Good evening, everyone.

Today is November 17th, 2025.

The 42nd meeting of the 26th council will come to order.

All counselors will be present this evening.

Councilor Pena will be on Zoom but arriving momentarily.

We're going to begin with a moment of silence, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance in English and in Spanish.

Civic Plaza parking passes are provided for members of the public.

You can obtain a parking pass from council staff at the table near the chamber's entrance.

Members of the public, city staff, and the media have the ability to view this meeting in person and on live streams through four different platforms.

Gov TV on Comcast Channel 16, the Gov TV website, YouTube, and Zoom webinar.

The live streams can be accessed from most smartphones, tablets, or computers.

Also, this meeting is closed captioned, and you may enable your closed captioning devices on your television and device at this time.

The video recording of this and all past council meetings will remain available for viewing at any time on the city council's website.

Council staff is available via telephone if members of the public need assistance, finding the videos online.

Please call 505-768-3100 for assistance during business hours Monday through Friday, 8 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

The council will take a break at approximately 7 p.m.

this evening if needed.

With regard to decorum in the chambers, we want tonight's proceeding to be as civil and respectful as possible.

Please do not make any personal attacks and please no applause, snapping, or other outbursts during the meeting.

Upon the second or continued disruption, that individual will be asked to leave the chambers and if necessary, security will be asked to escort that person out of the chambers.

Such removal from the council chambers will be effective for the remainder of the meeting.

If continued disruptions occur, I may recess the meeting until order is restored, and if necessary, may clear the chambers of persons participating in the disturbance.

The meeting will go a lot smoother if we are all respectful of one another.

We will begin tonight's meeting with proclamations and presentations.

Good evening.

Good afternoon, Madam President, members.

How are you?

How are you?

Do we have it?

We do.

Thank you so much.

All right.

So for August, uh, total business sector growth was actually 4.1%.

And so if you were to look at the bottom leftmost column, you can see that.

So that's all business sectors.

Uh, when you don't count the hold harmless impact.

However, for the month based on the 1.225 state shared increment growth was actually flat.

Um, and that's largely due to a lump sum hold harmless payment that we received this time last year and off in August.

Um, and so that uh makes our growth uh flat this time.

And you can see that by the by looking up again at the far left column, the whole food is down 33% compared to this time last year.

So that does bring our five or our cumulative growth to 6.8% for the year.

Expected growth for FY26 is supposed to be 3.8% over the FY25 estimated actual.

Uh so that does mean that there's still a little bit of cushion in there for our expected growth.

Uh, let's see.

Construction was the only major sector that saw a decline in August.

Um, however, retail and other services did quite well, which is frankly nice to see for a change.

Uh 9.4% and 7.6 respectively for those two.

And then we can go over to cannabis.

The next slide.

And it's a different story.

Um, it actually did well this month.

Uh 15% growth.

It's too early.

I'm not sure if that's because of um tax department's efforts at compliance, but hopefully, hopefully.

And so we'll hopefully see that continue.

So that brings the cumulative growth.

It's still negative at 0.7%, but perhaps that'll turn around this year.

Uh and finally, September revenue is expected really any day now.

I kept checking a little bit hectically today, but nothing so far.

So I should be sending that report out.

I would imagine this week, if uh otherwise the following week.

So, and that's really all I have for you.

Councillors, any questions, comments?

Thank you very much for the update.

Thank you, Bye.

All right.

Moving on to the journal.

I move approval of the November 5th journal.

Second.

There's a second by Councillor Grout.

Madam Clerk.

Well, first of all, is Councilor Pena on Zoom yet?

Okay.

So for now, all those in favor of approving November 5th's journal, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an eight zero vote.

Communications and introductions.

I move that the rules be suspended for the purpose of placing EC 550 536 on tonight's agenda for action.

530 EC536 is the 2026 administration federal priorities.

Second.

There's a second by Councilor Feblecorn.

All those in favor of removing EC536 from the letter of introduction, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an 80 vote.

I move that the rules be suspended for the purpose of placing OC54 on tonight's agenda for action.

OC54 is the Albuquerque City Council legislative program for the New Mexico Congressional Delegation for the second session of the 119th United States Congress.

There's a second by Councilor Feblecorn.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an 80 vote.

I also move that the rules be suspended for the purpose of placing R207 on tonight's agenda for action.

R207 is concerning the municipal runoff election to be held in the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico on Tuesday, the ninth day of December 2025.

There's a second by Councilor Grout.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an 80 vote.

Counselor Grout, by request.

Madam President, I move that the rules be suspended for the purpose of placing R206 on tonight's agenda for action.

R206 is appropriating funds to the capital improvement program for the 2025 general obligation bond.

There's a motion and a second by Councilor Feblecorn.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an eight zero vote.

Councilor Backa.

I move uh Madam President, I move that the rules be suspended for the purpose of placing P8 on tonight's agenda for action.

P8 is adopting a proposition be sent to the voters at the 2026 general election.

Proposing to repeal Article 11, Section 7 of the Charter of the City of Albuquerque regarding a public vote on the performing arts center.

There's a motion and a second by Councilor Rogers.

All those in favor raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an 80 vote.

Councillor Backa.

Madam President, I move that the rules be suspended for the purpose of placing R208 on tonight's agenda for action.

R208 is adopting a proposition to be submitted to the voters at the next election be held in the city of Albuquerque concerning an amendment to Article 11, Section 7 of the Albuquerque City Charter, providing the form of the question and designation clause for such question on the ballot.

There's a second by councillor Grout.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an eight zero vote.

Councilor Backa.

Thank you, Madam President.

I move that the rules be suspended for the purpose of placing R210 on tonight's agenda for action.

R210 is requiring council approval for the disposition of city-owned real property located in the central community planning area.

There's a motion and a second by councillor grout.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an eight zero vote.

Counselors, any other changes to the letter of introduction.

Seeing none, I move approval of the letter of introduction.

There's a motion and a second by councilor Champlain.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.

That passes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an eight zero vote.

Moving on to reports of committee.

Council Champlain.

Madam President, the Finance and Government Operations Committee met on Monday, November 10th, 2025 and reports out the following items.

In the matter of EC 521, 523, and 524 that they be approved.

In the matter of EC 525, that a receipt be noted.

In the matter of R and 197, 198, and 199 that they do pass in the matter of 067 that it be without recommendation as substituted in the matter of EC522 that it be withdrawn by administration.

And in the matter of EC 518, that it failed.

I make a motion to accept the committee report.

There's a second by Councilor Backa or Grout.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an 8-0 vote.

Councilor Feeblecorn.

Madam President, the land use planning and zoning committee met on Wednesday, November 12th and reports out the following items in the matter of EC520 that receipt be noted, and in the matter of R204 that it do pass is amended.

I make a motion to accept the committee reports.

There's a motion as second by Councilor Grout.

All those in favor raise your hand and say yes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an eight zero vote.

Moving on to deferrals and withdrawals.

Counselors, are there any deferrals or withdrawals this evening?

Madam President.

Counselor Lewis.

Madam President, I I do I would like to make a motion to defer R 183, but before we vote on that, uh, would like to hear an update from the administration on the matter of R183.

So move move it.

I move a two-week deferral.

There's a there's a motion for a two-week deferral and a second by counselor champagne and an R 183.

Is that going to be the parks bill?

Uh Council President and uh Councilor Lewis, our director is in another room, but I can give an update.

I know they have been staffing up, they have been buying the SOD and doing everything that they can so that we can prepare for what's coming after the winter, and we're doing everything we can to prepare all those things.

Councilor Lewis?

So Madam President, um, and you know, just one statement about it then that um I I want to make sure that the condition of our parks are where they should be right now at this time of year.

Um where they where they were last year at this time of year, um as of as of the summer, they were not where they needed to be.

You know, they were far from it.

Uh and so I know the department talked at our last meeting about what they were doing.

It sounds like we um uh were able to add additional contractors and and uh get some resources on all of our parks um right now and uh um what uh what I want to hear um in two weeks is the progress that we've made um and and I and I and I believe if if we cannot say if the administration can't say that these parks are where they need to be right now at this time of year, uh you know I I believe there's support on this council to pass this bill and to allocate these dollars um so that we prioritize again we we don't we don't really have a funding or a financial crisis as far as a budget in this city right now.

We just have a priority crisis uh because um we have more money than we've ever had before, and we have an administration that spends all of it, uh and so when there's a crisis, it's a crisis of priority.

It's a crisis of just not focusing the attention and when it comes to our parks, it's an essential services like roadways and parks and trash pick up and ensuring that we're just giving the taxpayers the best return on their dollar.

And so if this uh and so really I you know again, I'd put that on the administration and saying um I you know I want you to.

I mean, if we have the resources we have right now to get our parks where they should be, great.

If you don't, I want to be able to prioritize some resources that'll really help us to be able to get there.

Thank you, Madam President.

The motion is for a two-week deferral of R 183.

Counselors, all those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an eight zero vote.

Any other deferrals or withdrawals at this time.

Seeing none, we're going to move on to the consent agenda.

Are there any changes to the consent agenda?

Councilor Champagne.

Madam President, I would like to I guess make a motion to remove EC 485, EC 496, and O 47.

Uh EC485, EC496, and OC 47 are removed from the consent agenda.

There is no need to approve counselor Lewis.

Madam President, I was gonna move uh O 47 since Councilor Champagne already did that.

Uh but I'll also um remove um OC 2548.

All right, and then we're gonna also remove OC 48.

Any other removals from the consent agenda for those individuals on tonight's consent agenda who are being appointed to serve on a border commission.

Thank you for your willingness to serve.

I move approval of the consent agenda.

There's a motion and a second by counselor grout.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an 8-0 vote.

Moving back to EC485, Councillor Champaign.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh I just needed a couple of questions.

We went through this in FGO, and I would just wanted to see a couple of questions answered before uh we get approval of this.

Um in FGO, we had talked about uh in the breakdown of this if there was any staff that was going to be allocated for it, how many staff members, and also any reoccurring amounts.

Uh there seemed to be a little bit of confusion within the administration saying there wasn't any recurring account or reoccurring amounts or staff members, and then it was corrected based on a question that I asked them.

So I wanted to make sure that we clarify that this is the correct response that there are going to be staff members uh with an annual with a budget of 783,000, I believe.

Yes.

And that there's a recurring cost of 150,000 Mr.

Whalen, Madam CAO.

I also see Director Leach here.

You pick.

Madam President, Councillor Champagne, Director Leach is uh prepared to talk through this with the office.

Thank you.

Madam President, thank you, Director.

Uh, again, there was confusion at FGO.

Um we we did discuss it a little bit, but I want to make sure that we are clarified on from what I read that that they are four to five personnel going to be hired for this position, and then is that annual reoccurring cost going to be the annual budget of the 783,000, and I believe 150,000 for subscriptions or something, or along with uh Madam Councillor, uh Counselor, yes, that's correct.

Uh it's actually going to be for a total of four positions.

Um it's uh 794,000 is going to be recurring.

Uh and then we've identified other potential maintenance issues that's going to be uh uh for a total of uh 1.5 million 1.5 million occurring.

That's included, not 784.

That includes the 794,000.

Okay, Madam President, so the reoccurring is the 184, the 784.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

And what was that that I read the 150 for subscription costs or annually?

Uh Madam Madam President, Councillor, there are there are uh subscription costs is also uh maintenance that we haven't uh we've only got a rough estimate for those.

We'll know what those are further on down the line.

Okay, and Madam President, that is that included in the 1830s or I'm sorry, the 783, or is that just payroll for those four positions?

Uh it's included in the 783.

Okay.

Uh perfect, madam president.

That was all the questions I had.

Thank you, Director.

Council People Gorn.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you for being here, Director Leach.

Um, first of all, I just want to say thank you to all the folks that worked on this.

This is a pretty big undertaking, and I found the report um very helpful.

Uh I do have a couple of questions and and a couple of areas of concern.

So um I want to talk a little bit about the working group members.

Um I see that in the report you included invited working group members.

Um we had a pretty specific requirement within the um legislation that directed this work um that there would be representation.

Um and so I'm just wondering if you can provide a breakdown of actual representation at each of the meetings, because my concern is that we did not see input from all the groups and individuals that were identified in the enabling legislation.

And maybe you can tell me if if you feel like that was really hard to get.

Um, did we do it, did we attempt, and how close did we get?

Madam President, uh Councillor, that is in fact the case.

Uh there are total of around around about 31 people who were uh groups that were invited.

We did issue invites to all of those groups, uh, and then uh some people attended for some of the meetings, so other people uh as their availability uh uh meant that they could attend, they attended.

And a good example was uh our academic friends.

They were in the middle of uh I I know they find it very tough to attend because that because of uh the the marking semester that we're in.

They were able to attend some.

So I think we had a fairly good uh uh representation during the whole um uh during the whole course of the meetings.

Um we did keep uh roll calls, so we do know who was there and who wasn't.

But just to make sure, and just to make sure that we had a full uh full representation at the end of the of uh the the first draft when the committee felt that they were ready to to go with the first draft.

We did actually uh may have a public hearing.

We invited everybody to the uh anybody with comments to the public hearing.

Uh and we did have uh some contributors there, the uh the feedback got assessed and and uh where applicable got added in.

And uh I I feel very confident that we've we've we've had a good a good range.

It was to your point, it was difficult to get participation, but where those people uh where we have participation it was it was very well given and and uh it was a good it was a good group.

Great, thank you, Madam President.

So I know that people reached out to my office because they knew that I was one of the co-sponsors wanting to participate.

I sent those all to you, Director.

Were all of those people invited to participate?

Uh to my knowledge um, Madam President, Councillor, to my knowledge, yes, they will.

Okay, great.

Um, Madam President, if I could get a copy of the um the role for each of the meetings, I would just like to be able to see who actually was um in there, you know, at each meeting.

That would be really helpful to me.

Um, but again, very impressed that you got as many people as you could.

Madam President, one last question.

Um, in the original legislation, it specifically asked if the for the working group to ponder whether this should be an ordinance or an administrative instruction.

Um, the actual policy itself.

And I noticed that it came back as an EC, which is neither of those things.

And so is that something that was discussed within the working group, and why did it not come back as either an ordinance or an administrative instruction?

Uh Madam President, counselor, uh the the there was not a requirement for the full resolution in the wording that we sold.

That said, we did ponder the best way as to how to proceed with this.

And where we got to with the group was that uh artificial intelligence is a very, very fast moving field right now.

Um to the point that uh there were terms coming up towards the end of the of the policy that were just not on anybody's radar at the beginning.

And a great example of that is a gentic AI.

Now everybody knows what agentic AI is, and it's that that that's a big topic.

So we we feel very the group felt very strongly that uh ordinance itself wasn't gonna be wasn't gonna be able to keep up with the with the technology changes, but at least for a couple of years.

