City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome, everyone. Today is September 21st, 2026. The 18th meeting of the 27th Council will come to order. All councillors are present this evening. Councillor Chavez and Lewis will be joining us shortly. Would you please now join us for the pledge and a moment of silence? Thank you all. Vice President Schumphein.

Madam President, civic parking passes are provided for members of the public. You can obtain those parking passes from the council staff at the table near the rear of the chambers. 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, GovTV on Comcast Channel 16, the GovTV website, YouTube, and Zoom webinar. Live streams can be accessed from smartphones, tablets, or computers. Also, this meeting is closed captioned, so you may enable that closed captioning services on your television or 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 those 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 proceedings to be as civil and respectful as possible. So please do not make any personal attacks and please no applauding or snapping or any other outbursts during the meeting. The president will provide a warning to anyone causing a disruption. Upon a second or continued disruption, that individual will be asked to leave the chambers and if necessary, security will escort that person out of the chambers. Such removal from the Council Chambers will be effective for the remainder of that meeting. If continued disruptions occur, the President may recess the meeting until order is restored and, if necessary, may clear the chambers of persons participating in that disturbance. The meeting will go a lot smoother if we are respectful of one another. At this time, we will move to questions for the administration. Councilor Bonko.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Dr. Singel, I had some of these ahead of time, but if you could start with the, you know, I had a lot of folks reach out about the Unser party, Unser property, Unserville. And there was, of course, a Larry Barker investigation. So I just wanted to get an update on that. I told folks I would ask that question so you could tell us what went on there and where the funding came from and so forth.

Thank you, Madam President, Councilor Baca. It's interesting because this all came around the first year I was here at the city and transpired over that time period. I'll just give you a quick background, which was in the city's 2023 bond program. We had an item under library, museum, and cultural facilities bonds that was identified for the Unser Museum at $4 million. It was a project description authorizing the planning, design, acquisition, repair, renovation, construction, improvements to museum buildings and grounds, exhibitions, equipment, collections, and related work. It was also included in our infrastructure capital improvement plan for FY27 to... FY2027 to FY2031, and it identifies Unser Museum as a priority in our ICIP. The Department of Arts and Culture purchased the historic Unser family property on Central and Unser Boulevard in May of 2025. We announced that in May publicly did a public press release and then we add our very first planning session with public input in June of 2025. So we kicked off public input in meeting and allowing folks to participate in the design and thinking through this particular piece of property is a great piece of property for us as a city to think about how we can revitalize a specific area of our community to ensure that both It's in a metropolitan redevelopment area as well as being kind of across the street, cut a corner from our library and down the street from the Nuevo Trisco project with the MRA there. Gives us an opportunity with four acres to think about how to reimagine possibilities on that corner that had been sitting undeveloped for some time. it's a exciting project in the sense that we have a master plan underway that public process as i said kicked off in june of 2025 and our route 66 commission is has overseen that master planning process which has city councilors participating in that commission and overseeing that work With the public meetings that we have now, there was one in September allowing the public to understand kind of what the initial plans from all the feedback and the possibilities. What I really think is a great opportunity for us is we had adjacent land to this property that was planned to be a park. This gives us an opportunity. That piece of property was too small really to be anything more than a pocket park probably. Gives us an opportunity to think about green space for a community that hasn't had a park. It also gives us an opportunity to think through all the types of redevelopment, whether that's housing, retail space. And then, of course, the UNSUR purchase of it allowed us to acquire the UNSUR... Garage sorry that is there and and the two homes that are there for us to consider for which would be the most opportune for us to think through an answer museum which would really be focused on the automobile automotive and racing opportunities we have with with that property.

How much did we spend on this. So how much have we spent on this so far.

The purchase price, I'm sorry, Madam President, Councillor Baca, the purchase price for the property was $2.2 million for the four acres, and then we have master planning underway. I don't remember the contract value on that master plan.

I read it was $700,000. Is that ballpark?

I don't remember if that's accurate, but I think so.

I think so. So about almost $3 million total.

Madam president. Yes.

Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? No. Okay. Thank you. So then shift to my next question. I read the press release and the luminaria tour cancellation and That's when I first heard about it was a reporter calling me to let me know that the luminaria tour was being cancelled and so So obviously, I called you, didn't get a return call. Called the mayor, didn't get a return call. Stopped by Director Keener, didn't get anything from her. So I'm a little disappointed on the complete lack of communication on this one. My understanding is only one neighborhood was notified about this, the Hewnan Castle. There's five neighborhoods that it goes through. You only talk to the mayor's neighborhood. That's neither here nor there. They also have the bulk of it. But, you know, nobody was talked to. And when I read the press release, I see a matter of $200,000, which is, you know, in the scheme of things, not that big by city standards, especially if you just dropped $3 million on the Unser property. And, you know, one of our big jobs here is finding money, getting budget. And nobody came to me and say, hey, counselor, we may have to cancel or there may something be going on. Why don't you help us find some money? That would have been a great conversation to have. I know we're not charging because of zero fares. And I think it's fantastic that we have that here. But I do think that's... I don't know if that's really a reason for not generating funds. Maybe we could have worked on different ways to schedule or get people on there. I had a lot of folks in the comments on the news saying, I wish I could go, but it sells out so quick, I can never get tickets to that event. So in a lot of ways, I feel like the way we do ticketing for this event is probably also the reason why we don't have full attendance. We could have walked through some some ways to do that. You know it seems essentially it just feels like we're cutting a transit route. Another one of our transit routes is being cut. I think transit is the only department where we have a scarcity mindset in the city sometimes sometimes feels that way. So once you just talk to me just a little bit just about the budget part of this the cost because I do have other questions but.

Council President and Councillor Baca. So the question you're asking is the process we went through to get to this decision or?

Just on the money cost.

I think there's a lot of different components to it, the cost and the cost per person regarding to how many people actually participate compared to how many people sign up. And that's unfortunate that enough people sign up to where we can't give out more tickets, but then not about 60% show up, which means over 40% don't show up. But when you think about that, we weren't just thinking about the cost in total. We were thinking about the department as well. It's very taxing on a department that is understaffed when it comes to drivers. And it takes an extra 27 buses and 10 sun vans to do this. So it's pretty taxing on the department during this time of the year where we think re-evaluating how we do it and how the department responds to different events. We are looking at a lot of the events that we do and how can we do them more efficiently.

Right so okay makes sense to me, although you know this isn't just about buses right there's an entire event your press release says you're taking with the barriers are taking away security or we take away the sand that we give to the community each each year.

Council President counter block yes we do have those things those are city property that we use whenever we do any type of event we can use those and utilize those so you know as we go forward if we reinstitute it which we are talking about we're already looking at how can we do it different whether it's a walking tour or readjusting the amount of vehicles or just looking at it as a whole all those things would come back.

So it sounds to me then you decided to take out a fixed route and the security and we're probably going to drop in about 300 plus cars because that's the 650 people who now can't take a bus and we want them to continue which means we've got a ton of Pedestrians out there with no security with more traffic with no control Is that accurate?

Council president council block up. Yes.

We don't have anything toward the tour as of right now So so a city that it's number one in pedestrian dress just added more cars and traffic tuner to a pedestrian friendly event is what you're telling me. I

Council President and Councilor Baca, we have reevaluated it, and we are just going to continue down the path that we're going on. And if we deem it necessary getting closer to the event, things can change. But for this year, there won't be buses, and we won't be doing those other items as of right now.

So we're potentially going to create pedestrian deaths, right? That's what you're telling me. That's not a hard one. I mean, we didn't do a traffic study. There wasn't any long-term study being done, as I understand. You didn't talk to all the other neighborhoods yet, because this just came out. And I know this. You only talked to one neighborhood. You didn't talk to all the people in Old Town. You didn't talk to people in Reynolds. You didn't talk to CORE. It sounds like there's no planning that was done properly here. And the fact that I was never contacted about this, I think I can, with some confidence, say, yeah, you guys didn't actually do any really good planning here. for that one. OK, so just to move on a little bit, because I think that's a problem already. I think this also speaks to a pattern. You know last year I had a in fact we're about to introduce a bill on the portal market that one of your directors told me she wanted to kill. She didn't like it because it wasn't cost effective. You know last year I did introduce a bill for the chemo theater that is closed all the time. Right. These are cultural assets. These are the parts of Albuquerque that make Albuquerque unique and special. This is what we have in abundance in our cities our cultural aspects. And there is now a pattern of squashing Our cultural events, you know, whether it's the portal that I have to be involved with the chemo theater That's not good for the community and now our balloon fiesta or I'm sorry luminaria tour. I mean, what's next? Are we gonna are we gonna take away the Christmas parade and not call council Rogers? Are we gonna stop the Sunday cruise and not talk to councillor Pena? Are we gonna take away? buses for the balloon fiesta and not call councillor Besson I I mean, this is what I keep seeing, right? Like cultural events that are unique and special to our community. In this case, something that's gone on for 70 years and you guys are taking it away. Same way. So here's the other thing.

