League to County re Flying J Plan: Follow Code; Keep it Transparent
March 15, 2018 To: Santa Fe County Planning Commission CC: Jose Larrañaga, Case Manager Re: Pilot Flying J Conceptual Plan: Case SCSD 17-5330 (formerly Case CUV/VAR17-5240) The League of Women Voters of Santa Fe County has serious concerns about the proposed Pilot Flying J (PFJ) project. We were involved in the development of both the Sustainable Growth Management Plan (SGMP) and the Sustainable Land Development Code (SLDC) and supported the adoption of both ordinances. We strongly believe that all land use decisions must be made "to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the present and future residents of the County" as stated in section 1.4.1 of the SLDC.
1) Does the conceptual plan meet the approval criteria spelled out in the SLDC? First, Section 8.10.3.5 of the SLDC lists criteria for approval of a conceptual plan in the CCD. The League questions whether this conceptual plan meets criterion 8.10.3.5.3: …conformance to this Section 8.10 and other applicable law and ordinances in effect at the time of consideration, including required improvements, proposed roads and trails, community facilities, design and or construction standards, and open space standards. The applicant stated at the 12/6/2017 facilitation meeting that at least one variance would be requested for the proposed site development; this implies that the conceptual plan does not meet the design and/or construction standards. Secondly, Section 8.10.3.13, lists a specific set of criteria for approval of a conceptual plan within a CCD-EC. Selected criteria include: 1. General. The Employment Center subdistrict shall be located on Flatlands/Grasslands and Flatlands/Pinon, Juniper land types, provided housing opportunities and a New Community Center Subdistrict are located within one mile…Living or Mixed Priority Roads are required and shall include direct primary road connection to a New Community Center with potential transit connections… 2. Parking and Loading. Parking shall be designed around internal pedestrian walkways, with parking in a series of small parking areas. 3. Open Space, Parks, Plazas and Trails. Village and Local trails are required to connect the Employment Center Subdistrict to the CCD district trail system. As we understand the proposed conceptual plan, it does not meet these criteria. Third, per Table 8-31, development within a CCD-EC must include a Plaza of at least .33 acres; this Plaza is defined (8.10.3.7.6ci) as a developed community gathering areas, including seating, walks, shade trees and landscaping. The conceptual plan does show a Plaza in Phase 2 of the plan (Area 9-B) but there is no guarantee that Phase 2 will happen. In addition, a .33 acre space within a travel center/hotel complex hardly qualifies as a community gathering area. Taken together we believe these code requirements provide multiple reasons to deny approval – or, minimally, to impose strict conditions on the applicant as part of any approval. More importantly, we believe that approval of an application with such clear deficiencies would set a damaging precedent for Santa Fe County. If this application is approved, will the County be pressured to approve future deficient applications? We are concerned that the enormous amount of time spent in drafting the SGMP and SLDC will have been in vain if the rigorous standards in those documents are ignored. We ask you to strictly apply the existing criteria for approval and demonstrate that the County intends to adhere to the Code. Also, should this proposal be approved as is, will the applicant assume this is also implicit approval that future variances and exceptions will be granted? Will the County feel pressured to grant future variances to avoid litigation? Again, approval of this plan would set a precedent for future decisions. 2) Can a travel center be declared a conditional use? The Use Table for CCD-EC zoning district does not include a travel center; it does list gas stations, truck freight transportation facilities, and truck storage/maintenance facilities separately as conditional uses. Staff has determined that a travel center is materially similar to a combination of those three uses; this determination has allowed the plan application to proceed. It is, however, difficult to understand how some characteristics of a travel center – including showers, laundry facilities and overnight parking/sleeping for truckers – are characteristic of any of those three uses. We believe the preferred action would be for staff to propose amending the SLDC to include a travel center as a conditional use in the CCD-EC Use Table before ruling on the PFJ conceptual plan. That would allow public comment on whether a travel center should be a permitted (conditionally or not) or a prohibited use. We believe that if such a travel center had been proposed as a conditional use when the SLDC was drafted and finalized, there would have been significant pressure from the community to designate a travel center as a prohibited use. Alternatively, will the Use Table be amended after the fact to include a travel center line item? Will this require public comment? The County should consider the implications of the current case for future applications that may also propose novel uses. Again, the County risks setting a risky precedent if a new conditional use can be defined by a controversial staff decision. 