We do that said we do have through uh the the mechanism that DTI has at its disposal of standards and policies.

Uh we are able to uh put together policy for the city, and my recommendation would be that would be the best way to go.

You'll also notice in our recommendations we did ask for a emerging technologies board, and we feel very strongly that that would be a great opportunity to get some public input and public comment and make sure that we are staying abreast of where the public where public sentiment is at that point.

Thank you, Madam President.

I agree that the emerging technologies board is a really exciting idea, and I very much appreciate that.

I do think that would take um ordinance though.

Um so just pointing out, and I I don't want to belabor this, but it was a pretty short bill, and it specifically said develop an AI policy statement for the city of Albuquerque that includes the legal status of the AI policy governance structure, ordinance or administrative instruction, and prioritize matrix prioritization matrix identifying possible uses of AI.

So that was in there.

Um just something that we will be thinking through and and bringing back.

But um again, appreciate all the work and um the contents of the report is are are excellent.

Thank you.

Councillors, any other questions for EC485?

Councilor Champagne.

Madam President, I'll make a motion to uh approve EC25485.

There's a motion and a second by Councillor Grout.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an 8-0 vote.

Council Champagne, EC496.

Madam President, EC496.

I just through my readings and such, I just had one question for the administration.

In the notes of it, uh it said that the ABQ ride, uh the new uh basically in the new policy, the ABQ rides policy, the new bus network notes would there would be a gradual fleet inventory decrease.

So are we getting rid of buses?

Madam President, Councillor Uh Champagne, uh Director Keener, can you speak to this?

Yes, uh, Madam President and uh Councilor Champagne.

Um that is correct that we will be having a reduction in the number of buses that we need to get to our full recovery network.

Um so we currently have 163 in the free the fleet in order to run our full recovery network for ABQ ride forward, we'll need roughly 109, and that includes our spare ratio.

So um we will be slowly over the next few years um retiring buses as they come to their useful life and then not replacing them.

Okay, thank you, Madam President.

Um is that what's the reason behind the cost?

Drivers just part of the plan that we don't need as many 163 buses.

I mean, help me understand that.

Um Madam President and Councillor Champagne, uh, yes.

So a lot of it has to do with the way that the new network is set up, so it doesn't require us to run as many buses as we had in um our old networks, so that's part of why we are reducing those, and then also just for our spare ratio as well to make sure that we are consistent with only having the 20% spare ratio as required by FTA.

So does that mean, Madam President, does that mean that like I won't see rapid ride going up in the in central and then also with the other art buses going in the same direction, or is that still gonna be multiple buses on arteries?

Um Madam President and Councilor Champagne, I'm not sure I understand your question.

Our ARP bus, our fleet will remain the same, so this is really for our fixed route buses to where we have more buses than we're going to need to operate the new network.

So our frequencies as we have outlined in the new network plan, though those will be able to be functional with the 109 buses that we have.

Okay.

No, the question was is basically I've seen it several times on Central Avenue that you'll have art going in east-west and we'll be traveling eastbound central, and then you'll see another bus right next to it doing the same thing.

And it seemed kind of redundant that one's going there are two buses going in the same direction.

So is this new plan going to alleviate that or remove some of those from the major arteries and just have one bus going in that direction instead of two separate types of buses?

Madam President and Councilor Champlain, there are some changes to the art corridor.

Um part of what you see right now is with the Route 66 buses or 66 buses, our local service, our art is more of like an express service, so it doesn't make as many stops.

But there will be some changes to that that will impact that within the new network.

Okay.

Thank you, Director.

Thank you, Madam President.

Counselor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just had a question about the shelter.

So this just reading through this, this is just advertising on the shelters, not purchasing more shelters.

This is just advertising for the bus shelters.

Madam President and uh Councilor Rogers, that that's correct.

That's just advertising at our available shelters, and that inventory changes, you know, as as we go through the years as we replace shelters, um, that inventory becomes available to um Lamar in this case, who's who's the vendor to fill those spots.

Thank you.

And I read that that this is advertising is needed to uh provide additional revenue for our transit operating fund.

What is the revenue uh per our approximately that we would bring in from these advertis from advertising?

Um Madam President and Councillor Rogers, um we're looking at in the first year, I believe um the minimum annual guarantee, so over the five years will be 1.69 million is what what we're looking at.

So again, that's over five years.

Um and we do get 50% share of the revenue.

So if it's more than than the um minimum minimum annual guarantee, we could get some more funding from that as well.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um and uh one other question.

So I was I'm not sure if other counselors were not really aware, but I did not catch that when the EC came for the equity plan that we were also approving the network changes at that time.

Um so I guess I'm I think that's why some of us have questions about the routes and the changing of the because I didn't catch that at the time that we were actually also approving the network plan.

I thought we were just approving the equity plan, not the implementation plan for the network for the change.

Um so I guess I'm can I just want to ask that question while we're on this topic of of why did we choose to put them together and not really specify that we're I I feel I feel a little my I did not I read a lot of things and did not it was not clear to me that we were approving all of the network changes at the same time as the equity study.

Um Madam President and Councilor Rogers, we were extremely clear with council staff that the approval of the equity analysis was also approval of our network changes, and that's how we've operated in past practice as well.

Sure.

So I just want to go to Jeff real quick on for our just thinking next time we do this.

Um is there a better way that this can come to us, not necessarily in an EC, so that we can be clear about that?

Can you have a question?

Mr.

Hurts?

Uh count council president Bassan, Council uh Councilor uh Rogers.

Uh per FTA requirements, uh transit is only required to submit uh a resolution to us for the transit equity uh analysis.

There are no additional requirements for transit to submit um to council.

There was uh through one of the objectives bills, there was a requirement for transit to submit uh an executive communication to council with an um with an implementation plan but through conversation between the administration and council, it was determined that that EC did not need to be submitted to council, and so um it really just came in the form of a memo, um which council staff is currently analyzing and and planning to report back to the council here soon.

So thank you, Jeff.

Thank you for that.

So okay.

So I'm just wrapping trying to process that because so who made that Madam President one more question?

Who made that decision for council?

That we would assume a memo and not actually come to us to vote on the actual network plan.

Who made that decision?

Mr.

Padilla?

Madam President and Council Rogers.

In the um resolution that was passed by council for the goals and the objectives, it wasn't clear that every goal and objective needed to be sent in the form of an executive communication.

So when we received the first two objectives, they were in the memos that were sent to council.

So I spoke with Josh and I asked Josh moving forward, even though it's not explicit inside the legislation, if they would please um send executive communications to city council.

So it was me in discussion that like I made the decision for the council because the legislation wasn't clear.

But if you would like um, but I asked Jeff to analyze the document that was sent, go through it, treat it like it's an EC, give an analysis, and then meet with the counselors who wanted to meet to go over it in more in depth after you deliver the memo.

Thank you, Madam President.

So I think this is a loophole we need to fix.

Because for for me as a counselor, transit for my district is extremely important.

We've had a lot of conversations about routes that have been taken out in my district that affect my district.

And so if council doesn't have the ability to actually make changes to those routes, like here, um, I'd really love to figure out how we can fix that procedurally so that this council knows we are voting on this, like clearly that we're voting on an approving a major transit upgrade to our routes.

Thank you.

Madam President and Council Rogers.

Um even if an EC had been sent, council would have been able to amend it.

So if we were to do any type of policy changes around transit, we would have to request that the document to be submitted to council when it comes to routes would have to be submitted in the form of a resolution.

So if you would like, we could look into that and reach out to you.

Thank you.

I would really love to fix that because I think we uh and speaking for myself, but I read a lot, and um I was focused on the equity piece and not necessarily understanding that that's what we were approving.

So I would appreciate us figuring that out so that we can make that more clear.

Thank you, Madam President.

Counselors, any other questions on EC496?

Council Champagne.

Madam President, I'll make a motion to accept uh or approve EC496.

There's a motion and a second by counselor grout.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Anyone opposed that passes on an 8-0 vote.

Moving on to OC 47.

Council Champagne.

Thank you, Madam President.

OC 46.

Did it yeah, did I say the wrong number?

OC47.

47.

I just have one question about this.

It says that uh and this is the Office of Inspector General's annual report.

Um I don't know if they're here or not, but uh where is the whistleblower's report in this Mr.

Padilla?

Madam President, um, Councilor Champaign.

So uh I did call both um Mr.

Pacheco, who is the interim auditor, he wasn't able to attend this meeting, so I told him that it's possible that this report could be deferred.

Um so he understands that, and he said just let him know if it is, and I will speak to you that and he will be at the next council meeting.

I also spoke to Ms.

Vargas, same thing.

She wasn't able to attend the meeting, so I let her know that it's possible that these two her report could be deferred also.

Um now, as for the um the whistleblower report.

Um we haven't I don't think we've ever received one.

We've never received one, but we have a meeting scheduled this week to meet with Mr.

Pacheco so that we can actually go over um what's expected, what should be in there and help him as the interim um inspector general draft a report for the council so that he's following the ordinance.

So we're working on that to see if we can get them back on track to to start delivering those ports when they're um supposed to.

Okay, madam president, and uh so it's on my understanding of this information that it has never been followed.

The ordinance has never been filed at this point.

Ms.

Cluidon, Madam President, Councilor Champagne.

As far as we can tell by searching Legistar, there has not been a legislative item come through that is a whistleblower protection ordinance report.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam President.

I know there's other questions.

Councilor Champagne, just to also give you an update.

We are still working on the ordinance updates and everyone in the city.

They're really close.

Miss Keefe says she's gonna get back to me hopefully tomorrow, and if not, and if and and if not, we're gonna also open it up to the AGO committee, the I IANIG to have reviews of the ordinance updates that I've been working on with Miss Cluidon and Miss Keefe, which will include actually some timelines in there for the whistleblower ordinance uh report and updates.

Councilor Lewis, did you have questions?

Uh Madam President, no, I just move for deferral on on 47.

There's a motion and a second by councillor champagne.

All those in favor, uh two-week deferral counselor?

Yeah.

Okay, two-week deferral on OC 47.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an 8-0 vote.

Counselor Lewis, OC 48.

Um, Madam President, I would I would I'm gonna move for deferral on OC48 for two weeks as well.

There's a motion for deferral on OC48.

Is there's a second by counselor Rogers?

Any questions or comments?

Seeing none, the motion is for a two-week deferral to OC48.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an eight zero vote.

Okay, we did that.

We're moving on.

There are no announcements, no financial instruments.

Consent we have to approve.

Did we did we not do consent?

Oh, we didn't do that.

What did we not do?

You need to approve the consent agenda.

We did that before.

Yes.

We did that before we went to these bills.

So there are no announcements, there are no financial instruments.

We are moving on to appeals.

AC 2504 a de la gallegos agent appeals the zoning hearing examiner's decision to deny a variance of two feet to allow a five-foot wall at the property located at 5501 Blue Water Road Northwest, zoned MXL.

Ms.

Kule Kulidon will explain this appeal.

Ms.

Koulian.

Thank you, Madam President.

Counselors, the issue in this appeal is whether a variance should be approved for an existing six-foot-tall front inside yard fence that was constructed without permitting at 5501 Blue Water Road Northwest.

This is in Council District 2 on Blue Water and Yucca, so across the street from Pat Hurley Park.

The zoning hearing examiner denied the variance because the applicant failed to satisfy the first prong of the five-part variance test, which requires a showing that there are special circumstances that would warrant a taller fence.

The appeal was heard by the land use hearing officer who recommends the council deny the appeal and uphold the ZHE's decision to uh deny the variants.

The Luho found that the uh claimed special circumstances of the lot being vacant and located uh by a park are not special circumstances as contemplated in the IDO.

So the applicant does not qualify for the height variants because they can't meet that first prong of the five-part test.

The Luho also found that the fence violates four other IDO standards.

Um, first in mixed-use zone districts, front and side yard fences taller than three feet, max out at five feet.

Here the fence is over six feet in height.

Um the fence must also be set back at least ten feet.

Here the setback is only five feet.

Um the fence also must include uh view fencing for the portions above three feet, and here the fence is made of um solid metal panels without view fencing elements.

Um and additionally, fences over three feet in height that face a public park must comply with at least one mandatory design option uh related to openings on the top, height variation, contrasting materials, texture or color, um, an overhang cap or incorporating vegetation into the design.

And here the fence does not include any one of those five optional but mandate one is mandatory elements for the the fence.

And so um the Luho concluded that the ZHE's decision to deny the variance uh should be upheld.

Um and this is an accept or reject, so we won't hear from parties tonight.

I'll just do my best to answer any questions that you all may have.

Counselors, do you have any any questions?

Is there a motion on AC something?

ACO4.

Councilor Backa.

Madam President, I move accept the ZE's decision to deny the variance.

So is that correct?

The do uh the um on page six, accept the luho recommendations and findings, accept the luho recommendations and adopt different findings or reject the luho recommendation.

Thank you, Madam President.

Accept the Luho recommendations and findings.

I move.

There's a motion and a second by Council People Corn.

Any other questions or comments?

The motion is to accept the Luho recommendations and findings for ACO4.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Anyone opposed?

That passes on an eight zero vote.

We are moving on to general public comments.

Members of the public can provide live public comment to the council in person or virtually if they have signed up for public comment for the instructions published on the agenda and on our website Friday.

The public comment ground rules are that each participant will have two-minute time limit to present and a bell will ring to indicate when your time is up.

Comments are to be addressed to the councillors only through the council president.

And any disruptive conduct will result in removal from the meeting.

Mr.

Cornelius, will you please call the name of the first speaker?

And if your name is called on deck, please start making your way down to the front.

Thank you, Madam President.

Our first speaker is Molly Swank, followed by Let's Otvoke.

Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight, counselors.

I'm Molly Swank, and I'm the executive director of Common Cause New Mexico.

I know you all recognize we need to update our electoral systems based on the efforts last summer to change the win thresholds at the municipal level, and I'm here to speak in support of ranked choice voting, aka instant runoffs.

We're only a few weeks away from Albuquerque's runoff election for mayor and city council districts one and three.

The city is slotted to spend between one and one point six million dollars of taxpayer money for what we're anticipating to be a low turnout second election.

Instant runoffs would mean that newly elected officials could start working on their planning and city education, but instead these folks are out there bombarding voters with more campaigning.

RCV ranked choice voting isn't a partisan issue, it's a voter engagement issue, and by denying the system, you are all denying your constituents their voices.

No matter who is whispering in your ear about why RCV is bad, be it political parties or campaign managers, Common Cause believes it to be a better, more representative system, and therefore we ask you to consider supporting RCB, AKA run instant runoffs.

Let's come together and find a solution that works for our city since we all recognize we need a change.

Thank you.