Can I respond, Council President? Yes, go ahead. Council President and Councilor Baca, you know, when it comes to the portal, we have been working with them. We did not try and shut down the portal. We did work with them and are continuing to work with them and also the individual who owns the retail space because we want to make that work. We have not canceled the portal. When it comes to the chemo theater, we know that there is limited access to the chemo theater, but we are currently have been for the last few months working at a wage where we can make it more available but also so that it can have more events there as we're working with some of our partners that we partner with for other venues that we have at the city same thing we're doing with the route 66 Center so to say that they're closed or that we've stopped them that's inaccurate and there are luminaries all over the city all over the city of Albuquerque and we don't have buses that go to those or designate those Yes, this has been something we've been doing for a long time, but like a lot of other things, you have to adjust and you have to reevaluate programs. And if we didn't notify you, we will take responsibility for that. But other than that, those other two events aren't canceled.

No, they're not canceled. I got involved pretty heavily. Portale's market is still going as it should, but I was involved heavily to keep that going. Otherwise, it probably would be dead right now. And the chemo theater, we're still waiting on that to get events, even though we ran an RFP last year, which was part of the deal to try and get it open. I talked to the mayor and I was like, you don't actually have to do the convention center anymore. You have a new director who's not trying to shut it down, hopefully. And so we could just get it going. We don't have to wait. And it's now like two years since that first piece of legislation went out and it still hasn't picked up its attendance. In fact, it was the only closed place I saw in Central for bands of enchantment this weekend. It was an amazing event, and the chemo theater was closed for that. I mean, that's part of it. Why are we not putting our cultural pieces together, making use of them? OK, but let's get back to the buses, because I think this is important. Because you did cite that you were giving bus drivers some time off. They wouldn't have to wear Christmas Eve. My first thing always pops to mind, because I'm a Lions fan. Ask any Lions player if they hated playing on Thanksgiving for the last 80 years. not a one's gonna say no i hated playing on thanksgiving they all loved it and and i bring that up because i grew up on the luminaria tour i rode those buses every christmas because my dad drove the luminaria tour He complained sometimes, but mostly he was happy. He was really happy because of the pay differential. We did not grow up wealthy. This is how my parents paid for Christmas. This is how we had presents under the tree with the Illuminati tour. That was that double overtime. I feel like, did we talk to the union? Did we take a poll of the transit drivers? Did we just ruin people's Christmases? Is the city the Grinch? I mean, I say that jokingly, but it's also true. That's literally how we had Christmas, because my dad made money doing this. Growing up, living in these neighborhoods, I've helped fill sandbags with my community members over the years. We'd all set up the luminarias for the tour. It was directly set up on the route of the tour. Even now, me and my kids go out there, we put up the bonfire, we set up hot chocolate and snacks, and it's for the security folks that are working the night because I'm on the route at the very beginning. We don't have as many pedestrians where I'm at, but we have a lot of security and we take care of our city employees, me and my kids. And that's now gone. To you guys, it's now gone. I think that's ridiculous that we're doing this. So I would ask, I mean, for $200,000, that's peanuts. Seriously, that's split 10 ways. What's that, $15,000 each? Although it shouldn't be even, you guys should bear the brunt of that for causing the problem. So I would ask that we come up with a solution to bring back the Illuminati tour this year. Maybe going forward, it has to be re-evaluated. I can run a resolution. I hope my colleagues here are going to support me on that. I'm getting a lot of yeses, but a few nos, maybe. But I don't I'm not done with this conversation because I think this was it was poorly handled poorly managed I don't think there's I think it's gonna cause problems. I could totally see problems Come Illuminati a time.

So, thank you Thank You council people

uh thank you mr vice president i have a couple questions for dr single i believe so i think it was a while ago we had this drama around we had to reach out to the administration if we had questions to get answers and we i thought fix that And we were now allowed to reach out directly to department directors if we had questions or if we needed input on something. I see that that's changed again. And I'm just wondering if you can walk us through how do I get information from a department director as a city councilor, please.

Madam President, Councilor Febecorn, I don't understand. How is it changed?

Well I reached out on September 8th to the director of DMD about an issue that was I think a good thing. I have X amount of dollars that I can spend on this project and there are three possibilities for this project and I would have liked to have gotten the director and the deputy director's position on which one of those would be a better way to spend the money. I didn't hear back. I sent it again on the 16th. I didn't hear back. And then I got an email back from Matthew Whalen answering my questions, which is not who I sent the email to. And so I'm just curious, has the process changed? And if so, is it changed for all counselors or just me?

Madam President, Councilor Piepakorn, I assume that I'm making an assumption because based upon what has or hasn't occurred or has not occurred in terms of changing of direction at this point I assume she was conferring with COO Whalen and they together made a decision about what the referral or what the recommendation would be and he communicated back with you. I don't think that it was a anything more than just what the two of them working together to make a recommendation. I didn't ask you to ask him to speak.

Mr. Whalen, I asked the director for her expertise because it was a project that would be through DMD. So good to hear that we haven't changed the process, but I would like the process to be what we've all agreed to, which is I can ask department directors for their advice or their thoughts on an issue and get those. And then also Dr. Singel, I had texted you back on the last meeting which was on the 9th about an issue and then I texted you again last Wednesday on the same issue and it is now the 21st and I've received no response. And so there are times when we do need to reach out to the administration and it would be great if we got answers.

Madam President Council people corn it we are conferring about the issue related to the interdepartmental it's a issue between ACS and HHH and multiple departments to think about where it's sitting and how we do those processes so gathering information that's what we're working on right now to be able to give you a more comprehensive response that's less more less than just or let me think about it.

Thank you, Madam President. I would think that just a response saying I have received your text message would have been a nice thing, but I guess not. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Council Grout.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I have a few questions this evening. First, for OMB, and so Dr. Singel, according to the DFA website, they were supposed to approve our budget by September 8th. Have you all received notice of approval yet?

Madam President, Councillor Grout, our CFO is here. Carla Martinez can probably speak to whether or not we received notice from DFA of acceptance of our budget.

Madam president councillor grout. I I'm sorry. I'm like looking everywhere, but I believe so, but I will absolutely confirm that with Kevin Noel and Send you confirmation.

Okay. Thank you madam madam CFO We I know that in the past the OMB office always lets council know and I'm I'm looking forward to hearing that. Do you think we could hear this week?

Absolutely. Okay. Madam President and Councilor Graup. Absolutely.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Mr. Vice President, I have a few more. This is for the Triple H Department. So, Madam CAO, Dr. Single, I'm sure you're aware that the Court of Appeals ruled last week that the HUD Continuum of Care NOFO that was issued in June stands as it was written. Proposals are due by September 30th. So my question is, do you have the city's application proposal ready to submit?

Madam President, Councilor Grout, the team had prepared based upon the original NOFO, so they are now just adjusting to make sure that time has passed and then additional information. The team is working towards meeting that deadline.

Very good. I'm glad to hear that. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. And my final question for this evening is, this is for APD, who pays for APD overtime during balloon fiesta?

Madam President, Councilor Grout, the city pays for, it's all part of public safety funding.

The city does, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Vice President, I'd like to take a real quick moment of privilege. I've mentioned before that my youngest grandson was born with a genetic disorder called adrenal leukodystrophy. September is adrenal leukodystrophy month, and it's also newborn screening month. In New Mexico, infants are screened at birth for over 50 conditions and disorders, and I'm very pleased about that. My grandson William and his parents live in Texas, and his disorder was discovered because of the newborn screening blood test. Adrenal leukodystrophy is caused by mutations in the AVCD1 gene, and it leads to a toxic buildup of a very long chain fatty acids that destroy the protective coating around the nerve cells. This damage affects the adrenal glands and the spinal cord and can cause blindness and paralysis. There is no cure, but since he was diagnosed early, he can be monitored and treated to slow the progression of his disease. There is promising research happening with gene therapy, and we remain hopeful. And I just want to thank you all for letting me take this moment to raise awareness of adrenoleukodystrophy and other rare genetic diseases. That's it.

