Firefighters urge council to rethink ARU placement as debate opens over behavioral-health response

The Santa Fe City Council spent more than an hour debating the structure and staffing of the Alternative Response Unit, or ARU, after presentations from the firefighters’ union and sustained questions from newly elected council members.

The Santa Fe Firefighters Association, Local 2059, told the council the fire department is busier than ever and that programs outside core suppression and emergency medical services must not sap limited personnel and equipment. “Programs such as ARU may provide value. However, they have consistently drawn resources away from our primary mission,” Local 2059 President Charles Gonzalez said, asking the council to ensure core fire and EMS functions remain fully supported.

Several council members and other speakers agreed that behavioral-health responses must be strengthened, but they disagreed on where ARU should sit inside city government. Councilor Pilar Faulner said ARU’s case-management work is closer to the mission of Community Services and would gain more space to grow outside Fire/EMS. “ARU would be better suited in community services because it is more social work and behavioral health,” Faulner said, adding that separating the unit could allow the fire department to focus on fire and EMS staffing.

Councilor Amanda Chavez and others urged caution in changing a unit that responds to life‑threatening calls, while also pressing for clearer policy direction. “We are not management,” Chavez said, adding that the governing body’s role is policymaking; she called for a policy exercise that clarifies whether and how ARU should remain integrated with fire and EMS.

Interim fire leadership defended the operational choices made, noting the city retained case managers and that paramedics responding from ambulances remain trained for behavioral‑health calls. But union leaders said the removal of EMS captains from ARU has raised concerns about chain of command and resource allocation.

Multiple council members called for a series of follow‑up steps: an expert briefing on national ARU models, additional study sessions that include chiefs and front‑line staff, and regional conversations with county partners. A public‑safety committee study session on aspects of ARU was scheduled for May 19 to begin those conversations.

The council took no formal action on ARU at the meeting. Instead, members asked staff to compile operational data, staffing scenarios and models used by peer cities so the governing body can craft a policy direction that balances behavioral‑health responsiveness with emergency service readiness.