Let's autvo, followed by Kristen Cummings.

Madam President, Council members, mayor, anybody that's listening here today.

I stand before you today to urge the city of Albuquerque to take a bold step in protecting the civil liberties of its residents and building a more trusting relationship between our community and the Albuquerque police department.

I ask and urge that you adopt an ordinance effectively ending the practice of stop and frisk in our city.

The U.S.

Supreme Court in 1968's decision of Terry versus Ohio established the controversial precedent that police may stop and frisk an individual based on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and that the person may be armed.

This standard is a lower threshold that it the probable cause typically required for an arrest and has been the subject of intense scrutiny for decades.

While the Supreme Court may not have overturned Terryverse of Ohio, we have seen it in other jurisdictions like New York City.

That these practices often have led to profound violation in our constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.

Critics argue that the subjective nature of reasonable suspicion can easily become a cover for explicit implicit or explicit racial profiling, eroding trust and causing psychological harm.

I urge you to adopt the ordinance to reinforce the Fourth Amendment as protection against unrelated searches and seizures and move Albuquerque toward a future of equitable, constitutionally protected policing.

Kristen Cummings, followed by Peter Martin.

Hello.

My name is Kristen Cummings and I live in District 6.

I'm here to speak to you about why we need ranked choice voting in Albuquerque.

I moved here from Savannah, Georgia a few years ago.

Wellston, Georgia, in the space of only two years, I voted for the same Senate seat four times.

After a special election to fill a vacancy, and then the subsequent regular term election both went to runoffs.

If that doesn't give you election fatigue, I don't know what will.

In 2021, Albuquerque also had a runoff election for two city council seats.

Voting fell off in both districts by 39% in the runoff election, compared to the regular election only a month prior.

When over a third of the people who show up to vote don't have their voice counted in the final tally, surely we can do better.

Runoff elections are expensive.

The county clerk's office estimates this one may cost 1.6 million dollars.

That's 1.6 million that could have repaved roads, bought new computers for schools, built new housing.

We may have different opinions on how we could spend that money, but I think we can all agree it could be better spent than on a runoff election.

Our neighbors are already saving that money.

Santa Fe and Las Cruces already have ranked choice voting.

Their races have been decided.

Doesn't it get tiring for you?

Having to spend your off hours still campaigning, still fundraising into the holidays.

The poll workers are tired, the voters are tired.

We're tired of having to vote multiple times for the same seats just to make sure our one vote counts that year.

It's too late for this election, but it's not too late for the next one.

Please make ranked choice voting a reality for Pequenos.

Thank you.

Peter Martin, followed by Brick Jonasy.

Madam President and members of the council, thank you for the time this evening.

My name is Peter Martin, and I live in District 1.

I'm here to speak in favor of adopting ranked choice voting in Albuquerque.

And I promise I will give you at least three rational reasons to adopt ranked choice voting.

First, RCV guarantees a majority supported candidate wins every single time.

Our current system sees massive voter decline in runoff elections, and this creates a situation where candidates capitulate to a small group of very politically active citizens rather than the majority of their constituency.

Our current system is unrepresentative and unfair.

Second, ranked choice voting promotes candidate civility by encouraging campaigns to seek broad support and build coalition with each other and their ideological allies.

We've all seen local government turn into playground politics before, and I don't like to see it.

I'm a little sick of it.

And finally, ranked choice voting will help us save money, as already mentioned.

We've all seen quotes that this runoff election could cost the city up to 1.6 million dollars.

But even if it's on the low end of 500,000, that is money I would like to see allocated elsewhere spent helping people and fulfilling the role of government, not spent determining how we fill these seats.

Thank you very much.

My name is Peter Martin.

Have a good evening.

Funny business.

I don't know why my name was so far down the list on the public comment.

Me and Let's OTBO always sign up at the exact same time.

That's funny business.

Trying to find out what's going on with that and to extend that itself.

Uh looking for these records, asked for some records, specifically that email was missing from that record.

Funny business.

You know, we've been working with Ethan for quite some time, uh, making sure that you know he knows exactly what we want.

Sometimes we don't know exactly what we want, and he's able to help us find these things.

Um I'm going to let you know that it's uh body cam season.

I'm gonna be looking for some body cam.

So uh be prepared for that.

I have suggested to you guys, and I actually asked um Ethan if it would be a good idea, and he might uh agree with it or he might not.

Um, but having a redacted copy and an unredacted copy, obviously for yourselves in the court, um, would be useful.

I know that's a lot of work, um, but I want it all.

I want to review it all.

I want to see what these officers are doing out there on the street.

I've specifically asked for a specific date.

Um, 46 body cams coming to me, and I'm gonna get them.

Um, but more specifically, I want to speak about a specific individual.

He's up in that booth.

That officer.

Call me up by name.

It's funny how that happened.

I want to know how he got my name, my first name.

Something's funny.

Corruption is serious, and it seems that this city has no problem with it.

Your officers definitely have no problem with it.

He got my name somehow.

I'm looking for body cam.

I'm looking for all the records.

I want text messages between everybody, I want emails, I want it all.

Be prepared.

It's body camp season.

Janet Sayers, followed by Rachel Minar.

Good evening, uh, President Bassan, members of the council and city staff, and I'm Janet Sayers, resident of District 9 since 1986.

And I would like to just give you an update on our quest to um to get the HVAC system funded for the uh downtown main library.

And I believe we might have been around 575,000 uh the last time, but I've had some good contacts with uh representative Meredith Dixon from the far northeast, sort of also Burnley Oak County to Harris, and then Representative uh Pope on the far northwest.

And I am hoping that the bond issue passed and that each one of you are thinking about if you could join uh Councillor Baca with his contribution from set aside of a hundred thousand and councillor Grout with her uh contribution of twenty-five thousand from set aside.

And in closing, um since we're in a uh time of Thanksgiving, I would just like to say that yesterday I was on uh coors and also Montano, and I was very thankful for the beautiful uh golden cottonwoods that were glistening in the sun.

Uh I'm very thankful that last week our veterans on November the 11th were honored, and uh many of my generation, which were Viet Vietnam veterans, so I'm thankful for that.

I'm thankful for study rooms that we have at libraries where uh groups don't have to necessarily meet at a noisy restaurant or somewhere else, and and they can just reserve it and meet there for free.

And lastly, I am thankful for each one of you that give of your time, energy, emotions, family time to be here to care about our uh beloved Albuquerque.

I wish all of you uh a wonderful time of Thanksgiving.

Thank you.

Rachel Minar, followed by Christopher Love.

Christopher Love, followed by Ralph Thompson.

Hello, President, hello, council.

Um my name is Chris Love, and I'm here to speak on the behalf of the Albuquerque Disability Community.

Um there are some excellent classes happening at the Loma Linda Community Center that are specifically designed to increase the arts within the disabled community.

Uh unfortunately, Loma Linda is going through some uh budgetary short poll this year.

Uh they are looking at the possibility of not being able to renew the contract.

Um and the c current contract ends December 31st of 2025, and so I'm asking the contract for the classes, uh Low Melinda and elsewhere within the city uh for adults with disabilities be able to be extended.

Thank you very much.

Ralph Thompson, followed by Thomas Abeta.

Good evening, Madam President.

My name is Ralph Thompson.

I live at 630 Richmond, and I'm here because I haven't been able to get help with some things to have next door.

I have here a copy of the building permit issued to 624 Richmond at February uh 2024, and as you read through here, it is for a an accessory ADU project.

It has been completed.

They have given the CO, but under the type of occupancy, it is rated an R3 residential in an R1 zone.

And no one really has responded to me about this because I don't want to see our neighborhood get opened up to where there's more than just an R1 zone.

And when I looked on the city maps, everything says it's an R1.

Uh would appreciate y'all considering this, thinking about it.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Cox, can you make sure to get uh Mr.

Thompson's information and help him navigate some of those questions?

Oh thank you.

Mr.

Cornelius, Thomas Abeta, followed by David Campbell.

Hello, City Council, thank you for your time.

Uh I hope you guys have good Thanksgiving plans coming up and looking forward to a break.

I was pretty excited.

My first piece of uh criticism was published by the Daily Lobo as a journalist student at UNM.

And uh I think you guys got a lot of work to do for elections.

Uh personally, I'm pretty upset that we've spent over half a million on the mayor's re-election campaign.

Uh I voted for Alex Ubaez, uh, who made just barely above 19%.

If he had gotten one percent more, he'd be in this runoff election.

And I think if we spent 10,000 of the mayor's half a million 700,000 that he got to spend, he could have got that extra one percent.

So I think you guys got to do a little work on making sure the rules are fair that not only the mayor is spending all this money.

Um, although my main criticism uh for for here tonight is is actually against uh a counselor who's not here, counselor pinya.

Um I just wish that the that the you guys played fair.

Uh I wish everyone could behave like uh Champagne who's hanging out and partying at the clubs on Halloween weekend.

Uh no, some people got to play dirty.

Uh I don't want to accuse Pinny of anything because I don't know anything and she's not here to defend herself, so it's really easy to insult her while she's not here.

But uh either all of the other candidates who are putting up signs against Pinya have precious medals in their sign, or someone's just exclusively stealing their signs and not counselor pinas.

Uh I don't know if she'd have any idea of where those signs are headed, but I'd love to be able to ask her if uh she knows where those are going.

Uh even stranger, there's text messages going out across the city asking hey, do you know this candidate who's in the runoff election against me, or sorry, against Penya and pretty much just spreading false defamation.

And if we knew who was sending those text messages, who was paying for them, that would probably be a defamation lawsuit.

Uh, but we don't.

Uh and I would really love if someone on this city council could find out how this money is getting spent, because I think that it's getting spent pretty dirty.

So you guys got some work to do, but thank you.

David Campbell, followed by David Sower Hadwiger.

Thank you.

Good evening, Madam President, counselors.

My name is David Campbell.

I'm a retired city employee, and I'm a common cause member for 52 years, and I'm here to talk about ranked choice voting tonight.

Um, on the same day as Albuquerque had its municipal election, Santa Fe had a municipal election.

And immediately they had a uh successful conclusion of that, and they didn't have to spend 1.6 million dollars on a runoff.

Um so it is possible, and I want to say a little bit more about why it should be adopted by the city of Albuquerque.

First of all, it's cost efficient uh to not have the runoff.

This recent Santa Fe election showcased the efficiency, the handling of multiple candidates and preferences without the need for a costly second round of voting.

Um, second, it increased voter engagement.

Um the successful use of of ranked choice voting in Santa Fe saw increased voter turnout compared to previous elections, as citizens felt empowered to rank candidates according to their preferences rather than being forced to choose a single candidate.

Um there were more representative outcomes.

The Santa Fe results indicated that winning candidates had majority support after all preferences were considered, leading to more representative outcomes that reflected the will of the voters.

And uh I'll say that this also encouraged more diverse candidates.

The Santa Fe elections featured a range of candidates, and ranked choice voting allowed voters to support their preferred choices without concern for tactical voting, promoting a more diverse political representation.

And finally, it's more streamlined.

As we can see, um, we are still in the voting process and have the uncertainty attendant to that and will for the next several weeks.

The successful implementation of ranked choice voting in Santa Fe serves as a strong example for Albuquerque, showcasing the potential benefits of transitioning to this more effective electoral system.

I urge the council to consider this.

Thank you, Madam President.

David Sore Hadwiger, followed by Miguel Alvarez.

Madam President, members of the council, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight.

I'm here to share research findings related to ranked choice voting.

Ranked choice voting increases voter turnout.

In 2024, a research team at the University of California and the University of Iowa determined that citizens in ranked choice voting elections were 17% more likely to vote than in non ranked choice voting systems.

The study also found that voters in ranked choice voting elections were more likely to be directly contacted by campaigns through mailers, phone, and in-person contact than in non-ranked choice voting elections.

In 2025, the same researchers found that turnout increased for all ethnic groups.

A 2016 survey of voters in ranked choice voting systems and plurality voting systems found that people in cities using ranked choice voting systems were significantly more satisfied with the conduct of local campaigns.

People in cities with ranked choice voting systems are less likely to view the campaigns as negative and less likely to respond that candidates were frequently criticizing each other.

To summarize the research, ranked choice voting systems, candidates reach out to prospective voters, even those who prefer their opponents, to ask them to rank them number two or ahead of other candidates.

Thank you so much.

Miguel Alvarez, followed by Tad Nimiski.

I was gonna talk about something else, but uh some of the uh things that we talked you guys talked about tonight showed uh uh changed my mind.

Oh, you guys were talking about the buses, you were talking about the parks.

I've been to almost all the parks here in Albuquerque, and they are a mess.

Uh you have a lot of dead trees, a lot of dead uh grass, and uh there's there's no public restrooms.

Uh there's one park that's surrounded by homes, and uh when you're in that park, you're not about to go knock at somebody's door and ask them for the bathroom because it's a foolish situation.

Uh and a lot of the other parts, well, you don't have uh any place to sit down to have uh to eat a meal or to cook a meal.

Uh it's sort of getting worse and worse.

And then on the buses, I've gone to downtown to talk to some of these supervisors because they were having problems hiring drivers because every time they got a driver, he wouldn't pass the drug test and he couldn't pass the CDL.

And I told them if you want bus drivers, go down to the National Guard, National Guard, and to all these facilities and uh talk to some of these uh military people because with all the equipment that they have to uh drive, they already got their CDL.

A lot of them already passed the drug test, but a lot of them don't have steady jobs, and they would be glad to drive a bus.

But nobody listens.

It goes in one year and not the other.

So uh as long as somebody takes a charge to do something uh easy, maybe you will have better drivers and more drivers because every time you turn around, you hire five drivers, eight of them get early retirement.

So you're back at the same situation, Tad Numinsky, followed by Hope Curtis.

Thank you.

Would you give me a overhead?

Would you give me overhead?

Yes, yes, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Why I want to talk about Mr.

Numensky.

Mr.

Neminsky.

Thank you.

Just for now, if you put that down and then I can't hear you.

Mr.

Pittiel.

You're running time my time off.

Thank you.

Okay, why I want to talk about uh this agenda.

Two reasons.

One was voted down by full council meeting uh meeting during several years.

Now Keller and Basan together come up with so many pages.

And council today.

Allowing public to speak.

At consent agenda.

I'm pointing right here now.

Many other issue too.

May you recommend the architecture firm.

May you and see the Tony.

Recommend the white legal team.

Do we have rights to know what's going on?

What government is doing and how do they do it?

When do you start consequing?

Who knows all what is going on behind the table?

That's not very hard to figure out.

Pacheco.

What he's doing.

Inspector general.

They slap it hands.

And walking away without any hearing and nothing.

Thank you.

Hope Curtis, followed by Lisa Christofferson on Zoom.