Thank you, Councillor Grover. Councillor Rogers.

Thank you Mr. Vice President I just wanted to give some good kudos today and I'm kind of sad our directors aren't here to see it but hopefully you could pass it along I don't know if everybody noticed that our directors aren't here today but just wanted to say thank you I think I know that we have had some maybe some feelings about line of questioning on the dais with directors especially on the cleanliness which is why I think some of them aren't here today based on the email we received today but I have to say thank you because I it was productive actually me going through that exercise showing pictures asking the team who's responsible for these things it only happened all of the action that we received happened because I did that Sadly, I shouldn't have to do that. And I don't want to keep having to do that. I had to do that because I would repeatedly, for two, three years, ask these questions and not get proper action. I don't care about the mumbo jumbo of who we should call what, who, Gov Affairs, directors, lawyers, and Councilor Peabocorn, it's not just happening to you. I don't want you to feel like you're out on a limb on your own here because it's also happening to me with some departments, not all, because I have good relationships with most folks that we work with. But what I want to say is thank you because even though we did that exercise, I've seen action in my district. I've seen a difference in the cleanliness after we did that little exercise. Even the mayor wanted to do some social media about the lines and the power lines and the... Like he got some good social media out of it, right? So my heart is about getting action, not beating on the people who are doing the hard work. I've worked for the administration, this administration, and I know we have hard, hardworking people. And so I never want to give the impression that I'm not appreciative of the work that they do. And if they have had that impression, I am sorry, because that is not my heart. My heart is to get action for my district. And sometimes, unfortunately, we've had to use our power on the dais in front of the world to get that action and so I hope we can get back to a place where it doesn't matter who we call on your team if we need to get something done for our constituents we work together to get that done so I just want to say thank you even though that was hard and didn't feel good it was not unproductive it was very productive but I don't want to have to keep having to do that we should all do do what we need to do to take care of each other in this place called Albuquerque so Thank you to all of our amazing folks who I have seen in my district. I've seen the street sweepers, and it's not just because of Balloon Fiesta and State Fair people. So all of you naysayers on my comments and everybody up here commenting that we're just doing this for Balloon Fiesta and State Fair, that's not, that's, no. We need to do this all year round and we just see it on full display when we have these amazing things coming to our city. But I know we can do it year round. So I just want to say that I know that our teams are working hard and I want to say thank you to them. It's not always just obviously the negative is what we focus on the most and that's what travels the furthest not the positive stuff. So I just want to say thank you to our teams because I'm seeing a difference in my district even though it didn't feel good to go through that. It was not unproductive. It was very productive. So thank you.

Madam President, that concludes the questions and answers. There are no proclamations or presentations tonight.

Thank you, Vice President Champagne. So we are now on to the journal. I move approval of the September 9th journal.

Second.

There's a motion to second by Committee of the Whole Chair Grout. All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Yes. Opposed, no. Motion carries. We are now on communications and introductions. Are there any changes to the letter of introduction? EC 263, I move that the rules be suspended for the purpose of placing EC 26263 on tonight's agenda for action. EC 263 is the approval of the risk fifth supplemental agreement to add funds for outside council legal services between Holland and Hart LLP and the city of Albuquerque. There is a motion and a second by Councillor Besson. All those in favour raise your hand and say yes. Yes. Opposed say motion. Motion carries. I move approval of the letter of introduction. All those in favour say yes and raise your hand. Yes. Opposed say motion. Motion carries. We are now on reports of committee Councillor Lewis.

President of the Finance and Government Operations Committee met on Monday September 14th reports out the following items a matter of EC 230 EC 242 244 that they be approved OC 16 that it's receiving noted r65 r69 that they do pass and r67 that it do pass as amended I move to accept the report There's a motion a second by Vice President champagne all those in favor say yes and raise your hand yes oppose a motion

Motion carries. Councilors are there any with deferrals or withdrawals at this time. Seeing none we are now on to the consent agenda. Are there any changes.

Councilor Peña. Council President Peña there was one deferral that the administration requested.

Oh yes, okay, I just thought we were gonna do that when we got to it, but can you just, for the record, read the EC into the record? And this is actually for their legislative priorities. They found an error, so they just need an opportunity to make that correction.

Madam President, that's EC 246.

So I make a motion to defer EC 246. Second. There's a motion, a second by Committee of the Whole Chair Grout. All those in favor say yes and raise your hand. Yes. Opposed say motion. Motion carries. Is that to the 31st? It's October.

October.

Until the next council meeting. October 5th. Okay. So now are there any changes to the letter to the change. Are there any changes to the consent agenda. Seeing none for the individuals on tonight's consent agenda who are being appointed to serve on a board of commission. Thank you for your willingness to serve. I move approval of the consent agenda. There's a motion second by Vice President Sean Pine. All those in favor say yes and raise your hand. Opposed say motion. Motion carries. We are now on a note.

Madam President, can I see all hands again, please?

Thank you.

Thank you. And I think just for the record, we cannot abstain, right? According to motions rules, we can or cannot? We cannot, okay. Okay, just wanted to... Announcements, there will be an impact fee study session on Wednesday, September 23rd at 3 p.m. in the City Council Committee Room, 9th Floor, Suite 9003 of the City of Albuquerque Government Center. We are now on financial instruments. Councillor Brisson.

Madam President, O59 is approving a project involving Noble Prime Meats LLC pursuant to the Local Economic Development Act and City Ordinance FS0410. The city is implementing legislation for that act to support the expansion of Noble Prime Meats processing facility with the addition of cold dry storage and improvements to the HVAC systems. and smoke rooms to be located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, authorizing the execution of a project participation agreement and other documents in connection with the project, making certain determinations and findings relating to the project, including the appropriation of funds, ratifying certain actions taken previously, and repealing all actions inconsistent with this ordinance. I move a do pass. Second.

There's a motion and a second by Committee of the Whole Chair Grout for 059. Councillor Besson to open.

Madam President, I would welcome the administration to go ahead and have the team. It looks like Ms. Hermoso is here to speak.

Thank you, Madam President and city councillors, for the opportunity to present the economic development project before you. Noble Prime Meats is a locally owned, family operated Albuquerque business that opened in 2019. The company raises livestock right here in New Mexico and produces certified, all natural meats and other specialty products. Noble Prime Meats is proposing to expand its existing meat processing facility at 53, 68 Pan American, The project occupies an existing industrial facility and is appropriately zoned NRLM with no zoning changes. Noble is requesting $100,000 in LIDA assistance, including $75,000 from the state and $25,000 from the city. In return, the company will create 10 new direct jobs while an estimated six indirect and induced jobs and approximately $9 million in economic impact. The analysis projects that the city's $25,000 investment will be recouped in less than one year with an estimated city benefit of approximately $173,000. The project participation agreement establishes a five-year performance and operating commitment. In 2023, the local lead ordinance was amended to allow a five-year commitment for small and medium-sized businesses. The five-year term provides accountability while recognizing that a smaller business should not have to carry the additional cost of securing a longer obligation when the public's investment is expected to recoup well within that period. This project reflects the city's commitment to supporting small businesses. Noble is an existing Albuquerque business making a significant impact investment in its local facility, and the LIDA assistance will help the company complete improvements, purchase equipment that support their expansion, job creation, and the continued strength of Albuquerque's local economic base. O-2659 is a qualified project as defined by the state's Local Economic Development Act and the city's enabling legislation. And based on the above findings and in your packet, staff recommends the approval of O-2659 as proposed. At this time, I have Len Romano, a representative of the State of New Mexico Economic Development Department, to provide remarks regarding the state's participation in the project.

Mr.

Thank you, Madam President and counselors. I'm Len Romano with Economic Development of New Mexico, and we're pleased to support noble prime meets with $75,000 in state leader funding. One of the things I like most about this project is that it connects several pieces of New Mexico's economy. It's only a few generations ago that most people knew where their food came from. And as food production became more industrialized over the last 50 to 75 years, we lost some of that connection. But No Bull brings some of that back. They raise livestock here in New Mexico. They process it here in Albuquerque. and they create a much shorter connection between the ranch and the food on our dinner plates. And importantly, from our perspective, that means keeping more of the processing jobs and economic activity here too. They're investing in their Albuquerque operation, expanding capacity and creating 10 new jobs. This is a great example of a homegrown small business supporting New Mexico agriculture, strengthening our local food supply chain. So on behalf of economic development of New Mexico, I respectfully urge your support for Noble Prime Meats and approve 0-26-59. Thank you.

