Bike trail repair funds shouldn’t be divisive

It is difficult to comprehend how something as basic as including maintenance for bicycle and pedestrian trails in the city budget could be in any way controversial. The controversy should have been this: Why wasn’t spending for such maintenance already a line item in the city budget? This week, the City Council was considering an oft-delayed proposed resolution to do just that — include trail maintenance in the annual budget, with staff being directed to develop a formula so maintenance is not an afterthought.

Boring, right?

Nope.

The resolution became yet another opportunity for Mayor Alan Webber to let his disagreements with Councilor Michael Garcia spill over into the public, resulting in both men speaking over one other before the vote, which other councilors quickly brought to a conclusion using the parliamentary procedure to “call for the question” and end debate. The resolution passed unanimously — Webber voted for it — and Councilor Signe Lindell abstained. Councilors Pilar Faulkner and Amanda Chavez were not present.

Here’s the background: Garcia last year developed the resolution — with full input of people on the Bicycle and Pedestrian and Advisory Committee — concerning ongoing trail maintenance and the need for the city to repair trails so they are more accessible for cyclists and pedestrians.

Members of the Mayor’s Committee on Disability also weighed in to make clear that paths need to be clear and passable for people who use walkers or wheelchairs — Santa Fe is not a friendly city for people with disabilities.

Despite the relatively benign nature of the resolution, it sat in the City Attorney’s Office for months. Concurrently, an election for the council was underway, with Garcia opposed by a Webber-backed candidate, Phil Lucero. Ironically (or maybe intentionally) Lucero was and is a leader in the bicycle community — his campaign slogan was “Ride with Phil.” Garcia won the race handily and the resolution finally was released by the city attorney and began winding its way through the committee process.

At the Finance Committee, it got stuck, with some councilors upset the original resolution called for funding in the upcoming fiscal year, 2025. No, no, they said. This is not the way to budget. The city that can pull money out of the air at mid-year for pickleball courts cannot — while the budget is being put together — add money for infrastructure repair through a resolution. The horror!

Garcia went to work with the councilors who disagreed and brought back a resolution with broader support. It delays funding until fiscal year 2026, but establishes how the funding will occur. Co-sponsors on Wednesday included Councilors Faulkner, Carol Romero-Wirth, Jamie Cassutt and Lee Garcia. A win, in other words, for compromise and planning. Passing such a sensible resolution should have been a slam dunk, right?

Instead, at the meeting, Webber complained the process was not transparent, saying he had “grave misgivings” about how the resolution was developed. This, despite the recommendation rising from the citizen committee level (public meetings), going through the council committee process (public meetings) and being discussed in news stories, opinion pieces and letters to the editor (all public).

The resolution, after the kerfuffle, passed. Now it is up to Michael Garcia and other backers of the resolution — including members of the disability and bicycle committees — to demand the formula be developed, and soon. It would be entirely consistent for the resolution to pass and little other progress occur. Citizens can’t let that happen.

Oh, and if the city does have $30 million in reserves it can spend — we’re still waiting for a meeting to discuss plans for that money — shoot a little toward immediate trail repairs. Such a gesture would show the city’s clear intent to follow the letter and the spirit of a resolution the public clearly supports.

Results. That’s a goal all members of the governing body should get behind.