Hello, President Hassan.

Thank you, Chamber members.

I am Hope Curtis.

I teach accessible art classes at Loma Linda.

And I would like to speak on behalf of the Arts Connections programs and their classes at the Loma Linda Community Center.

Due to budget cuts this year, the program is in danger of losing part or all of its city contract.

These classes are majorly important to the well-being and creative expression of disabled communities in this city.

These classes have faced some hurdles like student transportation issues and relocating to the new building.

And so we are really hopeful that we are going to be able to continue to utilize this accessible and wonderful space.

And we are hopeful that this program can continue to be a resource for the community in the city.

Thank you.

Madam President Pierce, Dr.

Christopherson has fallen off Zoom, so I must go to the next.

In one minute, thank you.

Councillor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just wanted to comment to the two that commented on this program at Loma Linda.

The contractors reached out to me.

Rachel's reached out.

I the department said that the contract ends December 31st, but they have they have no they're planning to renew the contract for the next year.

So I just want to make sure that they've reached out to you and so that the administration can make sure that youth and families, because we've I've connected y'all personally to make sure that this contract continues.

So just want to put that out there that we've we've already been in touch for this, and hopefully the department is doing what they said they were gonna do and make sure to renew that contract for the new year.

Thank you.

Mr.

Cornelius.

Thank you, Madam President.

We'll go to Marcelin Costner, followed by Barbara Titus.

I will be short.

I'm here again.

Like it was last winter.

With the same message as last year.

Maybe with quote more money than we've ever had as a city, quote, as council lewis called it earlier.

Bring in fund warming centers and safe places for people to sleep at night in this city.

Not in a prison in the desert.

Or maybe we can work on increasing food access and investing in outreach services during this harsh winter.

But hey, I know brown grass in the southwest during the winter is a crisis of priority.

So I guess let people die like last winter.

What the hell are we doing?

Please, for the love of everything, don't do this again.

We don't want to see our neighbors frozen to death and starve in the street.

Please.

Help people, please.

Barbara Titus.

Hi, I'm Barbara Titus.

I'm apparently having problems with my video, but um I'm also speaking on behalf of Arts Connections, which it sounds like we have really great news about, and I'm so grateful it sounds as though the program will be continued, but I just want to say how valuable this program is to uh my daughter and myself.

Um, I've been volunteering teaching yoga or not yoga um exercise for the class.

And my daughter's been taking arts classes for several years to arts connections in various formats and really enjoying the classes.

And I think that we're in a point of expansion and really have a lot to offer to the community.

So I'm really grateful to hear that.

It sounds like our our funding will continue for at least another year.

And I want to thank you all and thank the people who are having responsible for for taking care of that for us.

And um, if you have family members with disabilities, uh adults, um, please welcome them.

And I I I would hope they would come and try out our classes.

So I'm here to say thank you so much for what you do.

Thank you.

Dr.

Lisa Christofferson.

Thank you very much, President Basson, Council members.

Appreciate you all.

Thank you very, very much for um uh providing this opportunity via Zoom to participate in government.

I would like to echo what everyone else has already said about range choice voting.

Now having to come out and vote twice now.

Um, when we could have just voted once, and so I'll be taking off another day of work to go and vote because I do support um our electoral process.

I think it's on the second thing.

I think it's a very big shame that the library lady has to come every single council meeting and to county commissioner meetings to beg for money for an HVAC for a library.

We have people begging for money for grass, but we don't have money for a library.

That is absolutely abhorrent.

The third thing and last thing is that the sweeps that have been happening, the encampments um are not um they're being cleared out for like a certain amount of time, and the people are just moving back in.

So it's not working, it's a failed problem, a program, and people are losing their materials.

They we are documenting, we are out videotaping, and we are seeing that they are not being given the two days, this the 24 hours, 36 hours, whatever it's supposed to be.

Some people are given minutes to gather all their documents, etc.

And so if we're trying to move people to get to work or to get to housing, they need their social security card, they need their birth certificate, they need their driver's license, etc.

And so I would highly, highly, highly asked um just strongly to this uh mayor and to our city administrators to please let's get with the community and find another way to treat folks who need housing, moving them all up and down central and all parts of the city.

It's not working, it's costing money, it's cost more money to incarcerate than it would to give allow them to camp somewhere.

I support Firke Books.

Unfortunately, they are having to do some of the work the city should be doing.

We have a gateway east that holds.

Thank you, Dr.

Christopher.

Thank you, Madam President.

That concludes general public comment.

Thank you all.

Moving on to approvals tonight, EC5533.

Acceptance of assignment and assumption of retail concession lease, Geisler Projects, LLC to standard time operations, LLC.

I move approval.

There's a second by Councilor Feblecorn.

And I don't see anyone signed up to speak on that.

Counselors, are there any questions or comments?

Is Councillor Pena on yet?

Just so I know.

Councilor Grout has moved to Zoom, but she is here.

Seeing no questions or comments, the motion is for approval of EC533.

Madam Clerk.

Councilor Backa.

Yes.

Councilor Shenley.

Yes.

Counselor February.

Yes.

Councilor Grab.

Yes.

Councilor Lewis.

Yes.

Councillor Rogers.

Yes.

Counselor Sanchez.

Yes.

President Basson.

Yes.

Houses on the 80 vote.

That's all for approvals under final actions.

We've already disposed of item A this evening.

We're moving on to item B.

Councilor Sanchez, R200.

Thank you, Madam President.

R25200 amending the adopted capital improvement program for the city of Albuquerque Aviation Department transferring funds to an airport observation deck reserve project, establishing an observation deck planning and design project requiring approval by city council.

Um just a quick summary.

Adopting this resolution amends the aviation department's capital implementation plan by separating funds appropriated through R2571 for a post-security observation deck into a planning design account and reserve account for the project.

Of the $7 million appropriated for the project, the resolution places 1.5 million into a project to plan and design the observation deck with the remaining 5.5 million placed in a reserve account.

It also directs that the design plans once 90% complete are to be submitted to the city council for approval.

Upon receiving that approval, the department may begin using the funds held in reserve to construct the project.

The resolution further requests that the department conduct a study to determine a location for the observation deck that will provide convenient access to the general public and not just airline passengers.

The study is to be submitted to the city council through an executive communication.

Um that's basically what it is.

The resolutions reappropriating seven million, but the observation deck project into two uh project funds.

1.5 million will be for the planning to design, and the 5.5 will be uh appropriated for the deck project.

Um, some of the things that have gone on with this is the city um when funding a project funds the whole project and does not break out funding between planning and design construction.

Um the aviation department in the council hearing for R 2571 for the city council that though they are assigning funds to design and construct the project, it is in the conceptual phase.

Therefore, the department could not determine the amount of the funding required to construct the project until the design is 60 percent complete, which pretends the need for a project solely for design.

Um the history of the observation deck demonstrates the risk proceeding without conducting thorough design and cost verification.

The original 1996 observation deck experienced major cost overruns and procurement violations resulting in formal corrective actions and amendments to the city purchasing ordinance to strengthen physical oversight.

Also, we ended up with several other issues 1990 to year 2000, mismanagement and even a grand jury investigation, no bid contracts.

The deck was built without a public bidding process violating purchasing laws, no city council approval over budget, uh grand jury invest investigation in 2011, 2001, repairs and extended closure, and then in 2022 to present new rent of reservations and another closure.

Um, there's an editorial June of two June 2nd of 2022, um, which also says for a public amenity that's supposed to be the state's welcome mat state visitors.

The Albuquerque International Sumpport construction projects suffer from serious lack of oversight.

The facility shows well, officials have no problem sinking millions into keeping it going.

They just seem unable to do to be physically responsible in this manner.

So all I'm asking, I am not against the project, I'm not upset about it.

Um, all I'm doing is just asking the council to be a better fiscal manager of what's going on.

We only have a project that's in its conceptual phase, and I just hope that uh that we can take a real good look at it.

And I have a couple of amendments to add as well.

Counselor, before you go to that, do you have a motion on your bill?

I have a motion um for due pass.

There's a motion for a due pass.

Is there a second?

I will second it for the purpose of discussion.

Uh councilor will do your amendments and then go to public comment.

Thank you.

Uh, prior to commencing the study in the section of oh, let me do this other one first.

Um, I have amendment one on page two line 15.

The whereas clause reads it's just a correction to the typographical area error.

It says uh 5.6 million, and it's supposed to be 5.5 million.

The motion is for amendment number one to R200.

Is there a second?

Second from Councilor Champagne.

Counselors, any questions or comments?

Madam Clerk.

Councilor Vacca.

Councilor Champagne.

Yes.

Councilor Peoplecorn.

Yes.

Councilor Graut.

Yes.

Councilor Lewis?

Yes.

Councilor Penny is still not on.

Councilor Rogers.

Yes.

Councilor Sanchez.

Yes.

President Bassan.

Yes.

And Councilor Backa.

Yes.

Passes on an A0 vote.

Moving on to amendment number two, Counselor Sanchez.

Thank you, Madam President.

On line three, on page three, line eleven, insert a new section as followed.

Prior commencing the study of this resolution, the aviation department shall hold a public meeting to gather input from the public about the redevelopment of the observation deck.

This explanation adds a requirement that the aviation department gather public input for the redevelopment of the observation deck.

The motion is for amendment number two to R200.

Is there a second?

There's a second from Councilor Champagne.

Councillors, any questions or comments?

Madam Clerk.

Councilor Backer.

Sorry, Madam Clerk.

Before we do that, Council Champagne, you have a question.

Madam President, yes, it was mentioned, Councillor Sanchez, that the public comment had already been made.

Is that true?

I mean.

Councilor Sanchez.

I'm sorry to say that again.

You had said that in this that you want them to hold public meetings to gather from public.

Was this done before?

I thought I heard you say it had been done before.

I don't I don't think so.

I think what I'm looking for is just the citizens of Albuquerque to put in input to have input on the observation deck.

Perfect.

Madam President, thank you for the clarification.

Madam Clerk.

Councilor Bacca.

Yes.

Councilor Champagne?

Yes.

Councilor Fapel Corn.

No.

Councillor Grout.

Yes.

Councilor Lewis.

Yes.

Councilor Rogers.

No.

Councilor Sanchez?

Yes.

President Bassan.

Yes.

Pass this on a 6-2 vote.

We're going to move on to public comment of R200 as amended.

Mr.

Cornelius.

Thank you, Madam President.

Sarah Collins, followed by Mayelli Reyes Garcia.

Hi, my name's Sarah Collins.

I'm a resident of District 7, and I am in an airport advisory board member, which is, of course, an uncompensated position.

I am just here to voice opposition to this resolution.

I think that our aviation department has done an incredible job managing our once-in-a-generation airport renovation.

And the observation deck is really the final pin in that incredible project that we have seen them complete.

I have uh full faith that they can bring that over the finish line and provide us the leadership needed.

Um, I do think it's a little disingenuous to say that we are just looking for some input from the council on this.

You know, the aviation department are the experts in uh our airport design.

You know, they've done incredible research to come to this point.

They have a trusted contractor who can really navigate and manage the additional protocols that are required when doing work at an airport.

They've worked to uh really and bring up that local contractor and and provide an incredible uh mutually beneficial relationship between them.

And I think that we see that in what we've already seen open in our airport and the incredible uh new developments that we've had.

So yeah, I would just urge a no vote on this one and uh also consider that the space that we have for that observation deck is already shelled out.

It's right there, it's an incredible view of our airfield.

There's not really another place to build it, so uh I think that you know we have our space and and it's right there, and I yeah, that's it.

Thank you so much.

Naeli Reyes Garcia, followed by Mark Limini on Zoom.

Uh thank you, City Council, for allowing me to participate in public comment for this resolution.

My name is Naeli Reez Garcia.

I am the vice chair of the airport advisory board where I represent District 6.

I rise today as an opposition to this resolution, not because I oppose the idea of an observation deck, but because this measure halts a project that the public has already been promised and that we have already funded, and now we're talking about pulling that money back, adding more studies and the line construction.

We've heard repeatedly that the observation deck is a long-standing community request.

Families, aviation enthusiasts, and travelers have been asking for this experience for decades.

This project has already been studied for years.

Additional layers of process and bureaucracy do not make us fiscally responsible.

They make us stagnant.

If we wait for a 90% design before releasing the funding, we're effectively saying we do not trust our own procurement or our own engineers or our own oversight systems.

I have personally personally been present throughout the renovation process at the SUM port and can say that with absolute confidence that the aviation department has gone above and beyond to keep the public informed at every step.

Additionally, having uh closely followed the renovations at the Sumport, I can say with absolute confidence that James Corp has consistently delivered exceptional work.

They are not just a suitable option, they are the most qualified and capable partner to complete this project.

The public wants and deserves access as soon as possible, not another report and not another internal study.

We already know the observation deck needs to serve the community, and we already set aside the funds to make it happen.

Let's move forward with accountability but also with urgency.

Let's build the observation deck.

And thank you for your time.

I urge you all to make the right decision tonight and oppose this resolution.

Thank you.

Mark Limini, followed by George Scarbick Borowski.

Madam President, members of the city council, my name is Mark Lemony.

I am a resident of District 2, and I currently serve as the chair of the Volunteer Airport Advisory Board.

I'm before you today to ask you to defeat the resolution under consideration to amend the capital improvement program for the city's aviation department.

The most efficient and best course of action to completion of the Sunport Renovation Project is to defeat this resolution.

And reasons for defeating this resolution include one building the observation deck as planned maintains and achieves cost efficiency by utilizing existing construction resources already present at the airport.

It does not restart the procurement process again and allows the project to continue to completion without delay.

In the current inflationary environment, additional study and delay to this project of six, twelve or more months would only increase construction cost.

Furthermore, it uh would certainly delay completion of the Sunport the uh construction project to beyond calendar year 2026.

Two, it allows the development of space already allocated for the observation deck.

The space is situated in the most central and best place within the sunport.

The space has already been gutted and is ready for build out.

The space will also be available to the general public to visit, whether traveling or not.

Non-travelers will be able to visit the observation deck through the forthcoming fly side pass program.

That information on that will be forthcoming when it becomes available.

Number three, utilizing the existing general contractor and existing design team will be the most efficient course because the team understands the unique security requirements to operate in the airport environment, FAA procedures permitting requirements, and possesses the necessary experience.

They also meet other logistical requirements such as insurance and manpower needed to complete this project.

Thank you for your consideration.

George Scarback Borowski, followed by Fred De Guillo.

Good evening, and thank you, uh Madam President and members of the council for this opportunity to uh address uh some concerns.

Um I am in opposition of the uh resolution, but also would like to address uh several issues that have been raised that I think you know warrant our attention.

One is um the issues that we had experienced with contractors back in the 90s.