And I'd like to know, Madam President, we have Brett Rizzi, owner of No Bull, to stand for any questions if you'd like to speak to him. Thank you. I'm going to go back to Council Person. Does that conclude that?

Okay. Yes, Madam President. Thank you. Councillor Pipiquan.

Thank you, Madam President. I don't think I have any questions, but I do have a few comments. I feel like this is very different than the usual projects that come before us. Usually we're talking about good-paying jobs that have a real career path. uh... this is a very low paying jobs ten uh... that have some of the riskiest types of jobs in our country uh... meat processing is continually in every top ten every fifth every top fifteen most dangerous jobs these folks would be in it uh... and we are paying them an amount that i double check today is at about between fifty and sixty percent of our AMI so a person working these great jobs would actually qualify for like HUD housing assistance. And so I would just question why on earth we would be putting not only state money but city money into supporting a business that pays very, very low and does not provide job safety for its workers. Now, I don't think anybody here is going to be surprised that I'm voting no for this. I am an ethical vegan, but I do have to remind us all that my concerns are way beyond animal welfare. Meat processing jobs are extremely dangerous, and we should not be supporting that with our taxpayers' dollars. Economic development matters, but we should be supporting economic development that creates good jobs with career pathways, not just jobs that pay almost nothing and somebody working full time could still qualify for assistance from the government. That is just shameful in my opinion. And then I will just end by saying animals are sentient beings. They are capable of experiencing pain, fear, and suffering. Their lives have value beyond just their economic usefulness to us. I won't support anything that uses public resources to incentivize an industry whose business model literally depends on the killing of animals. And we should be ashamed.

Any additional questions from councillors? Councillor Taiz.

Thank you, Madam President. I just had a few clarification questions. The 10 new jobs, that's a 2031 target. So only two new jobs are required for us to release the 25,000?

Madam Chair, my apology. Councillor Tellez, tell me the question one more time.

Sure, sure. It looks like the 10 new jobs is a 2031 target. And so only two jobs are required by 2027 for us to release the $25,000. Is that correct?

That is correct. This is a, Madam Chair, Councilors, this is a five-year contract PPA project participation agreement, and the jobs are staggered, like you pointed out, as are the clawbacks, and both the city and the state monies will be released and counterpoint to those performance metrics.

Thank you. A couple other clarification questions. The wages are listed as about 20 to 21 per hour, but they're projections. And there's no triggers if there's a default for that. So what happens if they don't meet those projected wages?

Madam Chair, Councillor, if they don't meet either the wages, the capital investment, or the number of net new jobs within the timeframe that is outlined in the contract, then either on the front end funds would not be released or the back end clawbacks may or may not be instituted, depending on what the return of investment has been.

Thank you. Well, there aren't any callback floors, so that's why I'm asking.

The PPA does have, the company is required to have security for all of the funds that will be released, and there are callback provisions within the PPA.

I don't, maybe I missed those.

We're statutorily required to madam chair and counselors were statutorily required to have both of those things in place. Security collateral and clawback provisions to protect the taxpayers investment.

Thank you. I I also see I don't see there's a. In the in the bill the term is blank and so that conflicts with the five years is that supposed to be blank or is that supposed to have the November or the December 31st 30 20 31 date.

The madam chair councils the final dates in the governing documents are placed into the document after The ordinance has been voted on and has been approved by Council and the reason we do it that way as sometimes there are delays and these things get pushed out and so we want to make sure that dates are As appropriate as realistic as as possible. I

OK well I'm a little concerned about the final dates. I would actually move to defer so we can make sure that we have proper clarification on these items before going to a full vote because I still have concerns about the PPA clawbacks the conflicting and just the payout trenches between the city payout and the state payout. So I move to defer. I'm sorry?

I'm waiting on a second. So seeing no second, we're back on the bill. Does that conclude your question?

Yeah, thank you.

Yes, thank you so much. We don't have anyone signed up to speak. So does the admin have any comments? No? Okay. Well, with that, Councillor Passant to close. I urge your support. So there's a motion and a second by Committee of the Whole Chair Grout For a due pass of 059, all those in favor say yes and raise your hand. Opposed say motion. Motion passes 7-2. Thank you. We are now on R60. Councilor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President. R60 is relating to the approval of a redevelopment tax abatement for the Sickler Farms Development Project in Central Highland Upper Knob Hill Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency, and I move a due pass.

Second.

There's a motion and a second by Committee of the Whole Chair for a due pass of 0. R-60, I apologize, Councillor Rogers to open.

Thank you, Madam President. I don't think we have a presentation for this one not needed because this is a really exciting, a local family-owned business that's been operating on San Mateo and Lomas for the last 30 years. You may go by and get your green chili from them right now. It's green chili season. They have a chili roasting stand, and they're wanting to expand to a farm-to-table restaurant, adding businesses, local food, locally New Mexico grown food and so I'm really excited that we can offer these types of incentives for Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency to a local small business who Mr. Sickler who's been doing this for 30 years said I've never gotten any help not from the government not alone he's really done this to build his family's legacy and I'm really excited to support this and ask for your support.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers. Are there any questions from councillors? Councillor Grau.

Thank you, Madam President. I don't have any questions. I just want to make a comment. that I grew up in this neighborhood. My grandparents' home was there. And so I have known this neighborhood for all my life. And I know this stand. And I am so excited for this family and the community. I can't wait for the farm and table restaurant to come to fruition. And so I'm thrilled about this. This is really good news.

Awesome, thank you. So we have no one's time to speak, so I just wanted to verify that. Any questions from the administration? Councillor Rogers to close.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for sharing that, Councilor Grout. It really is a homegrown story, and I'm excited that a council has voted to extend the MRA zone so that we can get these amazing MRA benefits to our local small businesses, which I'm really excited. So on that, I'll end and urge your support.

Thank you. So there's a motion and a second by Committee of the Whole Chair Grout for a due pass of R60. All those in favor say yes and raise your hand. Opposed say motion. Motion carries unanimously. We are now on appeals. We have AC06 Jolin Maestas, the appellant, appeals the zoning hearing examiner's decision to approve a permit wall fence major on major front property line for the property located at 637 solar road northwest zoned R1 and we have Mr. Hall here to explain. And Mr. Hall, as you're getting comfortable there, I'm just going to, to all the presenter, anyone who is going to present on this, do you affirm under penalty of perjury that your testimony today will be true? Anybody else? Okay, back in the back. Okay, thank you.

Council President, Councilors, this is a full hearing on AC 2606. As you may recall, this is a matter in which the applicant, Taylor Tanquery, I'm pretty sure I said that name right. If not, I hope the applicant can forgive me for that, applied for a four-foot fence with a setback of 41 to 48 inches at 637 Solar Road Northwest, Council District 2. This matter is appealed by Jill and Maestas. At the city council meeting on September 9th, 2026, the city council voted 9-0 to reject the Lujo recommendation findings and hold a full hearing on this matter. Full hearing procedure is as follows. The first phase is argument, eight minutes for presentation from the appellant, 10 minutes from presentation of the party opponent to the appeal, three minutes for presentation by a response to questions by city planning staff, two minutes rebuttal by appellant, if any. The second phase is then deliberation and discussion amongst the counselors. The criteria for decision is whether the prior body acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, or capriciously, whether they erred in applying the requirements of the IDO, or whether the decision being appealed is not supported by substantial evidence. As a reminder, pursuant to our rules of procedure in the IDO, Council shall not accept new evidence and shall make its final decision based solely on the evidence at the record at the close of Lou Ho's hearing and the oral arguments of the parties. Necessarily, this means that no witness comment is permitted, only argument of the parties. We will endeavor to remain out of these proceedings unless we need to advise the Council of material that may fall outside the purview of their review. With that, I'll turn it over to the Council President.

Thank you. So the time limits were already explained. So we will start with the appellant, correct? Hi.