3) Can a conceptual plan that includes a conditional use development be approved before the specifics of the development application are known? A core – and critical - issue – is whether a conceptual plan can be approved without a simultaneous determination on the required conditional use permit for the site development. With two separate approval processes – one for the conceptual plan and a second process, if the conceptual plan is approved, for any conditional uses in the site development - is the County implicitly approving the conditional use? We believe this is also a case where granting approval to the PFJ conceptual plan will set a damaging precedent for future applicants whose plans will require conditional use permits. We strongly suggest that if approval of the PFJ conceptual plan is granted, the County should make a strong statement that such approval does not in any way imply approval of a subsequent application for a conditional use permit. 4) Are the studies, reports and assessments adequate for the County to make a truly informed decision? We understand that the applicant has submitted the required studies, reports and assessments (SRAs). During the drafting process for the SLDC, the League strongly suggested that the County be empowered to commission independent SRAs at the applicant’s expense. To ensure impartiality, we suggested that contracts for these SRAs should be between the County and the consultant. The final SLDC language in Section 6.2.2 says: Expert Review. The County may hire outside experts to review any of the submitted SRAs at the expense of the applicant in accordance with the approved Fee Schedule. We believe that, particularly in a controversial case such as this, independent SRAs – or, minimally, reviews of the applicant’s SRAs by outside experts, are critical for informed decision making. We ask that a Planning Commission decision be postponed until the appropriate independent reviews can be completed and assessed. We are especially concerned about the environmental impact and traffic impact studies. 5) Should the County require an additional facilitation meeting that adheres to the SLDC parameters? The facilitation meeting held 12/6/2017 did not follow all the procedures outlined in the Chapter 4 of the SLDC. Opposition groups were not invited to present their views, the facilitators made no attempt to find areas of agreement, and the meeting notes distributed by the facilitators did not reflect the breadth and depth of the public comments. We request that the Planning Commission postpone its decision until a proper facilitation meeting can be scheduled and held and the Commission can consider the findings. Conclusions In addition to the concerns described above, we believe there are several attributes of the proposed PFJ travel center that are not likely to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the Santa Fe community; these include air, light and noise pollution; traffic congestion; water availability, and wastewater treatment capacity. The LWVSFC urges County decision makers to consider carefully the merits of the PFJ proposal and its impacts on the community before granting approval to the conceptual plan. Should the plan be approved, the League strongly urges you to impose conditions so that the plan complies with all the relevant criteria in the SLDC for the CCD-EC zoning district. We urge you to consider the precedents that will be set by the resolution of the case and their impact on future plan and development applications. Thank you for considering our views. Sincerely, Hannah Burling, Chair Action & Advocacy Committee, LWVSFC Santa Fe New Mexican | My View | December 11, 2017By Hannah Burling
The League of Women Voters believes that methods of financing political campaigns and public offices should ensure the public's right to know, combat corruption and undue influence, maximize fiscal accountability and transparency, and allow maximum citizen participation in the political process. On the basis of this position, the League of Women Voters strongly believes that the city should not adopt the proposed amendments to Section 9-2.6 of the city's campaign code, which would eliminate the requirement that some expenditures for independently sponsored campaign communications in issues campaigns be reported to the City Clerk, and that those reports should be made available to the public. Many important issues can appear on city ballots, such as charter amendments and tax questions. The public has a right to know who is expending funds for advertising or other types of campaign spending in such issue campaigns. The adoption of these proposed amendments would leave the public in the dark about who is advocating for or against a particular issue. As we saw in the last special election, the amounts spent on such advocacy can be considerable. Additionally, the adoption of these amendments might have unintended consequences that would further mislead voters. Groups that, under the current law, register as political committees might instead organize as independent committees in order to avoid having to report the source of their funds. It would not be that difficult to do. Even in candidate elections, if there were issues on the ballot that were identified with particular candidates, an independent committee could be formed whose actual intent would be to influence the candidate election. The public has a right to know who is trying to influence their elections. The more transparency there is about campaign financing for all types of campaigns, the more informed the electorate. An informed electorate always has been the goal of the League of Women Voters and should be the goal of city government. Hannah Burling is chairwoman of the League of Women Voters of Santa Fe County Action and Advocacy Committee. |