This is more than 25 years ago, and I think that the work that has been accomplished at the airport uh over the past several years with the uh renovations is a testament that our current contractors are fully capable of proceeding with the renovation of the observation deck at its current location.

Um to this, I think uh the fact that the Washington Post has voted the Albuquerque Samport the seventh best airport in the country, and this is even before we've finished um all of our restaurants and retail facilities.

So I have confidence that our contractors are able to finish the job.

Um, I also want to address the concern about public access to the observation deck.

Uh the uh plan is that we will have public access through security so the family members can accompany the traveling public and would have access not only to the observation deck but to enjoy a meal at our restaurants and shop at our outlets, uh, most of which actually are small local New Mexico enterprises.

Um having to pass through security, I don't think is going to be an issue uh at all is um uh I have uh traveled extensively, and I can assure you that all observation decks and other airports that have purely general public access have their own security coordinate.

So uh this would not be an undue burden if the general public has to pass through security at the South Point to access the observation deck.

Thank you very much for your time.

Fred DeGuillo.

Yes, good evening.

Uh uh council.

Uh my name is Fred DeGayo.

Um, I've served on the airport advisory board for two terms for a total of six years, uh just ended.

But I'm happy to be here this evening and uh address the situation.

I I want to say that I I also oppose this bill without uh duplicating uh everything that my fellow board members have already said.

Uh I do want to say um I I think where the observation is Derek is right now is the most perfect place for it uh to be on the south side of the terminal where it is to get it's literally the best viewing area.

There really isn't a better area anywhere else in the airport that this could be and uh also uh primary concern that the the additional cost it would uh uh would make uh to uh to start all over with something totally different.

So I just wanted to say I I oppose this bill, I want to keep it uh as is to keep it going.

Uh I I believe in the the airport uh management team that they're doing a fantastic job, and uh uh uh yeah, just keep it going as is.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam President.

That concludes comment.

All right, counselors, we are back on our 200.

Is there any questions or comments?

And for the record, Councilor Pena is now with us on Zoom.

Any questions or comments, counselors?

Councilor Champagne, thank you, Madam President.

Uh just a few questions real quick.

The um one is actually for the uh for counselor Sanchez.

When when it says in there that uh that the plans will be submitted to council for approval, does that mean that they're open to change based on council?

Right.

Like if I don't like where these chairs are put, I can vote to move them.

Well, what we're looking at is this if it's a it's a reasonable proposal.

I think everybody in here is gonna be reasonable with it and say yes.

So all I'm asking is for there to be transparency, due diligence, making sure that the administration and also us as counselors are doing what we need to do to make sure that there aren't any cost overruns, that the project isn't overdeveloped, uh overdeveloped to a point where it needs to be.

Some of the other things to take into consideration is every gate in the airport is is an observation deck.

We can see the whole entire airport from each gate as it is.

I think that's one of the reasons why the past observation decks never got used.

Um also you're looking at a situation where it's where it's actually post-security.

Um if there was something that we could do to have it pre-security, I think it'd be it'd be it'd be acceptable.

I just think that we should look at it so that we don't have another boondoggle on our hands, so we don't have something that ends up getting shut down later uh or revised or or redone.

All I'm asking is is that we have due diligence in reference to this project uh and making sure that we oversight it.

And once they give us the once they give us the plans, I mean we gave them, we're giving them 1.5 million dollars to give us an accurate depiction of what we're looking at.

We heard the testimonies last time we were in council in reference to the last ordinance.

One of the things that we that we heard is we don't know how much it's gonna cost at this point.

We don't even have a final cost.

Um it could be as much as between 13 million to 20 million dollars in in cost overruns.

We don't know.

I'm just asking each and every one of us in here to use caution to make sure that we're doing the right thing and have the right plan before we actually execute, and that's that's the bottom line.

If the administration could give us the right plan within a couple of weeks, then and we all approve it, then let's let's move vote.

You know, it's it's basically in their hands, and and all I'm asking is because we've had so much controversy over the years, is to make sure that we're doing the right thing as a council.

And I I know I'm gonna be gone here soon, but by the but by the bottom line, but the bottom line is making sure that we are protecting the taxpayer dollars, and that's what this is all about.

Madam President, thank you.

Uh our plans completed.

Do we have blueprints that we can see?

Madam CAO, uh Director Manriquez here.

And uh Councillor Champaign, acting director um Menriquez is here and can speak specifically to exactly where we are in the in the program.

Good evening, Director.

Good evening, Madam President.

Uh I believe uh the the question came from you, Councilor Champagne about the Yes, just about the plans.

Um so uh we are right at about the 50 percent construction documents threshold.

Uh the last time we spoke, we were in design development.

So we've actually been making a lot of progress uh since those many weeks have passed, and we are expecting to be at 90 percent, probably by about mid to late December.

Okay.

And the and the reason why I asked this is is because I think Councilor Sanchez has a point in the sense of uh the last time this was brought up, there was issues of cost.

Um this body is responsible for cost.

Um that's what we do along with 50 percent of our job.

And when it's talked about of how much is this going to cost, we know from past practices of the administration and any of the city entities doing stuff that this project's gonna cost X amount of dollars.

I and I know it's an estimate, but and I just got a briefing on speed humps in my district for $64,000.

And they know this, there's seven of them.

It's gonna be roughly about 64.

So it's interesting when you when I'm gonna pick on you in a sense that you stand here and say, well, we don't know the cost.

We know that we need $7 million, and that could be half.

It could not.

It could be this, it could be that.

But even something as simple as speed humps, they didn't say 64 is gonna be maybe half, maybe not, maybe less, but it's around about 64.

Um so I I get his issue with the fact that you can stand up here and administration can say we don't know the cost.

That's very odd to me that with the amount of stuff that this city does, the amount of money that we spend, that we can't say this is a rough estimate that it's 15 million, that it's 14.

That's very hard to believe, and that's very it's an issue with me and my fiduciary duty to the taxpaying public to be able to say yes, go ahead and have carte blanche that this could cost 20 million because then it comes back and says, well, we didn't foresee this, this, or this, and it's gonna be 25 million, and now we've already spent four, so there's no way we're gonna back out of that.

That's a huge issue to me.

And it isn't as much as the public says it's it isn't about the construction company, it isn't about the observation deck, it isn't about the location.

Location is great, it's designed for an observation deck.

It's riddled with bad history, that's true, but we're not bad history.

We're moving forward with something positive and trying to build off of what was done wrong.

This isn't the same construction crew, it isn't the same that council, it's not the same administration.

We hard pressed to see if it's the same construction people.

Um it's not about that, it's about the cost in the fiduciary duty to the public.

That if we can't say it's gonna be 15 million, give or take, then there's an issue.

So is with that being 50 percent done with this, how are we looking at cost?

So uh Council President Basson, Councillor Champagne.

There, I think one of the reasons why we're encountering this issue with this particular project is because we're using the construction manager at risk delivery method.

And what that means is that we bring the construction company on board while we're in design to work hand in hand with the the architect to ensure that there's a seamless transition from design to construction.

So we don't go to 100% construction drawings and then bid it and then wait for that cost to come in.

We do what's called a guaranteed maximum price when we get to the point where the construction company is comfortable saying, okay, we believe it's going to be this, and they set that GMP.

Um so this is a unique situation with the CMAR model.

We have seen though, with the core renovation project that the CMAR model works very, very well.

Um, the initial estimate was 87 million dollars.

We only had to amend that once to add three more million dollars, and we went to 90 on the project.

And that's amid all this cost inflation that we were seeing with raw materials.

So I I think the CMAR model that we used or have been using the core project has really proven to be very promising to carry this forward into the observation deck scope.

I do believe I said at the last session when we discussed this that the rough order of magnitude was probably somewhere around 10 to 15 million dollars.

I stand by that.

It but you you know the the way you phrased it 15 million give or take, you could say it that way too.

We have to see once we get the GMP in place where the construction lands.

That said, I share the same sense of responsibility of of really ensuring that we manage our resources well.

We do have finite resources, we're in an enterprise fund, but we don't have all the money in the world and we have to spend it wisely.

And so one way we control those costs is we value engineer.

So once we get that GMP, if it's too high, we'll look at the at the list of all the amenities and all the the finishes that we're putting in place, and we might cut some things back.

And we did do that with the core when a renovation project as well, um, just to make sure that we were keeping it within a budget that was manageable for us, and that would enable us to do all the other projects that we do across the airfield and within the facility of the airfield.

And Madam President, uh director, is this the first time this program's been used, or have we used it throughout you might not be YAMSO because your air airport now?

Obviously, the renovations within the airport at some point you use this program.

So uh Dr.

Sinkel, has this been used before?

Madam President, Councilor Champagne, we have used CMAR before, and C O C O Montoyet, sorry, uh, can address kind of the how often we've used CMAR.

Madam President, Councilor Champagne, I believe we've had two projects in the last three to four years where we've used CMAR.

And Madam President.

And how close did they come into exact what you what was planned for?

Um Madam President and Councilor Champagne, they came within the dollar amount of reservoir mark.

So when we value engineer and when we design and build, we know what our expenses are as we're as we're designing, we hold those expenses to what the budget is.

So we we identify those well in advance.

Okay, and director, is there a shrinkage percentage that's willing, uh kind of wiggle room percentage that you're able to accept 2%, 3% off of the original price?

Uh Madam President and Councilor Champagne, we use a threshold of anywhere between three and five percent.

Three and five percent, okay.

Thank you, Madam President.

Councilor Grout.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh, was the observation debt part of the airport master plan?

Director.

Council President Bassan, Councillor Grout.

Um, the airport master plan is actually a document that um envisions a couple of things.

One is um air service capacity, and the other one is land uses.

Uh, it doesn't get into too highly minute detail about the amenities inside the terminal building typically.

We do have a process called the airport layout plan, and any time we make major changes to the layout of the properties and facilities at the airport, we do what's called a pen and ink amendment, and we submit that to the FAA for review and authorization.

Um, in this case, the footprint of the uh new observation deck will be only slightly larger than the current observation deck.

So there's really no need to change the airport layout master plan or the airport layout plan at that's part of the master plan.

That said, um we met with the FAA several times to go over the renovation project because we sought funding um from what's called passenger facility charges that the FAA has to release to us in order to use for any capital projects.

Uh having reviewed our plans, the FAA released to us somewhere on the order of about 60 million dollars, therefore paying for about two-thirds of the core renovation project.

So we've been in very, very close consultation with the FAA and we are in compliance.

Thank you.

Counselor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um Director Manriquez, can you talk a little about I I had the pleasure of working with your team very closely on the remodel and the concessions and all of the things, the tiger team, the tiger team.

Yes, indeed.

Um so I know this very intimately, but can you talk a lot a little bit about the community engagement that that went into this?

Oh, absolutely.

So there was extensive community engagement.

That's why I voted no on the community, because don't come for me that I usually always vote yes on community engagement.

It's just because I know what's already been done.

Absolutely, absolutely.

Council President Bassan, Counselor Rogers.

Um, so there are various forms of community engagement.

Um was that we uh we held um a couple of public events around some of the connected efforts to the Dream of Flight Renovation Project.

That's the core concessions redevelopment and the SNABQ project that you supported us on.

Um so in the process of that, we really um you know, we expressed our intentions as far as the renovation, talked a lot about the amenities that we'd be adding.

We did talk about the observation deck, we talked about all the local businesses that we were going to be bringing in.

Um we also held briefings for all of our partners.

TSA are we have a we have a very large body of volunteers.

Um we held briefings for them.

I personally did many, many television and newspaper interviews, and always wanted to make sure that we got the word out about the vision of the renovation, um, the intent to really enhance the customer experience and the way we were going to bring in a lot of local partners.

And so I think through that um we were also able to express just how um proud we were to work with the local companies, FBT, James Corporation, and a lot of uh subcontractors.

Um so I think you know, through the media, through public meetings, through all the different engagements that we've done with our partners, it's been a pretty extensive process.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

Yeah, the la can you explain.

I know in the last time we discussed this at Council, um, Councillor Sanchez gave some suggestions on where else we could use this funding.

Sure.

And understanding, I understand that this is an enterprise fund, but for I get a lot of email, I got a lot of emails about this particular line of questioning during the last meeting that perhaps we could use it for homelessness or other things.

Right.

My understanding of an enterprise fund for the public and other counselors that may not understand what it is.

Can you explain an enterprise fund and the fact that the money cannot be spent in other places?

It has to go back per FAA rules.

Absolutely.

Glad you asked that question.

I think this is a critical importance.

Council President Basson, Counselor Rogers.

Um let me start with just a little bit of history.

Um, in the early on in the days of aviation, um, the US government decided that airports would pay for themselves.

And so over the decades, legislation has been passed that stipulates that only airport resources can pay for airport projects.

And therefore, the federal government uh decided to help to pay for that and essentially subsidize airport projects through grant funding.

And it is because of that grant funding that uh the FAA requires that airports cannot spend any of its own revenue on projects outside of the airport because these of these grants that flow through the uh Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration are federal dollars that are intended specifically and expressly to support the airport, and they don't want to subsidize other municipal governments, state governments, whatever it may be, activities outside of that airport.

Um and they also require that um the fees that are charged.

So when you go to rent a car, or you use our parking facility, or you buy an airplane ticket that uh originates at our airport, that those all go into and stay in the airport fund and that they're reinvested to make sure that the passenger uh facilities are safe, comfortable, and that the airfield is maintained efficiently and effectively for the safety of your travel.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hopefully it answers all the folks emailing me that question.

Hopefully so.

Thank you, Madam President.

Counselors, any other questions or comments if you haven't already spoken.

I have just a couple things to add.

I wanted to say uh I have a question, a couple questions for Mr.

Lemini if he's still available.

I am available.

Good evening, sir.

Uh so you're you said you're the chair of the advisory board.

Uh yes, madam president, I am.

Okay, and can you tell everyone how many people serve on that board and how many vacancies you have?

Uh we have gone through quite a bit of uh um change in in our membership this year.

Um so forgive me if I'm not exact in the in the numbers, as we've had three new members that have just joined in the past uh 30 to 60 days.

So I believe we have I want to say we have six members and uh no vacancies at the moment.

Okay.

Um and so, and I'm not holding your feet to the fire on that one, I just was curious as well.

I thought that from what I had asked staff to look into it's uh potential, it's six people, not nine people is what they said, but there are also no vacancies.

I think a couple are still serving some expired terms, which is completely okay.

Uh, my next question to you is did the board discuss this and take a vote, or were the speakers tonight speaking on their own behalf?

Uh uh no.

The board did not discuss this topic uh at any meeting.

Uh, our last meeting was held uh it's on the third Thursday of October.

So that last meeting was in October.

We haven't um had one for November.

That's set for this Thursday.