Hi. I'm JoLynn Maestas. I am the appellant. I live at 650 Solar Road NW directly across the street from the proposed fence, which was mostly constructed without approval before the applicant applied for a fence permit or an exception. I'm also representing my elderly widowed mother, 91 years old, who lives adjacent to the property, Mr. Tanqueray. where the fence permit and exception are requested. As my mother has dementia and still lives in the house, I have legal standing on file per section 1464 of the city's IDO, and I represent two property owners located within 100 feet of the proposed fence. First, I object to any variance of the IDO to the three foot maximum fence height requirement as outlined by the IDO. When it impacts safe site distance to adjacent neighbors' driveway, the city of Albuquerque has spent extensive time and effort and money developing the new IDO to protect existing neighborhoods while also encouraging increased housing density. The maximum height of a wall in the front yard of a residential lot shall not be more than three feet tall. Second, I want to oppose the conclusion of the Zoning Hearing Examiner Officer Robert Lucero and his findings. He did a fine job of outlining most, if not all, of the criteria needed for an IDO to approve a variance for this fence. However, he did not follow the conclusions with facts. So the IDO fact For a front yard wall taller than allowed in Table 571 of the IDO, at least 10% of the properties with low density residential development with a front yard abutting the same street as a subject property and with 330 feet of the subject property along the length of the street, the lot faces have a front yard fence over three feet. There are no... fences along the whole street along Soler, the whole entire street along Soler that have a fence three feet or over, the whole entire street. I believe Mr. Lucero took somebody's word for it, but he did not find out if that was true or not. It is not true. I'm sorry, let me get my third part. The fence materials. The fence materials has not been provided to any of the hearings that I was at, to any of the things the applicant has submitted to show what kind of a fence material he's putting up. Mr. Tancred indicated his proposed fence was transparent, which is vague and misleading. In a rough hand-drawn sketch he submitted to the city with his request for the exemption, Mr. Tanqueray sketched a hand-drawn picture of a three or four, to make it look like it was a three or four strand wire fence. It was hand-drawn. We have no proof of what his material is. The fabric that he has on the property right now is laying on the fence that's been laying on the floor, on the ground since November. is not a fence like that. It is, the fencing fabric he's proposing is a series of welded wire, four strand wire fence, welded wire panels with opening two inches wide by four inches tall and a wire diameter of 3 16th of an inch. This calculates to approximately 600 of these 3 16th inch wide vertical wires within 100 foot road frontage of Solar Road. with two-thirds of the fence posts, two-thirds of the fence posts are, with two, I'm sorry, with 10 of the three by three fence posts, they are metal poles, they're wired, they're already in, they're five feet tall, which is too tall, already there, installed at 10 feet between, That totals almost 12 feet of total opaque fencing when viewed from a vehicle backing out of my mom's driveway. So if you hold his fence fabric up and you look at it straight, you can see through it. But if you look at it sideways with all these wires and fabric, it's not opaque. It's not transparent. Although, again, he has not even shown a picture of what his fence fabric is and the hearing officer last week asked him about it too and he just said oh well and they let him go through with it. They didn't make him show what the fabric was going to be made of. Finally at the last hearing I made it clear that I'm not against the fence. I just am asking him to move it back because backing out of my mom's driveway will be unsafe. You won't be able to see oncoming traffic because of this new fence and because well, changing the fabric of the street, but mostly because you won't be able to see through that fence. Anyway, I asked Mr. Tanqueray why he couldn't just move it back, why you were against it, and his response, And the hearing officer asked him the same question. And his response was, I have my reasons. And that was it. He wouldn't give us reasons. It's a half-acre lot, nothing on it. No trees, no boundaries at all. It's totally blank. And we asked him if he could move it back, and he said no, he wouldn't. Because he already has his fence posts in illegally. Okay, that's all I have.

Thank you. So with that we will move on to presentation of the party opponent of the appeal. Ten minutes.

Good evening council members. Um, I just want to start. So my name is taylor tan query. Um, I am party in opposition to the appeal Um, I want to start by just thanking everyone for their time for being here tonight Uh, i'm going to try to be concise and brief here. I know everyone's time is valuable And I really want to avoid Any further use of time or city resources for this matter? I'm mostly going to be referencing the expert uh, uh evidence presented by both city staff and the land use hearing officer with regards to this proposed fence project. Unfortunately, so all of the concerns raised by the appellant and some of the concerns raised on the 9th last Wednesday by city councillors, these have been thoroughly addressed by both Richard Lucero, who is his own hearing examiner for the city, that was back, I believe, on April 21st, and also by the land use hearing officer, and that was Mr. Stephen Chavez, and that was, I believe, on August 18th or 19th. With regards to these concerns raised by the appellant, You know, in the words specifically of the land use hearing officer, he stated, it's undisputed that record shows that my lot size, I know this was some concern last time, the lot size is 0.45 acres. So that is within the 10% deviance that's allowed for a lot size to be half an acre, which is one of the requirements to allow for a fence to be taller than three feet. And that, I believe, is the IDO 6-6 H3A. So it meets that criteria. I know Ms. Maestas brings up several concerns. She continues to state that there are no fences or walls in our neighborhood higher than three feet. I'm I'm I'm maybe I'm misunderstanding what what the definition of our neighborhood is or what solar road is but I can list off you know a number of addresses in our neighborhood on our street that have

fences some of them as tall as four or five feet tall uh completely opaque sheet metal fencing at 1101 solar road and that's closer towards alvarado school um council president i would advise the council to disregard this information about fences that are about properties that may have fences i don't see that particular information in the record

Thank you so much. So, if you can not talk about that.

Okay. Okay. So, regardless, you know, the character of the neighborhood is specified and characterized as semi-rural neighborhoods. agricultural oriented and the design of our fence, the proposal for our fence meets that characteristic and I do not believe in any way it would take away from the character of our neighborhood. This has been supported by not only Mr. Lucero, the zone hearing examiner back in April, but also Mr. Lucero, the land use hearing officer in August, so this last month. I have a letter from, and this was discussed during the zone hearing examiner meeting back in April, April 21st, I believe. This is from our neighborhood association president's wife, Jackie Jankowski. She states that Lee Acres is a livestock friendly neighborhood. She states, we own two horses and many chickens. We keep our horses in the lot next to our house, and neighbors and people who pass by enjoy seeing the horses. Mr. Tanqueray and his family simply want to do what we already do, which is keep their horse in the lot next to their home. There are a number of other families in the neighborhood that keep horses, goats, chickens, etc. in their yards. Allowing this family to keep their horse in the lot next to their house is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. She also states, Solar Road is the main road to Alvarado Elementary School. Children will pass the horses daily and will enjoy seeing the horse and any other livestock the family keeps there. This is also in line with the agriculture orientation of Alvarado Elementary School. The school keeps chickens and has an active agricultural program. She goes on to write, the fence will have minimal impact. It will not impede sight lines, nor will it negatively affect the quality of life for neighborhood residents. I feel it will improve the attractiveness of our semi-rural, agriculturally oriented neighborhood. She urged, at this time, the planning department to approve this application and allow the project to move forward. Specifically, Again, some of these concerns as far as the lot size, the character of the neighborhood, whether other houses within 330 feet have fences or walls in the front, that bit as far as houses nearby is unfortunately immaterial to this. Given that my lot meets the acreage requirement, that's the only requirement. under, I believe it's IDO 6-6, and I believe it's H3A, so it meets that criteria, which no longer requires any houses within 330 feet to also have walls or fences. Given the full compliance with the IDO, so I worked very closely with city planners on this, my understanding is we're in complete compliance with the ordinances required per the IDO. And given the approvals from both the zone hearing examiner in April and the land use hearing officer in August, I believe issuance of a permit is appropriate. And nothing that the appellant has discussed prior to today's hearing changes those facts. That's the evidence. Those are facts. I believe it's very clear cut. That's all I have to say at this time.

Thank you. So we are now on three minutes presentation by or response to questions by city planning staff.