League of Women Voters of Santa Fe County - Statement at Planning Commission, March 15, 2018
My name is Jody Larson; I live at ___; I have (have not) been sworn. I am speaking for the League of Women Voters of Santa Fe County. We are concerned about the application and approval processes for the conceptual plan and the potentially damaging precedents that its approval may set. First, we believe the proposed plan fails to meet all code requirements for approval in general and, specifically, in a Community College District Employment Center. If the plan is approved, we urge you to impose strict conditions on the applicant to remedy any deficiencies. Approval of a deficient application would set a damaging precedent. If it is approved, will you be pressured to approve future deficient applications to avoid litigation? Second, the Use Table for an Employment Center does not include a travel center. We do not think a travel center is materially similar to a combination of gas stations, truck/freight transportation and truck storage/maintenance facilities. The County risks setting a damaging precedent if a new conditional use defined by a controversial staff decision is accepted. If a travel center had been proposed as a conditional use when the SLDC was drafted, there would have been significant community pressure to designate a travel center as a prohibited use. Third, can a conceptual plan be approved without implying approval of the required conditional use permit and future variances for the site development? Will you feel pressured to grant future approvals to avoid litigation? Again, this decision will set a precedent. If the plan is approved, we urge the Commission to make a strong statement that such approval does not imply approval of any later application for a conditional use permit or variance. Finally, the SLDC permits the County to hire outside experts to review the required studies, reports and assessments submitted by the applicant. In a complex, controversial case such as this, we believe outside expert reviews or, preferably, independent studies are critical. The Commission decision should be postponed until this is done. The League urges all Commissioners to weigh carefully the merits of this application and its impacts on our community in your decision. Consider the precedents that will be set by this case. Thank you. _________________________________________________________ LWVSFC Statement to the Hearing Officer January 11, 2018 (delivered in 2 parts by Chris Furlanetto and Jody Larson) Madame Hearing Officer: I am Chris Furlanetto and I am speaking today on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Santa Fe County. I have been sworn. We have serious concerns about the proposed Flying J project. We were involved in the development of both the Sustainable Growth Management Plan and the Sustainable Land Development Code and supported the adoption of those ordinances. We strongly believe that land use decisions must be made "to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the present and future residents of the County" as stated in section 1.4.1 of the Code. In December of last year, the League submitted a letter to Land Use staff, met with Ms. Lucero and Mr. Larrañaga and followed up with an email to Land Use staff. Those written communications should be part of the case file, but I have additional copies with me. Our major concerns with the process for approvals of the Pilot Flying J conceptual plan and the subsequent development application for the travel center itself include:
5. Last, we wish to note that the facilitation meeting on Dec. 6 was not run according to the process specified in the Code. Specifically:
December 14, 2017
To: Penny Ellis-Green Jose Larrañaga Re: Pilot Flying J Conceptual Plan: Case CUV/VAR17-5240 The League of Women Voters of Santa Fe County has serious concerns about the Flying J development project proposed at the intersection of NM Route 14 and Rancho Viejo Blvd. We were involved in the development of both the Sustainable Growth Management Plan (SGMP) and the Sustainable Land Development Code (SLDC) and supported the adoption of these ordinances. We strongly believe that land use decisions must be made "to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the present and future residents of the County" as stated in section 1.4.1 of the SLDC. This letter addresses two important aspects of this project:
1) Interpretation of the SLDC for Approvals of Conceptual Plans and Subsequent Site Development Proposals League members attended the December 6 County facilitation meeting on the Pilot Flying J conceptual plan. We were disappointed that the meeting agenda did not follow the requirements specified in Chapter 4 of the SLDC; i.e., no organized opposition groups were asked to make a presentation and there was no attempt to identify areas of agreement or disagreement. Written notes taken by one of the facilitators were distributed late yesterday; they raise some additional issues which we will address at a later date. [The most relevant (edited) sections of the SLDC are included in the Appendix to this letter; bolded items are those the League is especially concerned with.] If we understand correctly from the applicant, the conceptual plan is what is now before the County; a public hearing on that application will be held before the Hearing Officer on January 11, 2018. The plan as described by the applicant includes subdividing the parcel into 3 phases, each with a different site development objective: a truck stop in Phase 1, 1 or 2 low-rise hotels in Phase 2 and a commercial/light industrial area in Phase 3. Truck stops are not specifically listed in the CCD Use Table 8.44. However, if the County should determine that this use is analogous to a gas station, which is a listed use in the Use Table, the construction would still require a conditional use permit within the Community College District. The League does not, however, believe that a truck stop is equivalent to a gas station in terms of its impact on a community. At the facilitation meeting, a question related to the process for approvals of the conceptual plan and the subsequent site development was raised; surprisingly, the applicant was not able (or was unwilling) to answer this question. The issue – and it is a critical one - is whether a conceptual plan can be approved without a simultaneous determination on the required conditional use permit for the site development. In other words, will there be two separate approval processes – one for the current application for the conceptual plan and a subsequent process, if the conceptual plan is approved, for any conditional uses for phase 1 of the site development? If the approval of the plan and the phase 1 conditional use permit are simultaneous, then per 8.10.3.5 of the SLDC, it appears that the applicant would need to request any variances as part of the plan application. However, Mr. Siebert specifically said no variances are requested in the conceptual plan application. The League would like to meet with County staff to discuss this issue. Our concern is that if there is a stand-alone approval of the conceptual plan with no variances specified, the applicant will argue that they have implicit approval to proceed with Phase 1, that is, to build the truck stop. We do not believe that the intention of the code was to allow sneaking through a controversial proposal in this way; we ask that County staff clarify the issue. 2) Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Phase 1, a Truck Stop. This stated purpose of the SLDC is consistent with several LWVSFC positions. Specifically, the League supports:
We are concerned that there are several attributes of the proposed Flying J truck stop that are not likely to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the Santa Fe community: these include air, light and noise pollution; traffic congestion; water availability, and wastewater treatment capacity. Thank you for considering our views. Again, we will be happy to meet in person with County staff to discuss our concerns. We realize we’ve raised numerous issues in this letter; it may therefore be more productive to have an in-person meeting with the appropriate staff members. Sincerely, Hannah Burling, Chair Action & Advocacy Committee, LWVSFC Invest sensibly in economic development
Posted: Saturday, June 10, 2017 7:00 pm | Updated: 11:16 pm, Sat Jun 10, 2017. By Jody Larson The League of Women Voters has received a number of comments prompted by The New Mexican’s story (“Uneven returns,” May 22) about the league’s study of the city’s economic development fund. We would like to address publicly the concerns expressed on those comments. The league undertook a study of local economic development two years ago in order to develop positions from which we could advocate on economic development issues before the Board of County Commissioners and the City Council. The study committee wrote five background papers to enable our members to arrive at these positions. One of our background papers dealt with the history of the city’s economic development fund. Our interview with Bruce Krasnow of The Santa Fe New Mexican dealt largely with this background paper and was reported in the May 22 edition. Our paper did not state that any recipient should or should not receive funding. It did advise the city to consider how broadly to define economic development for the purpose of awarding economic development funds. It also noted that the city could use other types of funds to provide financial assistance to worthy projects, such as social services that aid at-risk youth with jobs and training. The paper noted several instances of unavailability of reports that fund recipients are required to file. However, the report stated specifically that reports from both the Santa Fe Business Incubator and YouthWorks, among others, were on file and were provided to us. In our interview with Krasnow, we pointed out that business incubators are in wide use nationwide in state and local governments, and that the Santa Fe Business Incubator has received national recognition for its work. Finally, regarding Clean Air Systems Inc., the paper documented the $200,000 grant and $100,000 loan awarded in 2006, the sale of the company in 2010 and the closure of this business unit in 2016. At no time did we state or infer that this investment was lost. Our research shows that all requirements of the grant and the loan were met. The league appreciates the recognition given to our work, but we want to assure readers of The New Mexican that we have not tried to pick economic winners and losers, nor will we going forward. We look forward to using our positions to support sensible government investment in local economic development, by focusing mainly on the processes, including planning and oversight, as well as transparency in operations. Jody Larson is chairwoman of the League of Women Voters of Santa Fe County Local Economic Development Study Committee. She joined the League of Women Voters in 1966. |