Um no, uh we did not hold a meeting to discuss this in advance.

I think the various members of the board feel, and that I should clarify some uh folks that spoke today were former members of the board, and some that spoke today were current members of the board.

So um we have a mix of of folks and uh and obviously opinion.

Thank you, Mr.

Lemony, for answering some of those questions.

That's all that I have for you.

Uh I do have a couple other things though.

I do want to say that the North Domingo Baco Aquatic Center is currently using a CMAR, and as fabulous as it is, it's also very flexible, and with all flexibility comes pros and cons, including some of the flexibility of funding and how that's going to work.

There's benefits and there's risks, but the benefits absolutely outweigh the risks, in my opinion, and I think in what I've learned about it all, in addition to the fact that I think that a CMAR at the aviation at the airport for aviation is good.

I believe Los Altos might have used one as well.

Um I don't know beyond that, but those are some of the big projects that have used CMARs.

And I guess lastly, I never really I will say just I never supported this bill to begin with, just to get that out there.

Um I was just at the airport this last weekend.

It was lovely.

It's come a long way.

Somebody asked me where to eat, and I said honestly, I don't know yet because they haven't explored it all.

Uh, but there's great new places to go.

Um I would hate to hold it up.

And I think the observation deck is fine.

I think that the contractors are fine.

I think that you know what happened.

I mean, we've always heard like if you or if you don't know about history, you're destined to repeat yourself.

Uh it seems like everyone's pretty clear on the historical events.

Uh, and if not, it seems like some of the history is readily available in that regard.

Um, but I I just I want to see the airport finished.

It's come further than I thought it would actually by now, and I'm excited about that.

But I'm also excited to see it finished so that we can really truly welcome people to the fullest.

And lastly, I will say that whether they are uh former members or current members, these are members that we appoint to these boards.

If we're not going to trust their opinions, then why do we have the board?

Councillor Champagne, you are next.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh, just a couple of follow-up questions.

Um, this is out of just curiosity because I don't know CMARs uh and understand them completely.

So out of just out of curiosity, you said you were director, you were 50% finished with the planning phase of it.

When do you project to be a 90 to 100 percent?

Uh sure.

Council President Bassan, Councillor Champagne.

So about mid to late December is when we'll be at 90%.

Um that is when the uh the general contractor that who is actually the construction manager at risk in this case will begin their process of establishing the guaranteed maximum price.

They'll probably come back about three to four weeks from the time they receive the 90% construction documents with that GMP.

So you're looking, Madam President, you're looking at the first of the year then at that point?

Around the first half of January, roughly.

Okay.

Is there, and just out of curiosity, because I know there's a lot of questions and in and information flying around and stuff.

Is there any way to say and I'm being stingy about this, and I don't know if you want to do it here or uh on a one-on-one basis, could I kind of curious on when that's finished, uh, if if it's something that you can present to us and say, here's the process, here's how it worked, and here's what we came up with, and here's what the cost is moving forward, and so on, because I think a lot of this the issue right now is the as I said earlier is the the lack of information that we have in the sense of understanding these.

Um there are counselors on here that understand them thoroughly, and there's not some that aren't.

Um is it something where hey, we're done.

I don't want to, and I don't want to hold up the process and say, because it that does need to be done.

It needs to be finished so that we can move on and have a nice airport.

But so is there a way you can come back and say, here's this next process, and here's how we we finished up and but it not impede what you're the accomplishment.

Council President Basson, Counselor Champagne.

I I do know that that from time to time a director will give a presentation about a specific effort.

I'd be more than willing to stand here and deliver presentation.

I of course would need to consult, you know, my leadership and uh uh on the 11th floor, but I I can tell you that um I do see this as an opportunity, really, um, to educate the public and to make sure everybody understands the way that uh airport finance and planning works as opposed to the way that the general fund works, because uh I don't want the impression out there in the public to be that we're spending all this money willy-nilly and it could be used for other things.

You know, the fact is we're under federal obligation, and so that's a key point that is always helpful to get across.

And the other is how we our process for taking in the public comments that we get, we get quite a bit.

We get a lot of feedback from the passengers, we get a lot of feedback from the public, and how we incorporate that into our vision.

Because that is very much an iterative process.

So there's an opportunity to come before you and and discuss it at the time.

Madam President Director, and and this just popped into my head when you said that.

I mean again, this must this is federal money though.

This is an enterprise money that's generated here, but it's guided through federal policies.

Do we can we tell you how to use that money?

Uh Council President Bassan, Counselor Champagne.

So it's really a mix of resources, okay, funds that both the airport raises through the services it provides.

Um, and the biggest uh sources of those funds are our parking structure, our rental car uh facility fees, all the rents that all of our various partners pay us, including the concessionaires inside the airport, uh, as well as as the fees that are attached to a ticket that originates from ABQ to any other airport.

And so all that that whole uh tranche of money goes into our account, our enterprise fund, and then we supplement that with the grant funding that we receive from the FAA.

We're never quite guaranteed a certain amount, but we can usually count on a very significant portion of our capital projects being funded by uh the federal government.

Okay.

So and I guess, Madam President, I guess it is pretty obvious because the administration comes up with this idea and says, okay, here's where we're going to direct it and assigns people to direct the airport, even though it's it's it's FAA controlled and federally controlled.

So I guess that answers that part of my question too.

So um, thank you, Madam President.

Counselor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam President.

Oh how uh how long would this actually hold you up, this bill?

Would it hold you up at all?

Uh Council President Basson, Counselor Lewis.

I would estimate nine months to a year.

Um the reason I would estimate that is because as I think we all know, studies that that are of a pretty sizable nature.

You're talking about expending quite a bit of resources.

Tends to take three to six months.

You've also got procurement.

How long does it take to actually get the entity on board that will conduct a study?

Probably several months.

Um, if we are directed to use a different construction company or switch designers mid midstream, there's yet another procurement that has to take place, and you know, that that could add at least six months to the process.

So that's just kind of a you know educated guess, but I'd say nine months to a year is probably about it.

Madam President, and that's fair enough.

I mean, you know, and I think there's probably differing opinions on that.

I mean, I think that you know, uh in in other cases, uh, you know, some some extra steps, study, procurement, some of those things could could go much quicker, um, and and could even go much quicker than even the process you have right now, possibly could run into some issues and challenges, you know, with the process you have right now.

And so I think it you know, a matter of weighing you know, some extra checks and balances um in this regard, and certainly the council has a role in that.

Um, you know, I I do support this bill because um again, uh it's something that could be beneficial uh to the overall product that taxpayers get that the airport gets.

And um, and you know, you've got to jump through hoops in a lot of other lot of ways, you know.

Um and uh this is one of them and it produces a better benefit for the for the city, I think it's a good thing.

Um, you know, I mean, regardless if we do some education when it comes to uh how the how the airport is operated, I think that would be a good thing.

Um and it should include the fact that you know the the uh um these upgrades cost all all all the city taxpayers um you know money, it comes from you know people's pockets, it comes from the hard work uh from the people of Albuquerque.

And you know, when uh when you raise the um, you know, when the city raises the parking fees in those structures, uh those are dollars that city taxpayers spend, um, especially if they're gonna go use the observation deck.

I mean, you're gonna you're gonna park in that uh uh that long-term or that short-term parking garage uh that went up pretty significantly over the last year as uh as an enterprise, you all had the ability um to be able to raise those fees, and uh those I think came before us, but that was a part of the budget this last year.

Um and so those fees are raised, and so it costs a little bit more money out of the pockets of taxpayers in the city of Albuquerque to go pick up their families uh or to leave their car when they're flying to Phoenix or somewhere else for a few days, leave their car there.

All of this pays for the for the observation deck, it pays for everything.

We've got a lot of beautiful things at the airport right now, too.

I mean, working on some good things, but that should be a part of the education of it.

Uh and and an enterprise should never be um because we're an enterprise, because our costs are directly related to our our our revenues, you know, specific things that you know somehow we're given you know more freedoms or you know less accountability uh in any way less transparency in that regard.

Uh so you know um I I I would I would welcome you know welcome a little bit more of a process like this.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam CAO.

Uh Madam President, uh it might be no longer germane, but I would just wanted to mention to Councilor Champagne.

We're happy to have uh similar discussions that we have had recently around both CMAR and the aviation fund and enterprise fund.

I think that it was a very informative for me when I came to the city to get a full in-depth understanding of the aviation department, the FAA requirements, and how the funding is actually approved through much of their processes.

And so I was wanted to make that offer.

I think I've had uh extensive experience with CMAR in previous uh roles and have found that it is exceptionally um uh it gives a flexibility but still has very clear processes and steps that can reveal quite a bit of information if we were able to walk through that with you as well.

So any counselor that is interested in either one of those, we're happy to.

And since we will have uh uh potentially well, we'll have at least one city new city councilor, um it will make the same offer to the new city council.

Councilor Champagne, thank you, madam C C A O, Dr.

Single.

Uh for that I would love to take you up on that offer and understand it more.

Counselor Sanchez, and I know you had a comment, and then if you want to use this as your close as well.

Okay, thank you.

Uh I just wanted to say that uh the dollar amount, we still have not heard the dollar amount or even close to it.

Um we've heard um we've heard that um that the year marked amounts are very close using the CMAR process, um, but we don't even know what the earmarked amount is right now.

Um so I'm you know if you can give us that.

I mean, we're good.

If you're saying there's 50 percent design, my bill says the design 60 percent complete.

So if you're ready to to to give us that information, um then let's have it.

Um but right now we don't know um if it's gonna cost 15 million, 13 million, or even 20 million.

We have no idea, still no clue.

And um, and that's the biggest point that I'm looking at.

I just don't want to be in an area where we're gonna be like I told you so, we should have done this, and now we're in the fourth big controversy of the uh observation deck.

You know, to have something to occur again would look like would look to the public that we as city councillors and we as the city of Albuquerque have poor due diligence when it comes to their to their satisfaction and and uh what they need us to be doing.

It would be better to be safe than starry to undergo a solid design process with all the transparency that we feel we're comfortable with, and that's all this bill is.

It's based on um transparency and making sure that we don't have the same issues occur again.

And you know, like I said, that's all this bill is about.

Um it's about transparency, our due diligence, and our responsible our like counselor champagne said, our fiscal responsibility to the public, and that's what this bill is all about.

So if we pass this bill, I think we're showing fiscal responsibility.

If we don't, um then that's gonna be held in question probably from here till the next 20-30 years if there's a controversy until the next controversy, I'm sure.

So with that, I urge your support.

Thank you.

The motion is for R 200 as amended, Madam Clerk, Councilor Paca.

No, Councilor Champagne.

Yes, Counselor People Core.

No, Counselor Cloud.

No, Councilor Lewis, yes, Vice President Penyan.

Vice President Pena.

Yes.

Councilor Rogers, no.

Councilor Sanchez.

Yes.

President Basson, no.

Bails on a four-five vote.

We are going to take a quick break and we'll come back at 7 35.

All right, everyone, we are back.

We are currently on agenda item C under final actions.

Counselor Sanchez by request R203.

Thank you, Madam President.

R 203 adopting a text amendment to the Westland Master Plan Framework plan to change the land use designation from education to residential on track N-1-B, containing approximately 660 undeveloped acres, including changes to land use tables and exhibits.

That split track N1 into track N A and N-1-B.

Move a due pass.

There's a motion and a second by Councilor February.

R25203 is a quasi-judicial request which requires special procedures to allow the applicant, staff, and the public the opportunity to speak.

This agenda item will proceed as follows.

Council planning staff will have a presentation of five minutes, testimony by public speakers for two minutes each, rebuttals by the applicant, a rebuttal by the applicant for five minutes.

Cross examination by anyone who spoke during public comment, two minutes each.

Comments by the planning department, if any, for five minutes, and council planning staff will have closing comments if any at five minutes.

City staff, members of the public, and the applicant must be sworn in.

If you will be speaking to this item as a staff member or member of the public, please raise your right hand.

Do you affirm under penalty of perjury that your testimony today will be true?

Thank you.

Mr.

Cox, will you please begin your introduction?

Council President, Counselors, uh R25 203 Westland Master Plan Amendment.

Um I'm gonna uh go through kind of uh what's happened uh briefly and really kind of the the point of this plan.

Um but really the amendment is looking at the uh Westland Master Plan land use map uh and the area you see circled in red is what the kind of portion of the property that we'll be talking about today, which was uh formerly owned by APS and has now been uh sold to a local home developer.

Uh but it's um in the West Mesa, uh just north of New Senda community uh stadium uh and really near kind of the Oxpo geographic features.

Um this plan is not amending zoning, it is only amending the land use.

The existing zoning in the area is PDA or Plan Development Area, which already allows residential as well as the educational land use that um the land use map had, and so of that um earlier this year the EPC approved a site plan that allowed for 212 single family units to be developed on that area.

Um that is already by right by the zoning that the master plan has identified.

Um, but the EPC and planning staff found that um to kind of show reality on the ground that the land use map also needed to be amended to show um residential use rather than educational.

Um the other 50 acres, um, so the portion that is getting amended today is 60 acres.

The other 50 acres is retained by APS and is still owned by them, and and for all intents and purposes, um, we'll will be educational for the foreseeable future.

Um then uh as you can see in the proposed land use map, um, the area circled in red is what is being changed on the exhibit uh within the master plan and the small image on the right side is is what was existing or is existing right now and um awaiting council's decision.

Uh I am here for any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're going to move on to testimony by public speakers who will each have two minutes.

Do we have any?

They have no minutes.

Moving on.

Uh I'm gonna assume that the applicant will not have any rebuttal since there was no comments.

Uh, and then no cross-examination.

We are going to go to the comments by the planning department.

Good evening.

Ms.

Good evening.

I'm Michaela Renz Whitmore from the planning department.

I will keep this very brief and just say thank you to the applicants for updating the Westland framework plan to be consistent with the EPC zone change approval.

And thank you to you all for helping keep our planning documents in sync.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on, we will go to council planning staff closing comments.

Uh President, counselors, I have no further comments.

Thank you.

All right.

So we're going to move on.

I know that there is a floor amendment.

Uh Councillor Sanchez, do you want to move for amendment number one?

Thank you, Madam President.

On page 11, line 20, amend section four as follows.

It says the shell is now an is.

Um and then the council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution and each such section, paragraph, sentence, clause word, a phrase thereof, and irrespective of any provision being declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.

And then on page 11, line 24, amend section five is followed.

This resolution shall be incorporated in made part of the Westland Master Plan Framework Plan.

Explanation.

This is a technical amendment to correct the servability and compilation sections of this resolution.

There's a motion for amendment number one.

Is there a second?

Second by Councilor Champagne.

Uh for the record, Councilor Pena is not currently on Zoom, so we will still go to a roll call as Councilor Gravis joining us on Zoom.