Good evening, Madam President, councillors. This case for a major zoning permit per IDO section 141666H is for an approval of a tall fence. which in this case it relates to a lot that is one half acre. As the applicant just explained, the 10% variance is to the requirement, which is .05 acres, which when added to the .45 acres, he does meet the one half acre requirement. Uh, in addition, he owns the lot adjacent to it. So together he owns practically one acre, which of, uh, for his joint properties. One of the other concerns that the applicant, the appellant had was the idea that it did not support the character of the neighborhood, which if you built a fence that was had the character of the neighborhood, it would be a solid masonry wall because those are the only other fences that are in that neighborhood. Um, most of them are sidewalls somewhat out of the distance that we calculate. There are solid walls in addition to, um, that are above the four feet, but they are not part of our calculations. So what the applicant has gone for is what is considered a smooth wire pasture fence. It's got the columns. And if you look at it perpendicular, which is how we calculate opacity on a fence, I mean, you see that there's a fence, but not much of a fence, rather than having a solid wall and having view fencing above that. the other concern about visibility coming out of the driveway the dmd's requirements for clear sight triangle are met the driveway is like 10 feet from the property line and therefore it wouldn't be calculated the they're very good in zoning for saying you have to pull the fence back if it blocks that clear sight triangle which it does not so the criteria really we rarely get a fence that's easily exactly what they're supposed to be providing which is a fence with visibility all the way to the ground with the exception of the posts we don't check visibility if we're standing next to it and looking at it but looking at it straightforward the applicant has initially requested a five foot fence I asked him if he would reduce it just so it would be less of a fence along the pedestrian right of way there, to which he has. He's allowed a three-foot fence in any case, and this would just allow him the added foot for maintaining the safety of animals that he was proposing to keep on the property. With that, I stand for any questions you might have for how we calculate this. Thank you.

So now we are on two minutes for rebuttal by the appellate.

Thank you. As she just said, if you look at it perpendicular, you'll be able to see through it. But if you're backing out, looking that way with all this wire fence, the material that says you won't be. But looking at it perpendicular, she just said it will be. But that's not what we're talking about. My whole point, and I told Mr. Tanker, and I've said all along, I don't care if you put a fence up, if you just move it back. That's all we're asking is you to move it back from right at the road, if you would just move it back. And I don't know if it's possible, but I would like to ask you to strike the point he said about the lady in our neighborhood that wrote the letter. She herself has an illegal fence also, so she's writing the letter in his favor because she has an illegal fence.

City Council President, Councilors, I would disregard this statement because this is not in the record.

Thank you. Okay, so now, thank you, ma'am. Deliberation and discussion amongst Councilors or any motions? Vice President Shampine.

Thank you, Madam President. This is actually for our attorney. I know we have to go off of the information that's provided in our packets. Are we able to also use personal information, personal knowledge or anything, experience of living in the neighborhood?

Council President, Councilor Shampine, unfortunately not. No. It's only what's contained on the record. Okay. Thank you.

Councilor Baca.

Thank you, Madam President. I've been looking through these photos. I mean, clearly it's all single family homes. I know everybody in North Valley likes to say they're semi-rural, which is not always accurate, but that's neither here nor there. I look at this photo, it's all subdivided. I'm a little bit surprised with our planning, Najim, that it's taking into account two separate parcels as part of the acreage. That doesn't seem appropriate. I don't know if that's accurate or not, but clearly all single-family homes. Definitely looking at these photos of the neighborhood, you don't see any other fences. The drawing here, that looks like it would seriously cause obstructing views, but obviously it does look like it was drawn by hand as opposed to an actual, like a... So... Clearly would be out of character for that for that neighborhood based on these photos So so yeah with that I would make a motion to grant the appeal and adopt findings There's a motion in a second by councillor feeble corn to grant the appeal and adopt findings any other discussion counter bucket

Vice President Champagne.

Thank you. On this actual motion, I kind of disagree with it, because looking at the picture, it shows that, yes, they are all single-family homes. In the hodgepodge, jack-o'-lantern teeth between county and city, you can't really tell which has county rules or city rules. So if anybody has walls, But looking at the satellite picture of it, this is kind of a unique position because we're talking about single-family homes that all face the street. This is one of the only lots that is included in this person's property that's on the side of their house. None of the houses, and it's hard to tell from the satellite, but it's very, it doesn't appear that any of the houses that face the street have a fence, including the one that the property owner lives in, which is just adjacent to it. This is a side yard, almost a backyard that we're discussing. So it's hard to take in the idea that none of this should be have these fences because it meets the look of the neighborhood. But none of the other houses in the neighborhood have a side yard this size. uh so we're not talking about fences in the front yard we're talking about fence on a side yard almost a backyard of the of the property so it's hard to say uh that that rule should apply or that this this doesn't fit the neighborhood so thank you counselor um no other questions counselor to close discussion yeah we're on discussion

Are we done? Everybody else? Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, no, it is. It's a property owned adjacent, but it's a separate parcel. So it would just, you know, if he's knocking down, if his house straddled it, then it would be a side yard, but it's not. It's another parcel. If somebody bought it, they could build a house there, and it would be another parcel. And just looking at those photos, just seeing it just really is clearly out of character for that neighborhood. So thank you. I urge everyone's support.

So there's a motion and a second by Councillor Feeblecorn to grant the appeal and adopt findings. All those in favour say yes and raise your hand. Yes. Opposed say motion.

No.

That motion carries 7-2. Thank you so much. So now we are on... AC07, which is the Yale Village Neighborhood Association and D. Loves Restaurants LLC appellate and appeals the zoning hearing examiner's decision to approve a conditional use for overnight shelter for the property located at 2300 Yale Southeast Zone NRLM. And Mr. Hall.

Councilor, President, Councilors, at the City Council meeting on September 9th, 2026, following a full hearing on this matter, the Council voted 6-3 to grant the appeal, reverse the decision of the ZHE, and deny the conditional use approval. Consistent with the decision of the Council, proposed findings have been drafted and have been made available to you on OneDrive and have also been provided to the parties. Per the City Council vote on September 9th, the findings can be summarized as follows. One, the appellant Yale Village Neighborhood Association does not have standing for this appeal. Two, the appellant D. Loves Restaurants does have standing for this appeal. Three, Council finds that there is substantial evidence in the record of significant, I'm sorry, appellant D. Loves have met their burden of proof to show that the ZHE erred in approving the conditional use approval. Four, the council finds that there is substantial evidence in the record of significant adverse impacts that would be suffered by adjacent properties surrounding neighborhoods and the larger community. Five, the council finds that the ZHE failed to impose the conditions that would sufficiently ameliorate the significant adverse impacts suffered by adjacent properties surrounding neighborhoods and the larger community. And six, the council finds that ZHE misapplied in not considering the substantial evidence that the ZHE erred in applying the requirements of the IDO.

Thank you. Thank you. So we're actually looking for a motion from councillors for AC 2607, correct? Correct.

Madam President, I have a motion to accept the findings.

Second.

There's a motion and a second by Councillor Baca to accept the findings. Is there any discussion amongst councillors? Seeing none, Councillor Rogers? Thank you, Madam President. I urge your support. There's a motion and a second by Councillor Baca to accept the findings. of AC 2607. All those in favor, say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Opposed, say motion. No. That passes on a 6-3. So now we are on, sorry, there are so many appeals tonight that I think I'm losing my, okay, we are on AC 09, Linmark Companies Applicant appeals the planning staff's decision to deny a signed permit for a billboard conversion to a digital billboard for the property located at 1111 Montebello Loop Zone NRGM. Mr. Hall.

Thank you, Council President, Councillors. Thankfully, the rather long list of appeals here is consolidated. So AC 2609 through 13 on request of the applicant has been consolidated for the purposes of addressing this appeal because it deals with common questions of fact and interpretation of one particular clause. Correct.

Mr. Hall, I'll stop you right there because I forgot to mention that. So this is items, several appeals, and it's items for the public C through G. Is it C through G on our agenda? Okay, so we're going to hear this all together, but we're going to do the motions individually. So, Mr. Paul, go ahead.