On the 97th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment, we are STILL Fighting for Equal Voting RightsBy: Chris Carson, President
League of Women Voters of the United States of America August 18, 2017 On this day in 1920, the 19th Amendment was ratified, granting American women the right to vote. Ninety-seven years later, however, we are still fighting for equal access at the ballot box—and an alarming trend threatens to roll back what we’ve achieved across the last century. That’s why the work of the League of Women Voters continues, and that’s why Americans everywhere must remain vigilant in protecting their role in our democracy. In recent years, we have seen dangerous rollbacks to voting rights at the state and federal levels. In 2013 the Supreme Court discarded key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the case of Shelby v. Holder. This decision opened the door for states to pass more restrictive voting laws, making it more difficult for Americans to vote. In the four years since the Shelby decision, states have pushed more onerous and restrictive photo ID requirements and purged eligible, registered voters from the polls – actions that would have been prevented under the Voting Rights Act prior to the Supreme Court decision.The 2016 election was the first presidential race in 50 years without the full protection of the Voting Rights Act, and we felt that impact. In Ohio, 400,000 registered voters across the state were purged from the rolls without notice. In Florida, North Carolina and Wisconsin, the period of early voting was cut down to mere days. Across the country, there were more than 800 fewer polling locations to cast a vote in 2016 compared to 2012 and 2014. Attacks on our voting rights continue to grow. We’ve seen the Trump Administration make dangerous and unsubstantiated claims that millions of illegal votes were cast in the last election. We’ve seen a commission established for the sole purpose of reducing the number of Americans who are registered to vote. And just last week, the Justice Department escalated the voter suppression agenda by reversing their position on the Ohio voter purge. Even as we celebrate the anniversary of the 19th Amendment today, and we reflect on the Americans who fought for the right to vote, too many people are losing confidence in our elections. A new poll last week found that more than half of likely American voters say voter fraud is at least a somewhat serious problem in America today. This is NOT the case. The real problems with our election system are polling place closures, cuts to early voting, restrictive voter ID laws and the illegal purge of registered voters. This administration’s so-called “Election Integrity” Commission is laying the groundwork to roll back voting rights even farther. That is exactly why we must be vigilant and fight back. Do not be intimidated by this Commission’s false accusations about voter fraud. Do not let their agenda threaten your ability to exercise your right to vote. Voting is what brings us together as Americans. The vote of the poorest citizen is equal to the vote of the wealthiest citizen. Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy and should be a moment at which we are all equal. The League of Women Voters was founded in 1920 – just six months before the 19th Amendment was passed and ratified. Our mission at the time was to help 20 million women carry out their new responsibilities as voters. Today, we are still committed to helping voters make informed decisions and fighting to make sure our elections remain as free, fair and transparent as possible. Today, celebrate the 19th Amendment by registering to vote or helping an eligible voter get registered. LWV Statement on Trump's "Election Integrity Committee" 05/11/2017 | by Sarah Courtney
Washington, DC – The League of Women Voters president, Chris Carson issued the following statement in response to reports that President Trump will announce an election commission to investigate false claims of widespread voter fraud in American elections: “President Trump’s 'Election Integrity Commission' is an unnecessary distraction from the real work to protect against foreign hacking and interference in our electoral process. The real purpose of this effort is to justify President Trumps' false claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2016 elections. “This effort begins with a deep credibility gap. Commission members’ views on elections are well known and have been discredited as political ideologues with dangerous agendas. This is part of a wider effort to suppress the vote, keep certain politicians in power, and undermine our elections by spreading falsehoods. “Today’s announcement is just another distraction from the real issues and we expect that any findings or recommendations from this Commission will only be used to make it harder for people to vote in the future. “The White House is attempting to bury this Commission at a time when the nation and Congress are consumed with this administration’s own Russia scandal. “The real problems with our electoral system are the suppressive laws that prevent eligible voters from access to the ballot. False claims of voter fraud have been used to push through more restrictive voting laws including voter ID, proof of citizenship requirements and limiting or reducing early voting opportunities. “This administration is laying the groundwork to usher in widespread discrimination in our systems of voting and manipulate our democracy.” League of Women Voters on Immigration Ban and Deportation
