find qualified candidates. In addition, the department recently received a federal stimulus grant that will pay the salaries and benefits for eight new officers for three years.

While he admitted it takes time to field qualified patrol officers, Anaya said if those positions can be filled, the department will add 21 new officers to the streets and increase each of its three shifts by seven officers.

Lopez complained that no one at the police department bothered to inform commanders or the rank and file that the annexation was about to occur Nov. 24. He said the two union members on the department's annexation committee didn't know the date Phase 1 was to go into effect. "We didn't know it was coming," he said.

Anaya, however, said the union had plenty of opportunities to find out about the annexation and should have known about it. He also pointed out that the annexation issue was heavily publicized in the media.

"The one thing that did surprise me (about Lopez's grievance memo) is that they claim no knowledge of it," he said. "It should not be a shock to anybody." Lopez said he hopes to iron out the differences at a meeting between union officials and police administrators scheduled for next Thursday. If the city's response isn't acceptable to the union,

Lopez said, he will file a formal grievance.

"There is a serious lack of communication," he said. "We're not on the same page."

Contact Jason Auslander at 986-3076 or mailto:jauslander@sfnewmexican.com.

PHASE ONE ANNEXATION COMPLETE - NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICTS PLAN POSTED HERE

Phase One annexation was approved by the City Council, see full report below.

NOTE: "While city officials generally agree the first phase shouldn't be an issue financially, the road could be bumpier with phases two and three. The fire and police departments, in particular, have pleaded for enough manpower and equipment to absorb the extra duties. The council recently approved plans to meet those needs, though where exactly the funding will come from is still uncertain.

To prepare for the Area 1 Community Planning Process, we encourage all to become familiar with the City's Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District code, which is whate we will be working with. See post below the article.

PLEASE - STAY INFORMED, STAY INVOLVED.