Council President, thank you for that clarification. That is correct. I'll briefly note that this deals with four other properties. You addressed the Montbelle Loop property. This also deals with property located 524 Montano Road, 5801 Gibson Boulevard Southeast, 4441 Osuna Road Northeast, and 3107 San Mateo Boulevard Northeast. The issue in this case is whether the planning department's denial of these five signed permits should be upheld. This case surrounds an IDO provision, IDO section 512H3B2, which I'll call the three-to-one ratio rule. THE RULE STATES THAT A NEW OFF-PREMISES ELECTRIC SIGN MAY BE ALLOWED IF THE APPLICANT CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT EXISTING OFF-PREMISES SIGNS AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES CONTAINING AT LEAST THREE TIMES THE ADVERTISING AREA OF THE PROPOSED ELECTRIC SIGN WILL BE PERMANENTLY REMOVED. THE APPLICANT APPEAL IN LINDMARK APPLIED FOR FIVE THE CONVERSION OF FIVE TRIVISION ROTATING SLAT SIGNS TO BE REPLACED BY DIGITAL SIGNS. Each sign is 10 feet by 30 feet, meaning it has a 300 square foot billboard. Planning denied these permits because applicant did not provide evidence that the applicant removed three off-premises signs equal to three times the advertising area of the billboard. LINMARK APPEALED ALL PERMITS DENIAL TO CITY COUNCIL VIA THE LUHO AND REQUESTED THESE MATTERS BE CONSOLIDATED IN THIS APPEAL THE LUHO TAKING THAT CONSOLIDATION OFF OF APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING PLANET'S DENIAL OF THE SIGN PERMITS BUT ON SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT GROUNDS REALLY IT'S JUST THIS FIRST PRINCIPLE GROUND THE LUHO'S ANALYSIS LOOKED OVER THREE PRINCIPLE ARGUMENTS First, Luho disagreed with planning that Linmark remove three signs to convert to an electric sign. Luho argued that the correct metric is not that you have to remove signs, it's that you have to remove advertising area to meet the three to one ratio. Conceivably, that could be one very large sign that's being removed. that has, in this case, 900 square feet to satisfy the 300 square foot advertising area rule. However, Luho disagreed, second, with Lindmark's interpretation that the removal of a tri-vision rotating slat sign inherently meets the three to one ratio rule. By interpreting the phrase advertising area by plain language reading and reading it harmoniously with the rest of the IDO, Luho concluded that advertising area is an area that contains advertising shown to the public at any one time, not the total advertising that's contained within a tri-vision rotating slat sign that cycles through different advertising that can only be seen by the public at one time. Third, the LUHO rejected Linnmark's argument that removal of the support structures, including poles that Linnmark intended to repurpose, was conditioned on those structures containing advertising area. The LUHO came to this conclusion by interpreting support structure consistent with other terms in the IDO, such as pull sign and freestanding sign, and applying a plain language interpretation of what a support structure might be. The LUHO emphasizes that if you were to read this way, that Linmark would suggest for these signs that THE TERMINOLOGY SIGN AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE WOULD BASICALLY COLLAPSE INTO ONE TERM WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THERE'S SURPLUSSAGE IN THE STATUTE OR IN THE ORDINANCE AND THAT'S NOT PERMITTED UNDER CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION INTERPRETATION THAT THE LUCO FOLLOWED. LUCO RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL DENY LINDMARK'S APPEAL AND UPHOLD PLANNING'S DECISION TO DENY THE SIGN PERMITS ALBEIT ON THE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FINDING THAT IT IS NOT SIGNS THAT HAVE TO BE REPLACED ITS ADVERTISING AREA. This is an accept or reject hearing. Council options are to either, one, accept LUHO recommendations and findings, two, accept LUHO recommendations and adopt different findings, and three, or three, reject LUHO recommendation. If the council chooses to reject LUHO recommendation, there is a possibility to either remand, make a final determination to grant the appeal and adopt findings, either after an additional hearing, or to make its determination. Thank you for questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Hall. Are there any questions for Mr. Hall?

Councillor Rogers. Thank you, Madam President. My question may be for planning, but maybe Mr. Hall can try. My question, I think, was just philosophically, was this before the IDEO or something that was at, I know it's in the IDEO, but why do we have this rule in the first place? And I think maybe you or the planning department can help me understand

Council Rogers, unfortunately, the IDEO text does not provide guidance as to why this rule exists. Inferentially, there is a sort of objective that is, I would say, interpreted by the Lujo in his proposed decision. But there's nothing concrete and there's nothing in the record that gives a policy reason that I can directly point to that. That's more chapter verse citation, frankly. That would provide that kind of exactitude.

I think you're looking for Thank You madam president.

I'd love to ask our director No, no disrespect to Victor, but if they have any knowledge of why we have this Madam president, I apologize for the interruption but per our rules for these types of hearings The council is only permitted to hear from its staff in these proceedings It's stuff within council services

Thank you miss cool it on.

Thank you madam president. Thank you. Miss cool it on but I asked questions of staff in the last appeal So I'm just not confused about why this one we can't ask questions madam president.

It's because council Rogers It's because we're in the accept or reject stage for this hearing Okay, thank you So, um councillor Lewis

Just some comments on this. I think this is a great example of just some some new technology that i think is is just cleaner it's not as it's not more evasive you could you know think of a a billboard that has a paper you know billboard it's uh... uh... it's got to be recycled from time to time and that that takes uh... you know tearing down a you know a large you know cover and reprinting oftentimes you have billboards i know it happens in my district that just look terrible you know i mean they look like trash because the Weather gets to them and and so they're torn up And so I mean from what this looks like to me is that it's not this is not anything That's more like evasive to the neighborhood I mean we've dealt with the LED signs and those things and I get it you know when you when you start changing the structure of a sign from a picture to a LED, and now you have light pollution and neighbors that are affected by it. But this is one that, because of the technology of it, I mean, simply the sign moves, it really just changes the messaging on it without using lights and evasive lights, things like that. It's just it's just kind of a simple form of a new a newer technology than just a paper billboard And and I think it could be beneficial These are beneficial to the community in a way that they just don't look as trashy, you know, and they don't have to be updated As much they're cleaner but yet we have a you know rule that I totally understand the Luho ruling in this way and I mean, by the way, it doesn't seem like, I mean, without having a bigger footprint, there's not a, it's not a larger sign. And so, but we still have some, you know, I think some technical, you know, rules in the code that would give the LUHO reasons to be able to rejected, which makes sense. But at the same time, I mean, this is where our process allows for the council to weigh in and be able to see some of those things. I mean, we set up these rules in the first place, and maybe to be able to see some outliers like this and some things that That may be Maybe better change that says that said I don't have a motion I just I just think this is an interesting one to where it's not typical to what a lot of the a lot of the real vast differences and in some of the signs in the past and the in the request for changes that have that really really do you know cause a lot of You know challenges with the surrounding neighborhoods. I

Council of the Sun.

Madam President, I know that in an accept or reject hearing were to vote on whether or not the Lujo acted. If there was any kind of arbitrary, capricious or fraudulent activity during the appeal process, I don't think that happened. But I also think our rules are dumb. I think that the IDO I voted against it every year except for one Which I forgot to vote against it with all the moving parts But I think that this is one of those that has an unintended consequence that we want to modernize We want to make things more efficient. We want to make things better for the city here we go again with all of our rules and We don't even know our rules exist until a company wants to make things better and then we want to say the poll that you're putting your sign on might not do the trick because we think that but what would you know about it company that does this for your existence so I don't agree that things were fraudulent, capricious, or arbitrary. I agree with what Councilor Lewis was saying. So I don't have a motion. But either way, I vote no to any motion that's going to happen on this. And I really wish that we would have seen this coming beforehand so we could have made an amendment in the IDO so that this could have been prevented.

Thank you, Councilor Peabocorn.

Thank you, Madam President. Let me just say, I also agree that there are things in the IDO that need to be updated. That is why we have now biannual updates. And a lot of things that we propose don't make it through. And so I completely understand the need for changes to that document. But that's not really what's before us tonight, unless I am completely misunderstanding how these things happen. What's before us tonight is, the LUHO handle this matter in a way that is consistent with our current rules and our current rules are pretty clear and our job is to interpret whether or not the law that is the IDO that this body has passed every year and then now every two years has been met and it has not and so I guess I'm agreeing with with the comments right I think there are lots of things that need to be updated but given the current rules that are on the books of the city of Albuquerque and our job as adjudicators of those rules I will make a motion to accept the Louisville recommendations and findings there's a motion in a second to accept the dilute whole recommendation and findings any other comments on that counselor feeble corn to close I think it's just important that we remember what our rules are and that we apply them evenly no matter who's calling and making you know making requests and who's the appellant and who's the who's appealing what we have a really really strict set of guidelines in the IDO that I think we should follow

Thank you. So all those in favor of accepting the LUHO recommendations and findings, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Opposed, no? No.