01/31/2017 | by Sarah Courtney Washington, DC – The League of Women Voters president, Chris Carson, issued the following statement in response to President Trump's immigration ban: "The League of Women Voters is opposed to deportation of non-criminal undocumented immigrants. The League supports cities, towns, counties and states that make a decision not to cooperate with federal deportation and enforcement actions that include non-criminal undocumented immigrants. Moreover, the Trump Administration’s orders are of dubious legality. It is simply wrong, and a perversion of the American system of justice, for the Executive Branch to refuse to obey federal court orders. The LWV is opposed to discrimination, including discrimination in immigration, based on religion. The Trump Administration’s orders appear to be targeted at Muslims and immigrants from majority-Muslims nations." |
LWVNM President gives interview on New Health Care BillPublic Health New Mexico | KUNM
Friday, June 23, 2017 | By Judith K. Williams (Transcript) The Senate is considering gutting Medicaid, just like the House did weeks ago. But the Senate’s roposal would allot some money for subsidies for three years. After that, funds would be capped except for folks severely under the poverty level. As things stand, 43 percent of our state is on the program, and we have the highest number of babies born into Medicaid in the country. Judy Williams said the cuts are drastic, and the changes wouldn’t lower costs or improve the quality of care people get here. She is the president of the League of Women Voters in New Mexico. “Health care has been the biggest economic engine in the state for several years since Obamacare was passed,” Williams said, “so it will have a huge effect on the state when we can least afford it.” Williams added that a lot of people would lose coverage altogether, and we could see a spike in overdose deaths if these changes take effect. The bill includes some grant funds for the opioid crisis, which plagues Rio Arriba County. But lawmakers say it’s nowhere near enough. Planned Parenthood is already closing clinics in the state, and under the Senate’s proposal, they would receive no Medicaid reimbursements for at least a year. Abortion would also not be covered, except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother. KUNM’s Public Health New Mexico project is funded by the
W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the McCune Charitable Foundation. The "American Healthcare Act" is un-AmericanLeague of Women Voters Opposes Ryan Healthcare Repeal Bill
03/10/2017 | by Sarah Courtney Washington, DC – Chris Carson, President of the League of Women Voters of the United States, issued the following statement on the House Leadership’s proposed “American Health Care Act.”
The “American Health Care Act” was developed in secret and is now being rushed to passage by Speaker Ryan and the House leadership. This legislation will rip apart our health care and revoke coverage for millions of Americans while raising costs for millions more. The American Health Care Act is un-American. It fails to reflect the American values of fairness, community, and concern for all. The fact that it is being rushed to passage demonstrates the legislation can’t withstand careful consideration and the full debate that is essential in a democracy like ours. It is simply irresponsible to vote on the legislation without knowing the cost to tax payers. The House Leadership’s bill threatens the essential care that women need. It significantly cuts coverage for women and no longer assures that women cannot be charged for more than men for healthcare. The bill will increase costs for seniors and those with pre-existing conditions, while slashing assistance for lower-income households in obtaining coverage. It is unacceptable that the legislation not only attacks Medicaid expansion but also sets the Medicaid program on the road to extinction. The only real winners under this new legislation are the special interests and the wealthiest Americans. Hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks are included in this legislation for the wealthy and the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. The American Health Care Act would mean fewer people covered, weaker protections and higher costs for Americans. While the Affordable Care Act is not perfect, it has successfully provided health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans who previously went without. The ACA resulted in significant improvements in people's health and their sense of well-being. This proposed replacement -- the American Health Care Act -- is a huge step in the wrong direction and will result in more death and disease for the American people. Mental Health Awareness WeekMr. Chair and Commissioners:
