Albany Common Council Meeting Summary - December 1, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Albany Common Council Meeting Summary - December 1, 2025
The Albany Common Council convened on December 1, 2025, for a work session and regular meeting. Key actions included the appointment of new members to the Community Police Review Board, the passage of several resolutions regarding city finances and designations, and the approval of zoning amendments for 540 Myrtle Avenue. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to housing policy, specifically the debate over the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, which saw fierce public testimony and internal council disagreement regarding the balance between developer incentives and tenant protections. The committee discussion on Ordinance 26-10-125 (Beneficial Ownership Registry) resulted in delays for technical corrections and further review rather than immediate passage.
Consent Calendar
- Resolutions 137 & 138: Appointment of Michael Logan and Joshua Singletary to the Community Police Review Board (CPRB). Both passed unanimously (11-0), restoring the board's quorum. Mr. Logan and Mr. Singletary offered brief statements supporting the board's need for a functional caucus to process data and find consensus.
- Resolution 141: Recognition of World AIDS Day. Passed via majority consent.
- Resolution 139: Redesignation of the City Hall public interior space from "rotunda" to "atrium" for historical accuracy. Passed unopposed.
- Resolutions 129 & 130: Reappointment of Gabriela Sabeda Mora and Jody Schmidt Anderson to the Sustainability Commission. Both passed unanimously (12-0).
- Local Law F of 2025: Refinement of the Commission on Monuments and Public Arts scope. Passed unanimously (12-0).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Opposition to Inclusionary Zoning Weakening: Multiple speakers, including Deborah Kalera (United Tenants), Nancy Perini, Eduardo Hernandez (Citizen Action Council), Ian Butler, Maria Markovitz (Housing for All), James Giacalone, and Kenyan Ryan (Executive Director, United Tenants), expressed strong support for the original 2023 Inclusionary Zoning policy. They argued that current proposed amendments (the Clark Amendment) and the subsequent compromise (Ballarín proposal) dilute the policy by raising income limits (some to 100% AMI) and allowing developers to opt out via fees, which they believe caters to developers at the expense of low-income tenants and perpetuates segregation.
- Support for Compensation Compromise: Several speakers, particularly Kenyan Ryan and Maria Markovitz, indicated that while the proposed compromise (Ballarín proposal) was not perfect, it represented a necessary step forward by retaining some set-aside requirements and increasing the buyout fee to $25,000 per unit, which they argued was better than the 2023 policy or no policy at all.
- Criticism of Process and Leadership: Charles Robinson strongly criticized the Mayor and the Council for the perceived betrayal of community interests regarding the Zoning vote, alleging the Mayor profited disproportionately and that the Council failed to resist administrative pressure.
Discussion Items
- Ordinance 26-10-125 (Beneficial Ownership Registry):
- Councilmember Conte & Keegan: Raised concerns about the redundancy of creating a new registry in the City Clerk's office when the Building Department already collects similar data. They questioned the necessity of a third database and suggested consolidating functions to improve public accessibility via citizen portals.
- Councilmember Kimbrough: Defended the placement in the City Clerk's office to separate record-keeping from enforcement (Building Department) to avoid perceptions of targeting. Staff (Mr. Winter, Ms. Johnson) clarified that the Ordinance seeks specific "beneficial ownership" data (who is behind the LLC) not currently collected by the Building Department.
- Councilmember Howie: Voiced concern that the federal Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) requiring this data is currently suspended/unenforced, questioning the need for local redundancy.
- Outcome: The committee identified a drafting error (amending Chapter 359 instead of 231) and agreed to hold the matter for further consultation between the Councilmember, the Building Department, and the Clerk to determine if consolidation is feasible.
- Ordinance 63-12-125R (Inclusionary Zoning Amendments):
- Councilmember Johnson: Expressed deep disappointment that $25,000 is insufficient to hold developers accountable and stressed the need for a clear spending plan for earmarked funds, which she was informed lacked a clear pathway for execution.
- Councilmember Farrell: Countered that there was no lack of outreach from the Council to the Mayor's office regarding negotiations prior to the November vote and clarified that the 100% AMI figure refers to a 5-county area (including affluent Saratoga Springs), not just Albany.
- Councilmember Kimbrough: Urged colleagues to look "honestly" at the compromise, acknowledging it isn't perfect but noting it ties compliance to tax abatements and increases the fee, while criticizing the previous Hyde Amendment for allowing developers to buy out for only $5,000-$10,000 while receiving tax breaks.
- Councilmember Johnson / Councilmember Johnson: Reiterated that holding a person's "head underwater" until they agree to anything is not a sustainable legislative approach and that $25,000 is insufficient without a robust enforcement mechanism.
- Local Law C (Salary Increase):
- Councilmember Johnson: Opposed the salary increase for elected officials, citing the city's budgetary constraints and rising taxes for residents, arguing it contradicts the public messaging of the Council regarding necessary service cuts.
