Special City Council Meeting on the Removal Action of Mayor Paulette Guajardo - August 6, 2026

The City Council continued the hearing into the removal of Mayor Paulette Guajardo on August 6, 2026, following sessions that began July 22, 2026. The day focused on evidentiary disputes, a contested subpoena for the Mayor's phone records, and live testimony regarding the approval of a $2 million Type B economic incentive for the Homewood Suites project. Central to the testimony was the allegation that the council was given a false narrative—that the funds were for general FEMA compliance—rather than the actual reason (street-level activation) as decided by the Type B board.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Michael Savod expressed strong support for Mayor Guajardo, condemning the removal action as a 'charade' and noting her three consecutive electoral victories.
• Shelley Hinahosa urged the council to respect the voters and allow the electoral process to determine the Mayor's leadership.
• Melinda de los Santos argued that evidence of altered documentation by the applicant supported the case for finding misconduct and that the council should consider the matter.

Discussion Items

• Evidence and Subpoena Rulings: The tribunal overruled objections from the Mayor's legal team regarding the admission of several late-filed exhibits. A motion to quash a subpoena for the Mayor's phone records and text messages was denied. The Mayor subsequently filed an affidavit of compliance, although Petitioners argued it was incomplete.
• Testimony of Leah Olivery (Former Type B Board Chair): Olivery testified that the Type B board rejected the FEMA compliance rationale and approved the $2 million incentive specifically for 'street-level activation,' grey box finish-out, and outdoor dining to catalyze downtown economic development. She stated the presentation and agenda memo given to the City Council on February 20, 2024, inaccurately reflected the board's decision by focusing on FEMA costs. She testified to being 'stunned' by the inaccuracy and actively worked with city staff to correct the narrative for the second reading. She denied having any knowledge of the altered FEMA slide before April 2024 and stated she had no contact with the Mayor regarding the project during the application process.
• Testimony of Councilman Everett Roy: Roy testified that the City Council received inaccurate information during the first reading of the ordinance. He supported a full investigation into the document alteration allegations and stated the city later issued a notice of default to the applicant for making material misrepresentations. He described the process as a 'mess,' using the analogy of 'toothpaste out of the tube.' He stated that if intentional wrongdoing was proven, the funds should not have been awarded. Attempts by the defense to question Roy about the potential bias of other council members were largely blocked on sustained objections.

Key Outcomes

• The hearing was recessed and scheduled to continue on August 7, 2026, with additional witnesses expected.
• The tribunal denied the Mayor's motion to quash a subpoena for her communications records.
• Witness testimony established a significant discrepancy between the narrative presented to the council during the first reading (FEMA) and the actual findings of the Type B board (street-level activation), creating a central fact dispute for the tribunal regarding the accuracy of information the Mayor received and relayed.