Madam Clerk.

Councilor Bacca.

Yes.

Councillor Shampe.

Yes.

Councilor Peeblecorn.

Yes.

Counselor Grout.

Yes.

Counselor Lewis.

Yes.

Counselor Rogers.

Yes.

Counselor Sanchez.

Yes.

President Bassan.

Yes.

Passes on an 80 vote.

All right.

Any other amendments, Counselor?

Any additional questions or comments?

Seeing none, Councillor Sanchez to close.

I urge your support.

Madam Clerk.

The vote for R203 as amended.

Councilor Bacca.

Yes.

Counselor Shemphein.

Yes.

Counselor Peoplecorn.

Yes.

Counselor Grout.

Yes.

Counselor Lewis.

Yes.

Counselor Rogers.

Yes.

Counselor Sanchez.

Yeah, what do you say?

Yes.

President Passan.

Yes.

Passes on an 80 vote.

Thank you.

Moving on to a final action item D, R207 concerning the municipal runoff election to be held in the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico on Tuesday, the 9th day of December 2025.

I move it due to pass.

There's a second by Councillor Feblecorn.

Uh and we do have some public comments.

Let's go to that first.

Thank you, Madam President.

We have Adale Rose Bennett Herrick, followed by Lisa Christofferson on Zoom.

We will move to Lisa Christofferson on Zoom.

Lisa Christofferson.

Thank you.

Sorry, I'm in my car.

I apologize.

My apologies to the city council.

I just wanted to reiterate that uh thank you very much for the opportunity for having a runoff election.

I do believe we need to look at ring choice voting.

I remember a year ago the comments were made that we as Burkinos are too dumb or not able to figure out how to do rank choice voting.

We will save the city lots and lots of money.

Please, please, please consider ranked choice voting as much is to come.

Thank you.

Madam President, that concludes comment.

Thank you.

Counselors, any questions or comments?

The clerk is here, but I I'm gonna try to summarize this is a resolution necessary to even place something on for a runoff election based off of our laws in the city of Albuquerque.

Do you have anything to add?

No, it's in the charter, it's required.

Um right, so I urge your support.

R207, Madam Clerk, Councilor Backa, yes, Councilor Shannai.

Yes, Councilor People Corn?

Yes.

Counselor Grout.

Yes.

Counselor Lewis?

Yes.

Vice President Pena.

Yes.

Councilor Rogers.

Yes.

Counselor Sanchez.

Yes.

President Passan.

Yes.

Passes unanimously.

All right.

Moving on, we will go to Councilor Backa, P8.

Thank you, Madam President.

P8 adopting a proposition to be sent to the voters at the 2026 general election, proposing to repeal Article 11, Section 7 of the Charter of the City of Albuquerque regarding a public vote on a performing arts center.

I move due pass.

There's a motion and a second by Councilor Feblecorn.

I know that Councilor, well, Councilor Baco, how about you open and then we'll go to public comment?

Thank you, Madam President.

This is writing or wrong from this past ballot initiative.

We're just working to get on to the ballot what this body had previously unanimously approved.

I urge everyone's support.

Mr.

Cornelius, we can go to public comment.

Thank you, Madam President.

Once again, we have Dr.

Lisa Christofferson.

Thank you very much, uh Bach uh Councillor Bacca.

Thank you very, very much for adding this back on to the um agenda.

I guess my question is if it wasn't voted on in the last election, does it automatically get put on the next in December?

Or how does that work?

That is my question.

I was very curious about that.

Thank you.

Madam President, that concludes comment.

Thank you.

Kells has any questions or comments?

Councilor Feblecorn.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um definitely understand the need for this.

Um supportive.

I'm just curious because I looked at the charter, and I don't understand why this couldn't have been put placed on the runoff election ballot.

And so I was just wondering if we could get an explanation of why we have to redo the bill when there is another election happening on on December 9th.

Clerk Watson.

I think that maybe you might be the best person to answer that.

Yes.

Um well, Lauren and I researched this exhaustively, and uh I'll let her start first, and I don't know.

Ms.

Keefe.

Um Council President, Council of February.

Yes, I mean we spoke to the Secretary of State.

We inquired with the county, they both said that they would not approve that.

Um, and that that first of all, there's a deadline, is it a 60-day deadline prior to the election?

So with that had already passed.

And um the the provisions, the state law provisions on runoffs specify that these are for candidates who you know when there's less than a 50% threshold, and you and you and you have a runoff for candidates, there's no provision for a runoff for a question, and um that there just simply doesn't contemplate adding a question, nor does it comp contemplate a runoff election having material that wasn't voted on in the main election.

A runoff should be just a supplement with the same same question posed to people and not new, not something new that the people didn't get the chance to vote on the first time.

There was there's also oh I apologize.

There were there is this publication notice that the Secretary of State publishes all the ballot questions in the newspaper about 60 days before the election, and because this was not included, um it can't be voted on in the runoff.

Council Peoplecorn, thank you, Madam President.

So um, if we would have caught this when early voting just started and it could have been noticed for 60 days, would it have been allowed to be on the runoff then?

Um council president, council of people corn, no, again because the interpretation is that a runoff is for candidates and not for questions.

Okay, thank you, madam president.

Counselors, any other questions or comments?

Seeing none, counselor Bacher to close.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I urge your support.

Do you have a motion for deferral, Counselor?

Yes.

Motion yes, to following our rules for charter amendments.

I'd move a deferral to defend December 1st.

I believe we have to have at least two hearings on a on an amendment.

Charter amendment.

Okay, there's a second by counselor roger.

There's a second by lots of people.

Madam Clerk.

Counselor Baca.

Yes.

Councilor Champagne?

Yes.

Counselor Peoplecorn.

Yes.

Counselor Ground.

Yes.

Counselor Lewis.

Yes.

Vice President Pena.

Yes.

Councilor Rogers.

Yes.

Councilor Sanchez.

Yes.

President Basson.

Yes.

Passes unanimously.

Moving on.

We're going to R208.

Counselor Bacca.

Thank you, Madam President.

R208, adopting a proposition to be submitted to the voters of the next election.

Be held in the city of Albuquerque concerning the amendment to Article 11, Section 7 of the Albuquerque City Charter, providing the form of the question and the designation clause for such question on the ballot.

This is the companion bill to P eight.

And I move a due pass.

Okay.

There's a motion and a second by Councilor Rogers.

Any questions or comments?

Councilor Baca.

Thank you, Madam President.

I move deferral to Defember first in order to have two hearings on any charter amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Councilor Stampine's who I heard, but I think there's lots more to as well.

Madam Clerk.

Counselor Baca.

Yes.

Counselor Champagne.

Yes.

Counselor Peoplecorn.

Yes.

Counselor Grapple.

Yes.

Counselor Lewis.

Yes.

Vice President Pena.

Yes.

Counselor Rogers.

Yes.

Counselor Santos.

Yes.

President Bassun?

Yes.

Passes unanimously.

Moving on.

We are at R210, Councillor Baca.

Thank you, Madam President.

R210 requiring council approval for the disposition of city owned real property located in the central community planning area.

I move a due pass.

There's a motion as second by Council Peoplecorn.

Counselor Bacca to open.

Thank you, Madam President.

This bill is so there's some technical issues here in terms of uh process and um how we how we do that.

Uh but there's also some bigger philosophical questions about um you know just being good partners, being a team player, you know, whether that's council, city, or I'm sorry, council administration, um, other councils, MRA, just um the idea of of working together.

Um in this particular case, about a month ago, we moved this this body voted to uh move this particular piece of property under the metropolitan redevelopment zone or area, um, as well as we've been working on some of the zoning changes on that and the CPA, um, which is which is all stuff that I've very much have championed.

And this past couple weeks for sale sign went up.

Um I don't think there was any kind of malicious intent or anything negative like that.

Um, however, uh you know, just thinking about you know, every everybody has a has an opinion on downtown, whether that's good or bad, and downtown support our city in a very large way throughout the country.

Um and so it's always a it's a good practice to just sit down with the counselor of any district and talk about uh what the plans are or having a vision for what's gonna be done in those metropolitan areas, but it's also just you know just being good team players.

Hey, let's sit down, let's talk about this.

Let's let's work these things out.

And so this bill is A, just to get folks to A.

You're supposed to talk to counselors as part of process in general.

Uh B just again to be good partners.

Let's let's work together.

Let's sit down.

Let's discuss a shared vision of what are not just you know, if you do if you go out to RFP, the idea of let's see what people can want to do.

There's also the question of well, what can we all envision for our city?

What are the great things that we can do or not?

But it's definitely a conversation that should happen within any MRA zone.

So with that, I'd also I'd like to move floor amendment A.

All right, that's the motion is to move amendment number one, Councilor Baca.

Do you want to go through it?

Yes.

So this is this amendment, uh, section one.

Remove section one and insert the following the city here party directs that that no sale exchange donation, long-term lease or other conveyance or disposal of city owned property located at 229 Broadway shall be executed, closed, or otherwise finalized without full compliance with the applicable procedure set forth in the city code, including but not limited to section 14847 and sections 521 through 523 of the revised ordinances of Albuquerque.

And then yeah.

So this just amendment just clarifies this disposing of the city-owned property at 229 Broadway.

It's very specific to this one lot.

Um, simply because uh for sale sign was put out in front last week, and um bids were made or inquiries were made, and it doesn't quite follow the process that we that's laid out, whether it's through uh normal disposition of properties or B even through the MRA process, you know, as as a former member of the ADC uh board, I I've been through this before, and so um you know I again I don't I don't think there's anything nefarious or anything like that.

It's just the question of um hey, let's sit down and have a conversation.

I mean, this piece of property hasn't even fully gone through all the zoning changes and everything that this body has in it.

I have initiated what this body's been voting on, so um definitely a little bit premature.

Um not quite following the rules, I would argue.

And and again, let's just be good team players to sit down and talk about these things.

So I urge your support.

The emotion is for amendment number one.

Is there on 210?

Is there a second?

Second from Councilor Champagne.

Any questions or comments?

Councilor Peoplecorn?

Thank you, Madam President.

So I just have a question about the um the language that says are any other city-owned property within applicable metropolitan redevelopment areas.

Um I would like this to cover all metropolitan redevelopment areas in the way I'm reading it, it does.

Um, but but the title of this bill is for the specific metropolitan redevelopment area.

So can we have this clause in here that says any metropolitan redevelopment area, you have to go through the actual process to dispose of property?

So the amendment that Councilor Bacca just moved is the one that's on OneDrive and was displayed on the screen.

And specifically it removed that language due to concern that this would apply citywide when the intent was for it to apply to the specific property that Councilor Baccha identified.

And so those those rules do exist for other uh pieces of property beyond the one that Councilor Bacca identified.

And the as you said, the title of this bill limits us to what we can get to in this particular bill, but we we could draft something for you as well.

Thank you.

Madam President, and sorry, my apologies for not catching the difference.

Um but uh I'm fine with that explanation.

Counselors, any other questions or comments?

Are there any concerns with any of the uh property guidelines that we have as a governing body here in Albuquerque since we're the city council when it comes to any kinds of appeals or anything else when it comes to dictating some of the dispositions of properties?

Madam President, counselors.

Um so again, this resolution just requires that we follow existing rules when it comes to disposal of property, whether that be through the uh declaring it not essential for municipal purposes or using the MRA processes.

Um another component of the amendment that Councilor Baca moved in section two eliminates a uh requirement that uh the uh counselor for district two receive notification of a sale of property, and that's to address a existing procedure where um if MRA does decide to dispose of a property and an appeal is filed um by someone who was involved in um the sale or hoped the sale would go to them.

Um those appeals come to council for review, and so it wouldn't be appropriate for council to approve or be involved in um uh in the sale itself, um, and then also decide decide an appeal.

Um, and so this does make that correction to avoid issues with the appeal process.

Thank you for confirming.

Councilor Backa to close on amendment number one to R210.

I urge you support Madam Clerk, Councilor Backa.

Yes, Councilor Champagne, yes, Councilor People Court, yes.

Counselor Group, yes, Counselor Lewis, yes, Counselor Penny.

Vice President Pinya.

Councilor Rogers, yes.

Counselor Sanchez?

Yes, President Bassan, yes.

Passes on Nate Zoop.

We're back on R210 as amended.

Counselors, any questions or comments?

Councilor Backer to close.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh you know, I've been a big champion this past year of getting stuff done, uh cutting red tape out of the way.

Council, our team has worked really well with the administration to to further that.

Um so by no means do I want to stop or stall anything, but I I very, very much believe, and I and I've said this over and over that um council and the mayor and the administration should be team players.

We should work together on on everything.

Um we don't, even though we are the check and balance to each other, we can still be partners.

So this is just hey, let's be partners on when we're doing stuff.

So thank you.

I urge everyone's support.

Counselor Baca, I would like to ask, is it all right?

I it is a close, so it's up to you on this.

I missed Councillor Grout's hand is up.

Would you mind if we go back to her?

Okay, Councilor Grout.

Councilor Grout, you're on mute.

We still can't hear you.

Sorry, there you go.

Challenge there.

Um Thank you, President Um, Madam President.

Counselor Bacca, I have a question.

Um will this add another layer of bureaucracy to the mix?

Have we reached out to developers or anything to find out what they think about this?

Councilor Backa?

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh no, this this fits within existing rules.

I don't think it adds, it does not add a layer of bureaucracy since these are the existing rules.

My understanding speaking with my understanding was this was step one for MRA to uh solicit input from developers of ideas or thoughts or potential for redevelopment prior to an RFP, which which is not wrong in and of itself by any means.

Um this bill is more in the line of before, especially with downtown because so many stakeholders are involved or have interests in this area that uh if we're gonna do stuff, it isn't just about what other people want to do.

It's like let's all discuss what this is, what it can be and where we can go.

Counselor Grau Q.

Um thank you.

Uh one other question, may I ask um Director Bruner uh how he feels about this just FYI?

Director.

Um, Madam Chair, Counselor.

So uh we we understand and appreciate the spirit of this legislation, and I want to be clear to every counselor that if you ever have questions about a parcel where you want us from here on out to discuss any real estate parcels we have with you, we will always do that.

And we have regular calls with some of you where we do that to ensure that uh that you know what what the agency is up to.

There's two different types of disposal processes, and I want to make that clear.

MRA has the ability to not have to go through the real property disposal process, which is a giant attraction to developers because we don't have to go to you for permission to dispose of a piece of property first.

Once it goes under the MRA, we can begin the process of trying to sell or dispose of that lot without added bureaucracy, and that is of great appeal to the developers that we deal with.

So I think this is I I understand um the concern that um we're not keeping people informed.