The Albuquerque Journal

by Kiera Hay

November 11, 2009

The Santa Fe City Council formally approved on Tuesday an ordinance annexing 1,956 acres. It's the first of three phases that will eventually see the city add a total of about 10,000 acres to its borders by 2013. “It seems like a small step, but I think it's pretty historic,” noted Mayor David Coss during the unanimous council vote. Coss thanked city staff and others for the work they put into the process. The land annexed consists of “small islands of county land surrounded by City land” spread across Santa Fe, as well as the Interstate 25 right-of-way between Old Pecos Trail and New Mexico 599. At least 1,313 people and 507 households will be absorbed by the city. The annexation stems from a 2008 settlement in which the city of Santa Fe and Santa Fe County agreed that the city would annex certain county lands within the next five years to “create clear, readily identifiable city boundaries.” On Tuesday, there was no comment during a public hearing, and the main topic of discussion among councilors was whether the city should take on Interstate 25 and the accompanying first responder status. Councilor Chris Calvert, notably, expressed concerns about the extra responsibility. “I guarantee if there's a problem, it's going to take patrol cars out of neighborhoods,” he said. “I just don't understand why we want to take that on.” Deputy Police Chief Abram Anaya noted that there are mutual aid agreements in place with both State Police and the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Department, and said he fully expects those agencies to render help if needed. The City Council also approved a memorandum of understanding that says Santa Fe County will bring all roads in the annexed area up to a standard set by the city. Until that point, the roads will remain under the county's responsibility. An ordinance revising the municipal election district map to include phase one was postponed until December so that additional information on precincts could be provided. The ordinance essentially allows people living in those areas to vote in city elections. The second phase of annexation will include the area north of Tierra Contenta on either side of Airport Road up to Highway 599 and will be petitioned by the end of 2011, while phase three will be petitioned by the end of 2012 and is to include the area northeast of Agua Fria Traditional Historic Community and from the eastern city boundary to the national forest. According to city officials, the first phase of annexation is expected to cost the city $200,741 annually in additional services. Tax revenue from is anticipated to be about $187,000. While city officials generally agree the first phase shouldn't be an issue financially, the road could be bumpier with phases two and three. The fire and police departments, in particular, have pleaded for enough manpower and equipment to absorb the extra duties. The council recently approved plans to meet those needs, though where exactly the funding will come from is still uncertain.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14-5.10 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICTS
(A) General Provisions
(1) Purpose
In order to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of Santa Fe, it is deemed by the Governing Body that neighbors be allowed to conserve their neighborhoods by collectively identifying their neighborhood's distinctive characteristics, including, but not limited to: streetscape, architectural features, density, lot coverage, setbacks, height and some property uses. The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts are a means to propose conservation of the substantive physical character of the neighborhoods and are not intended to be used as a tool simply to resist minor changes in neighborhood character. By proposing establishment of these overlay districts and tailoring the regulations to the attributes of the built environment that make the neighborhood distinctive, neighborhoods will have a tool to proactively affect new development and thereby promote better harmony between new and existing structures.
(2) Underlying Zoning District Requirements
Property within a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District shall be subject to the requirements of the underlying zoning district requirements, except for more specific requirements that are adopted for the applicable Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
(3) Additional Overlay Zoning District Requirements
If a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District is contained within another zoning overlay district(s), the most restrictive set of requirements shall prevail. A Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District shall not be included in the boundary of another Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
(4) Nonconforming Structures and Uses
Any structure or use located in a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District not meeting the requirements for the applicable Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District shall be considered legal nonconforming and shall comply with Article 14-10 of this Chapter.
(5) Variances
Requests for a variance from the requirements of a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District shall be heard by the Board of Adjustment as set forth in §14-3.16. Variances from maximum allowable density or permitted land uses established by a Neighborhood Conservation District are prohibited and shall be considered amendments to the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and shall be adopted by ordinance.
(6) Appeals
Any person who is aggrieved by a staff decision regarding Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District requirements may appeal that decision to the Board of Adjustment as set forth in § 14-3.17.
(B) Creation of Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts
(1) Except as set forth in paragraph (C) below, prior to the creation of a specific Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, a neighborhood plan recommending the creation of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District as one of the plan's implementation policies shall be adopted as a General Plan amendment as set forth in §14-3.2.
(2) The creation of a specific Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District shall follow the procedures set forth in §14-3.1 (H)(I)(b) as for a City-initiated rezoning.
(3) After a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District is officially created, amendments to the boundaries or the requirements shall also follow the provisions outlined in this §14-5.10(B).
(C) Creation of Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts Alternative
The procedures set forth in this paragraph (C) apply only when §14-3.2(D)(3)(e)(iv) occurs and a neighborhood plan is not prepared. For the purpose of calculating the percentages required in this paragraph (C), each parcel is entitled to a single vote no matter how many persons or entities might own a single parcel.
(1) Petition
A neighborhood may petition the City to develop a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The petition shall contain a description of the proposed boundaries of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and the signatures of 51 percent of the property owners of record in that area. The City may request proof of ownership.
(2) Inventory
An inventory of characteristics that are proposed to be regulated within the proposed Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District shall be completed by the neighborhood with assistance from City staff. The characteristics may include some or all of those characteristics described in paragraph (D)(2) below.
(3) Public Meetings
(a) Upon verification of the petition by the Land Use Department, staff shall hold at least 2 public meetings at which the proposed Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District boundaries and requirements shall be discussed and developed. The meetings shall be coordinated with City staff and held at a reasonable time and place to maximize public attendance.
(b) Notice for each public meeting shall follow the notice requirements for early neighborhood notification as set forth in §14-3.1(F)(3)(b). In addition to the postal notification, persons required to be notified of the public meetings may request an email notification from the City on the same day that postal notification is mailed for second or subsequent public meetings. In the event that the proposed boundaries are enlarged, notice shall be given to those additional property owners and physical addressees as if for the first scheduled meeting.
(4) Neighborhood Ballot
(a) When the Land Use Department has determined that 40 percent of the property owners of record within the proposed boundaries in attendance or represented by written proxy at the public meeting agree to the final proposed requirements governing the proposed Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, the Land Use Department shall mail a ballot by regular mail to all property owners of record within those boundaries. The ballot shall ask for a single affirmative or negative vote for the proposed requirements. The City shall include a stamped envelope addressed to the Land Use Department for returning ballots.
(b) If within 30 days of mailing the ballot, the City receives an affirmative vote of the proposed requirements by 67 percent of the property owners within the proposed boundaries, the proposed Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District requirements shall be deemed to be approved by the neighborhood. The Land Use Director may extend the 30 days for an additional 15 days due to unforeseen circumstances.
(c) If the proposed requirements are not voted on in the affirmative by 67 percent of the property owners, a like or similar petition shall not be submitted within 12 months from the date of verification by the City that the proposed Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District has failed to receive the required affirmative vote.
(5) Adoption of Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
After the proposed Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District requirements have been approved by the neighborhood, the procedures set forth in §14-3.5 with notice as set forth in §14-3.1(H)(1)(b) shall be followed as for a City-initiated rezoning. After a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District is officially created, amendments to the boundaries or the requirements shall also follow the provisions outlined in this §14-5.10(C).
(D) Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts Requirements
(1) At a minimum, a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District shall include all residentially zoned parcels within an area no less than 2 City blocks or 4 blockfaces unless the Land Use Director determines that the blocks are unusually long or short or that the neighborhood characteristics are significantly different within the blocks.
(2) Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts may regulate the following:
(a) Building design including, but not limited to, scale, mass, and distinctive architectural characteristics such as front porches, height or roof styles;
(b) Streetscape including, but not limited to, lot frontage, fences, walls, parking, lighting, and landscaping;
(c) Density except density bonuses as permitted in §14-8.11(G)(1);
(d) Lot coverage;
(e) Setbacks;
(f) Building height; and
(g) Property use except as set forth in paragraph (3) below.
(3) Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts shall not restrict the following:
(a) City-wide policies and priorities;
(b) Dwelling units marketed to or occupied by any certain income such as, but not limited to, any residential units covered by the Santa Fe Homes Program;
(c) Home occupations as set forth in §14-6.3(C)(2);
(d) Group or foster homes;
(e) Day care facilities;
(f) Public or private schools for elementary, middle or senior high students;
(g) Religious institutions; or
(h) Other uses determined by the Land Use Director as necessary for the health and safety of the neighborhood.
(4) Requirements shall be measurable, definitive and uniform and enforceable by the Land Use Department through the approval procedures set forth in this Chapter and the issuance of a building permit. A Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District shall not apply to a specific application required under this Chapter which has been submitted to the Land Use Department prior to the date of adoption of a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. If a subsequent but separate application for the same property is submitted after the date of adoption of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, the requirements shall apply. It is not the intent of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts to enforce private covenants.
(E) Review and Report; Amendments
Staff shall make a report to the Governing Body regarding the implementation, management and enforcement of §14-5.10 prior to December 24, 2010 including, but not limited to, variances, appeals and related fees. Upon evaluation of the report, the Governing Body may consider amendments to the City Code regarding Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts.
(Ord. No. 2009-30 § 3)