Key Outcomes
- Resolutions Passed:
- 133: Authorization to levy unpaid charges (fire, building, general services) totaling $3,625,328 for 2026.
- 134: Authorization to levy unpaid water/sewer charges totaling $5,276,750.
- 135: Authorization to levy Business Improvement District charges totaling $1,465,523.
- 136: Declaration of the City as Lead Agency for the Washington Park Complete Streets SEQR.
- Ordinances Passed:
- Ordinance 20-91-125: Renamed Columbus Day to Francis Xavier Cabrini Day and Indigenous People's Day (10-2, absent 2).
- Ordinance 25-10-125: Zoning change for 540 Myrtle Avenue from R2 to RM.
- Referrals:
- Ordinance 62-12-125R (Smoking Prohibition) referred to Law Committee.
- Ordinance 63-12-125R (Inclusionary Zoning) referred to Planning Committee.
- Resolution 140-12125R (Larson Family Honors) referred to General Services Committee.
- Scheduling: The City Clerk's office was tasked with correcting the drafting error in Ordinance 26-10-125 and recirculating it. A committee meeting is tentatively scheduled for December 15th to reconsider the ordinance if a 6:00 PM meeting is not feasible. The Council will pass the Finance resolutions on December 15th if not passed now, to coordinate with Albany County. The Mayor's veto (or withholding of signature) on Ordinance 17-82-25 was noted but she is proceeding with signing it into law without a formal veto message.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everyone. We are joined. Welcome to the law buildings and code enforcement committee. We are joined by committee members. Councilmember Keegan, Councilmember Conte, and Councilmember Clark. We are also joined by President Pro Tem Kimbro. This evening we are discussing ordinance 2610125. An ordinance amending Chapter 231 of the Code of the City of Albany by adding a new Part 732 requiring disclosure of beneficial owners of limited liability companies and other entities that hold residential property in the city of Albany. So we decided we would come back in and vote it out of committee. Yeah, sure. So okay, so there were some requested amendments by the committee at your last meeting, and uh we have Mr. Winter make those adjustments. Um as far as I can tell, they look like what was requested. Um but um I know Mr Conti has some questions. He sent an email out basically, and I I kind of prepared an email response, but I ended up not sending it. Um and I I mean I I can go through what I have here. Um just working off of what Mr. Conti said in his email, and I'm sorry, public doesn't have the benefit of knowing what what was there. Perhaps um maybe if we started with Mr. Conte's questions and then you could answer them. And I just I was I was remiss in not noting that our staff. Um we're also joined by Carly Johnson, Robert Wenner, um, and I know that Shnequa Jackson and Brian Jimenez are also here. Um so Mr. Conte, if you wanted to ask your questions, then maybe Mr. Kimbrough can answer them. Yeah, so just let me outline uh some of the questions I had. Um so what the proposed ordinance does is establish within the city clerk's office a registry uh with identifying information for LLCs. Um my question was some of this uh and it appears to be duplicate, not well, not totally duplicative, but uh the existing rental and building registry in the building department already collects some of this information and it's a registry that's already existing, and so one question was why instead of creating a separate registry in the city clerk's office, why not build on the existing registry in the building department, which collects some of the information that this local other registry will create? Um why have it housed in the city clerk's office versus having it in the building department where the other registry is located, and then you do have the building department or the commission building director actually promulgating the regs for the registry in the city clerk's office, which you know again usually the city clerk would do that, although it would be done in consultation with the clerk, but again, this so my big question is doesn't isn't this a better fit within by building on the existing registry in the city clerk's office? I'm sorry, in the building department rather than creating a separate registry in the city clerk's office. There seems to be some duplication. Okay, it'll just the basic gist of what my question is for. Right, okay, yep. And so on the redundancy, um I mean there is some overlap, but um the information that's collected under part four of uh the rental registry. Um it's uh registered owner, responsible agent, but it does it it doesn't identify uh the LLCs, corporations, partnerships, or trusts, which is what we're trying to get at here. So it's it's it's different. Um that that can be incorporated into the existing ones that that was my question. Right, okay. So and then uh with that why should it be in the clerk's office? Uh the city clerk's office. Um I think when you talk about transparency, it's it's what the clerk does. She's they she keeps records, um, and you know, processes filings, manages public access to appropriate uh to documents uh that are public, uh they handle redactions. I don't know how well the uh building department is with all of that stuff. Um and keeping the registry with the clerk, it separates the the record keeping from the enforcement. So do you want the building department collecting all of this stuff and doing the enforcement? I think it's a bad idea to do that. Um and it just sets us up for people to point fingers and and and say they're being targeted and and and things of the like. Did you want to say something, Mr. Winter? Uh agreed on on all of that, and um would also just note that the the key element added here that's not covered uh already is the beneficial ownership information specifically.
openpublica.com