We are trying to be really aggressive with our properties following the mandate the council gave us in 2023 to build more housing, and and we have built more housing than any prior MRA under your guidance and and your permission on our development agreements and tax abatements and other things we do.

So I I enjoy moving quickly and and trying to get developers on sites as fast as possible.

I've worked on this piece of property for three years, removing it from the flood zone, which was not easy, negotiating an agreement with a MAFCO, which was also not easy, and uh, you know, I have a personal vested interest in seeing the best for this property.

We decided to try something new on this property and a property in the sawmill by putting a sign up to alert people to the fact that it's a city-owned property that we want somebody to do something good with.

That's all we're trying to do with our for sale sign.

Um not trying to offend anybody or anything like that, but um, we had intended with this property to go through some sort of RFP process because we have to, according to state statute.

We don't have to do that under city ordinances, we have to do it under state statute, which is you know, obviously uh override city ordinances in many cases.

So we uh intended to have a competitive process on this.

It is required that we do so under the guidance of the Metropolitan Redevelopment Plan.

We could not put something on this lot that doesn't abide by that plan.

So we do have requirements on how we have to dispose of these lots, and they're well spelled out in both the state statute and our ordinances.

But I do want to stress we do have these two different processes, and the intention there quoting back to the 1970s, was that we try to renovate areas quickly, as quickly as we potentially possibly can.

And and this allows us to move quickly when we have that ability.

If we want to put this uh level of scrutiny on this particular lot, I understand it, and we can do that with future lots, but I would not remember recommend making this a permanent process on all lots across the city, or it could have the potential of gumming up the process and making lots less interesting to developers.

Counselor Grout Um Thank you for that.

Um I appreciate that a little bit more thoroughly explained and so forth.

This is a tough one.

Thank you.

Ms.

Keith.

Um thank you, Council President.

Um so I just want to this does add procedures in that the current ordinance uh the current MRA ordinance does not require MRA properties to go through the purchasing code for for real estate for anything else they do, but for real estate they don't.

So this is adding that those purchasing requirements to MRA properties.

Currently, the MRA properties go through the state statutory provisions instead.

I just wanted to add that anybody else, did you have your hand raised?

Or no, madam president, counselors, this does not add additional procedures to the sale of properties.

The um amendment says that the processes that will be quite required are those that are applicable to whatever sales mechanism may be triggered for a particular property.

And again, this only applies to the one singular property identified in the resolution, not citywide.

Ms.

Keefe, do you have the most current edition of the amendment?

Council President, I think I do not, and that's so the version I had said including section 521.

And so if that has been removed, then Miss Cluidon.

Madam President, Counselors, it has not been removed, but it does say the comply with the applicable procedures.

So if 521 does not apply, then that would not be an applicable procedure to the sale of that property.

That I understand Council President, that's not how I read this sentence.

When you say applicable procedures including A, B and C, you're assuming you're saying that A, B, and C applies.

So let me let me just let's take a take a pause.

Section it reads the latest amendment that was passed just a few minutes ago was the city council hereby directs that no sale, exchange, donation, long-term lease, or other conveyance or disposal of city-owned property located at 229 Broadway Northeast shall be executed, closed, or otherwise finalized without full compliance with the applicable procedures set forth in the city code, including but not limited to section 14847 and sections 521 through 523 of the revised ordinances of Albuquerque 1994.

Does that change anything?

Councilor President.

President, I think we could potentially add an OR to the amendment if that would make Miss Keefe more comfortable with the language.

Ms.

Keefe.

I see that that read.

So I I would read this language to require at this property to go through section five to one.

So that's how I would read the sentence.

So this amendment has passed.

We are on the bill as amended.

We're gonna leave it at that unless counselors want to move forward with another amendment.

And are there any other questions?

Councilor Grout, you had raised your hand.

And okay, so no.

So now Councilor Baca, I will come back to you for a real close this time.

Thank you, Madam President.

I could I could see both interpretations of how our council and and our council read this.

Um I've also been to law school, so I have an idea of how that goes.

Um for sure, it's like reading poetry.

Um this is very specific to this one particular parcel.

Um also because this and and I've and I and I agree with Director Bruner, like let's get things moving quickly, and MRA is the best way to do that.

And we do speak pretty regularly.

Um in this particular case, I'm the one who pushed to get it into the MRA zone a month ago.

Um so we'll apply the speed of getting a for sales sign out there.

Um I took a lot of heat to do this.

That's I put a lot of work and energy into this, and we we all have a vested interest in this particular property, and and so that's why I say let's all sit down and talk about what a shared vision, not just here, but downtown in general looks like.

I think it'll be fine.

So with that, I urge your support.

The motion is for R210 as amended, Madam Clerk.

Counselor Backa.

Yes, Counselor Champagne, yes.

Counselor People Corn?

Yes.

Counselor Grout.

Yes, Counselor Lewis, yes.

Vice President Penya.

Yes.

Councilor Rogers.

Yes.

Counselor Sanchez?

Yes.

President Bassan.

Yes.

Cast as unanimously.

All right.

We are moving on.

We have no other business.

Did you have something to add?

Okay.

We have no other business.

We're moving on to administration question and answer period.

Councilor Champagne.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just have one question tonight.

Um, based on the consent agenda when we were talking about uh 531 and 532.

It was brought to my attention that the quarterly litigation report has not been provided in a while.

Uh through research, it shows that the last known report was the first quarter of FY25, which was July through September of the year 2024.

Uh my question is to legal or admin of what seems to be the issue that we are not following our own city ordinance.

Um Counselor Champagne, Councilor President.

Um the I'm not sure we're that far behind, but we are behind in the issue was that I made a staffing change.

I'm not sure we're that far behind, but we are behind, and the issue was that I made a staffing change.

I tray I made some changes in which reports are handled by which staff members, and there's been a delay in the processing in the you know training on that.

Um I I did not think we're that far behind.

I will I will double check.

I thought we were a couple reports behind.

Okay.

And just to follow up to the last, I think I sent you an email and asked the specificness might have been, I think legal or or CAO that gave the mayor the authority to go into a lawsuit.

I still haven't received an email giving that uh ordinance number, so I can research it, please.

Okay, sure.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam President.

Counselor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just have a question about um I've been getting a lot of emails from constituents and talking to them all week about Quirky books.

Um, and we just had a uh shooting near the area, and so I just wanted to get some updates.

I've reached out to Commander Del Greco and haven't heard back.

Um, and so I just wanted us to talk about that on the record because we have folks watching that are very interested in what's happening at Quirky Books.

I've met with the business owners at Highland Business Association.

I'll be meeting them with them again this Thursday.

Just wanted to get some updates on where we're at with any enforcement at Quirky Books.

Um Council President, Council Rogers.

Um we filed a complaint in state district court two weeks ago uh after the incident this weekend.

We filed um an emergency uh uh request that the court hear it immediately and take action immediately given given the situation.

I do know you know we were in touch with Commander Del Greco today uh as part of that effort, and you know, he was investigating what happened and actively working on that that today.

Um but so we were in touch with the judge's chambers in order to get the emergency hearing.

We don't have a hearing date yet, but we're hoping we'll get one soon.

Thank you, Madam President.

One of the questions I received from one of the local business owners there is could we have filed an emergency injunction prior to the shooting to speed it up?

Um council president, counselor rogers, yes.

Um, and it's you know, this was a complicated question, and there were a lot of rights to balance in this in this matter, and so there were some difficult questions about how quickly to proceed and how to proceed.

We did try to work with the property owner, we did try to work through code enforcement before going to court.

Um so but we yes, we could have uh asked for emergency relief before that, before this, but um and we were in fact working, we were working on the application for a an injunction when this happened.

So we had actually already had it drafted.

We're working on finalizing the affidavits from the neighboring business owners regarding the situation on that street.

Thank you, Madam President.

Has there been any follow-up with Quirky Books?

I mean, do we do we know if this originated from people that were staying at Quirky Books?

Yeah.

Um Council President, Councilor Rogers, I just don't want to speak to uh it is under investigation.

Again, the commander was investigating, so I don't want to uh speak prematurely on the results of that investigation.

Thank you, Madam President.

I appreciate that.

We don't want to jeopardize any ongoing investigation, but I think it would be great if someone from the administration or APD went with me to this meeting with the business owners that are around there, um, so that you can answer the questions that I don't have answers to without doing it publicly and messing up an investigation, which is why I reached out to Commander Del Greco to get this information over the weekend.

Um, because there's we have a lot of angry uh business owners around there.

I they've come to council to do comments.

I know they've emailed all of us.

Um I know this is a delicate one, but uh I would love the help if you guys could come to that community meeting with us to talk to our business owners about what's happening there and figuring out some solutions for them as well.

Thank you, Madam President.

Councilor Champagne.

Thank you, Madam President.

Ms.

Keith, just and this is out of curiosity, I because I didn't attend law school, and so I don't know how litigation works a lot, but uh how do you file an injunction on a private property when they're camping on sidewalks and public properties?

How is that different than the well and I get it's private and public, but we're we're telling people you can't allow people to park here, but yet you go down central or Zuni and Tennessee and they're all over the sidewalk.

Um okay.

Um I I don't think I understood your question the first time.

Um so uh how do we have uh how how does this hold weight that we're gonna go to a judge and say, hey, this person on this private property is a menace to the neighborhood, but yet they're all over the sidewalk.

You have camps and fires and the whole mayhem that's going on over there.

So so council president, council champagne.

I mean, I can't speak to the entirety of the city's encampment response.

It's it's a very extensive process and one that that the administration is working on, um you know, has been working on in examining uh very thoroughly.

Um but I can say that this these activity is occurring on private property, it's in violation of the IDO.

They have been cited um multiple times.

The the neighbors have complained multiple times.

I mean, they're complaining to counselors, they're complaining to the administration.

I have affidavits from the neighbors detailing the con the impacts to them of this ongoing activity on private property, and we as a city have a right to come in and ask for an injunction to stop that kind the activity that is harming people in a neighborhood.

So then it goes back to my confusion of this.

The same complaints come about them living on sidewalks, bonfires defecating on sidewalks from businesses on these public properties.

So why is there not an injunction or something to get them off there?

Because they're violating ordinances there too, correct?

Or am I am I wrong?

No, uh, you're right, and and this may be a uh question for the CAO, but I'll I'll say two things is there have been lawsuits in other cities of that very nature.

And in fact, there was a successful one in the city of Phoenix that forced the city of Phoenix to clean encampments.

Um but I also say we get 311 calls every day, and we respond to those 311 calls, and so we we do go out.

And in fact, we were sued on that very theory that we weren't clearing encampments, and we proved in court that we that we responded to every single 311 call on Third Street, and that we had done everything that we could to address the situation on that particular street.

Are you referring to Coronado Park?

No, uh well, yes, or just south of Coronado Park, but yes.

Okay.

I still don't quite understand, but maybe that's why I didn't go to law school.

I don't quite get how we're able to say, hey, you're not allowed to do this here, but what this runs rampant over here, and we're not gonna address it this with the same manner as we're addressing a private property.

I can't.

With that intensity.

Right.

Uh Council President Council Champagne would say we're not saying that it's it's okay to do it on public property, uh even though I think some people object to the city's current policy, but we're not saying that we are responding to the 3-1 calls we aren't addressing encampments.

Interesting.

Madam CAO, do you have I'm sorry, Ms.

Ms.

President?

Madam CAO.

Madam President, Councillor Champaign, um, Miss Keefe is exactly uh is accurate.

You know, we have multiple ordinance city ordinances and state statutes that we enforce.

Um we but we also um have a city policy related to encampment clearing that ensures that we provide notice to individuals to to and you all have heard public comment here many, many times related to what the city does related to 311 calls and other complaints that come in related to individuals violating city ordinance and or state statutes in terms of camping, uh trespassing, blocking sidewalks, whatever that might be.

We have a full we have multiple teams that respond every single day.

They spend their entire day working towards being responsive to uh those uh both the balance of our policy to ensure that people have notice so that they can gather their items and um move on, but also to enforcing and and providing both uh so we give notice, citation, and even arrest when an individual has moved to uh violated um our site uh has multiple citations and continue to violate um and that enforcement happens each and every day um through Solid Waste, our interaction team, APD, um, and metro security participates to support um uh uh safety in that in in those work in that work.

Um I'm sorry, and I should include uh that it also includes ACS and ensuring that we provide um uh the option for individuals to accept services and transportation to shelter to support them uh in that decision to do so.

Madam President, and I and I don't mean to grandstand on it, but we're really honing in on a specific property, and and unfortunately this incident happened, but you slated a whole bunch of procedures and processes and groups, and yet it's not really effective because we still see it on a constant basis.

And that and that's my opinion, I just in an observation of you know, whatever 250, however hundreds of millions we spend on a gateway and ACS taking a hundred thousand calls in three years, but yet the homeless population and living on the streets and campfires and tents up everywhere on public property and in front of businesses, it doesn't seem to diminish, but we're gonna hone our effort into one specific property that is trying to help people on a private property.

And yet we're haphazardly addressing it citywide.

So and again, it's just an opinion or an observation.

I'm not really I don't think you can really answer that.

It's and again it's an opinion in the sense of you say you have processes and I say they're not working.

So thank you for the leeway, Madam President.

Council People Corn.

Thank you, Madam President.

So I might have misunderstood.

Um if I can ask what was the basis for the emergency injunction that was requested?

I thought I heard you say that it was based in part on the shooting that happened near this location over the weekend.

Um council president, council feeblecorn.

Um I would that that the specific location I think is still under investigation, and I think APD can clarify uh whether you know whether it was on or near the property.

Um but yes, part of the basis for the emergency, you know, to ask for emergency relief was that given that uh things had escalated at the within the encampment to violence and to a homicide, that the encampment needed to be cleared immediately.

Thank you, Madam President.

So we're saying that there was a shooting near this property, um, and therefore we are asking for an emergency injunction to clean it up.

Yet when you're asked about is there any evidence that this involved anyone who's staying at this encampment, or I'm asking where did it specifically um happen, somewhere near, but not in the encampment.

I'm told that you can't discuss the details.

It feels like the city's already decided what those details are because you're asking for an emergency injunction based on the fact that you say that this shooting is a is a problem from this encampment.

Um but when somebody wants to ask details about does it actually involve the encampment, you say I can't discuss it.

Um I think that that is really disingenuous.

Um, and I think it says a lot about the preconceived notions of this encampment from the city's point of view.

Um, and I don't share those, and I think that we have to be careful about how we say things when we say things in public like there was a shooting in this encampment, there's violence in this encampment.

We have to be able to actually show evidence of that, but we're not able to just show evidence of that because there's still an investigation.

I just am pointing out the hypocrisy, Madam President.

Counselors, any other questions or comments for the administration?

Seeing none, there being no further business, this meeting is adjourned.