My name is Chris Furlanetto; I am speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Santa Fe County. The League supports the proclamation recognizing Mental Illness Awareness Week in Santa Fe County. Thank you, Commissioners Chavez and Stefanics, for bringing this before the Commission. The proclamation refers to two items on the November ballot: a bond issue to generate funds for behavioral health services and an advisory question where the public can weigh in on a possible gross receipts tax increase, also for behavioral health services. The League does not- cannot- endorse nor oppose bond issues without study, but we do expect state and local governments to provide the following: 1) Adequately funded mental health care systems that provide comprehensive services to the acutely, chronically and seriously mentally ill of all ages, including children and the homeless. [NOTE: This sentence is an abbreviated version of the LWVNM position.] 2) Implementation of a master plan that:
3) Centers for the seriously and chronically mentally ill apart from the County system. 4) Regulations that provide an adequate length of time for evaluation and treatment of involuntary holds. 5) Model mandatory outpatient care programs with adequate supervisory staff. Should the bond issue pass and/or the advisory question be approved by voters, we ask the BCC to keep these goals in mind in your decisions on allocating the new funds generated for behavioral health services. Thank you. |
Immigration
Economic Development
Transparency in Government
Letter to the Governing Body re transparency
|
(copied to the New Mexican and the NM Foundation for Open Government)
Dear Members of the Governing Body: The League of Women Voters of Santa Fe County believes that the work of the public needs to be accomplished in public. We have followed the recent secretive actions of the governing body with increasing alarm. Not only do the city’s residents not know what our elected representatives voted on with respect to our most precious natural resource, water, we don’t even know what was considered. The New Mexico Open Meetings Act requires that most of the business of governing be done in the open. There are a few exceptions, but it is difficult to understand how this recent session and vote could be included among them. In our Transparency Position, the League urges local governments to hold an executive session only when absolutely necessary, include an explanation of the purpose of the session in the public meeting agenda, and keep and release a record of all attendees at such sessions. Further, when important matters of wide public interest have been discussed in executive session, the League believes the public body should publish a draft motion based on what was discussed and allow public input on it before a vote is taken. This position, in its entirety, is incorporated into the city’s Resolution 2011-056, and thus should provide guidance in all of the city’s undertakings. Nevertheless, the governing body’s recent actions concerning (apparently) water and The Nature Conservancy rise to none of these standards. The League agrees with The Foundation for Open Government and The Santa Fe New Mexican’s editorial, that this does not pass the smell test, and that the action of the governing body needs to be specified, in public, and a new vote taken – the League believes, only after open public discussion. Sincerely, Suzanne Schmidt, President League of Women Voters of Santa Fe County Cc: Santa Fe New Mexican Susan Boe, NM Foundation for Open Government |
Statement to the Santa Fe New MexicanMy View: Yet Another Important Vote
by Mary Ellen Gonzales, League of Women Voters of Santa Fe County Action and Advocacy Committee On February 7 voters in the Santa Fe Public School District will be asked to approve a General Obligation Bond of $100 million to build, improve, repair, and maintain facilities. Since there is a need for $280 million, the Citizens’ Review Committee, the Board of Education and the staff worked diligently to prioritize these projects. They developed a plan which will begin to bring the Milagro Middle School, Early College Opportunity technical /vocational school, and Mandela International Baccalaureate School up to 21st century standards. There are additional projects left over from the last two bond elections which are not finished. There is money in this bond budget to complete these. Funds will also be spent on sustainability projects that are both environmentally sound and also save the District operational money. Schools will get new roofs, new HVAC systems, new classrooms, upgraded kitchens, etc. All schools within the District will benefit in some way. Details are available on the SFPS website, http://www.sfps.info If the bond passes, property taxes on a $300,000 house will increase about $80 per year, or $6.67 per month. The League of Women Voters of Santa Fe County urges all voters to cast their ballots either through early voting or on election day, February 7. Early voting has already begun at the Santa Fe County Clerk’s office, the Santa Fe Community College, the Educational Services Center (610 Alta Vista Street), and Nina Otero Community School at 5901 Herrera Drive. Mary Ellen Gonzales Santa Fe, NM 87505 |