Council person madam president. I just want to make sure to clarify it there It just seems like it was indicated that there were calls made to indicate there were some conversations or whatever based off of the last comment Nobody contacted me. Nobody called me. I just want to be very clear that I My comments were based off of what I had with staff and so I just calls were not made at least to me and I don't know if anyone else might misconstrue that comment and so I wanted to make sure to clarify and be very clear on that I

So we're gonna go on to, yeah, Mr. Hall, hold on one second. So we're gonna go on to the rest of the accept or reject, but as I mentioned earlier, we went over everything initially, so really we're just gonna go through the motions at this point. So we're on item D under the accept or reject, and this is AC10, landmark companies, appeals of planning staff's decision to deny a signed permit for a billboard conversion to a digital billboard for the property located at 524 Road Northwest. And councillors, are there any questions on this one? If no questions, Councillor Feeblecorn.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that we accept the LUHO recommendations and findings. Second.

There is a motion and a second to accept the LUHO Recommendations and findings. Councilor Feeblecorn to close. I urge your consistency. All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Opposed no. That motion passes on a 7-2. Now we are on, are we on D or E? E. OK, they see 11 then mark companies appeals. The planning steps decision to deny a signed permit for a billboard conversion to a digital billboard for the property located at 5801 Gibson SE. And again, counselors are there any questions? Council people corn.

Thank you Madam President. I moved to accept the Lou Hill recommendations and findings.

There's a motion and a second by Councillor Tejas to accept the Lujo recommendations and findings. Any discussion? Councillor Pipilorni, close. I urge your consistency. All those in favour, say yes and raise your hand. Opposed, no. Motion carries. So we are now on AC 12, Linmark Company's applicant appeals planning staff's decision to deny a signed permit for a billboard conversion to a digital billboard for the property located at 4441 Osuna Road Northeast. God almighty. Anyway. Councilors, are there any questions? Councilor Fibicorn.

Madam President, I move to accept the LUHO recommendations and findings.

There's a motion for consistency. There's a motion to second by Councillor Tejas to accept the Lujo recommendations and findings. All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Opposed, no. No. Motion carries 7-2. We are now on G, the final item under this. And this is AC 13, Denmark Companies. appeals the planning staff's decision to deny a signed permit for a billboard conversion to a digital billboard on the property located at 3107 Boulevard Northeast. And, um, councillors, any questions?

Councillor Feeblecorn? Madam President, I move to accept the Lujo recommendations and findings.

There's a motion and a second to accept the Lujo recommendations and findings by Councillor Tejas. Any questions? Councillor Feeblecorn to close. Urge your support. All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Oops, I did it again. I wasn't consistent. Okay. All those opposed, no? No. Motion carries 7-2. So now we are on general public comments. Members of the public can provide live public comments to the council in person or virtually if they have signed up for public comment per the instructions published on the agenda and or our website Friday. As a reminder, pursuant to our rules of procedure, Article 1, Section 8C, general public comment shall not be permitted on quasi-judicial matters. Please do not include in your comments anything related to any quasi-judicial matter, including proposed site plans, zone map amendments, or the seven Luho appeals we just heard. AC 2606, AC 2607, AC 2609, AC 2610, AC 2611, AC 2612, and AC2613. Failure to comply with this rule may result in your comments being cut off. Please take a moment to edit your comments. Here are the public comment ground rules. Each participant will have two minutes to present. Comments are to be addressed to the councillors only through the council president. Any disruptive conduct will result in removal from the meeting. There is a two minute time limit and the bell will ring to indicate your time is up. And we have no Mr. Cornelius.

Thank you, Madam President. Our first speaker is Tad Naminsky, followed by Kathy Yandel.

Thank you. My name is Ed Niemiecki. Well, what happened to me last meeting after midnight? With security, they acted by themselves? Or who gave the order? Security? Lieutenant? or directors of city council. That's for sure wasn't Claricia Pena who is president and her also yelling screaming when I was being escorted, one, two, three, warning. Well, that is mental illness. problems well that's right we offered some mental problems but to the to being in the position that makes difference so now here is another issue i spoke against hpd Servo Times. I was leader protesting 2014 against overhaul. Here is, we have cops. When, how easy to forget, people forget when a helicopter Stop at the first start of Krispy Kreme. Cream, pickin' up, donuts.

Thank you.

Kathy Yandel.

Kathy Yandel, followed by Letz Otwo. Let's OPPO followed by Brick Jonesy.

Madam President, council members, and the new attorney of the works, I guess you might say. I guess for the benefit of the new attorney, I'd like to just bring it to his attention that for the last year and a half, I've brought it to the council's attention that I've discovered in my investigations as a public investigator that the current municipal police in Albuquerque have not signed their oath of office. According to Article 20- Excuse me, sir.

I don't want to disturb you from your public comment. Well, you are. The rules state that you must direct your question and your comments to me as the council leading person here.

So please, if you would, direct them to me. And I'm looking at the person that I'm benefiting.

Please direct them to me.

Now that you've got me totally frustrated, sir, Maybe that's the intent. Because you don't want the new clerk or the attorney for your city to understand that the police have not signed their oath of office according to Article 20, Section 1 of the New Mexico Constitution, sir. Which means that they're currently committing the breaking of the law. You can have a policy with your SOPs for the police that simply says that they have to take an oath, but you also have a law that says that it's required to be signed. And I'd like to thank Ms. Grout for meeting with me today to try to resolve another matter about your family advocacy center that your police seem to think that they can trespass members from the public when they go into a public access area to conduct business in a private building, where the security there thinks that they can run around without uniforms on and eject people and assault people. And when those same people get confronted by the police officers that come on scene, they're told, Yeah, they're just First Amendment people. Yeah, they go to city council. They cause problems. The mayor staff's well aware of them. We're tired of it. You're being sued for trespassing me from a police station. This family advocacy center doesn't even want to be investigated by the Civilian Police Oversight Committee. And when we try to bring that to your OIG, he doesn't even let us in because we have cameras.

Thank you.

Brick Jonesy, followed by Rebecca Green.

Council President, councillors, two minutes, man. I feel like a king. Apologies to the city and everybody for not being here last meeting. I decided, myself and Les decided that we would go to the CPOA to get some public comment and kind of skipped out. uh but i do appreciate all the concerns and all the uh the the worries you know really do appreciate that it does let us know that you do care but with that said just to piggyback off of what let's was saying um you know it is something that is is very concerning uh because you guys do preach about rules when you're up there you talk about the rules that you got to follow procedure all that stuff You know, but for some reason, the police here in Albuquerque are getting a pass. Specifically on the oath of office, you know, the oath of office, sign the oath. Sign it. I know you guys missed that, so just had to say it. But the point is that it's not just the oath. It's also their actions when they trespass people unlawfully from publicly accessible resources. like the Family Advocacy Center. If somebody goes in there inquiring about something that one of these public offices, including APD, has, the DIT, the Digital Intelligence Team. I'm assuming that you guys like that program. You get to observe and make sure that the youth are staying out of trouble. So when a reporter or press comes in asking, inquiring about something like that, it would behoove you to be, you know, accepting and say, yes, this is something we love. We love making sure that our youth are staying out of trouble. But instead of that, it's, what are you doing here? You got a camera? Get out of here. And it's not just the police. It's those fake security officers, fake security officers, as let's point it out. Sign the oath.

Thank you.

Rebecca Green, followed by Miguel Alvarez.

Hello, Madam Chair, Vice, sorry, Madam President, Vice Chair, and members of the council. My name is Rebecca Green. I'm here speaking about the Tufts-Sherbian Preservation Settlement Act that should have been set in perpetuity that was created 23 years ago. The stated justification by Sandia Pueblo for seeking to dismantle this act, which took 20 years to put together and millions of dollars to reach only a few short years ago, is management concerns. We've been told that there are problems with litter, vandalism, climbing routes, enforcement, and cultural protection on the mountain. We don't disagree that there are standard recurring issues that almost all recreational areas encounter. That's why multiple volunteer services and the Forest Service And groups on the mountain are taking care of these things consistently. If the Pueblo believes that there is more to do, we're not sure why they're not up there actually helping with this. Senator Martin Heinrich has proposed bringing all the parties together for a task force to accomplish this even more effectively. We've been told that the Pueblo has now declined to join this task force to help manage and clean up the mountain. and that they are seeking only at this time to continue wanting to move the 10,000 acres of Sandia Mountain into the reservation itself. The tram understands the vast implications of this situation and they've retained legal representation, again, just as they did for decades when this was happening 20 years ago. Economic vitality, quality of life, environmental protection, and public infrastructure are the current stated goals of this council and this mayor. Losing access and management of this mountain will devastate the tourism industry, the tax base, the healthcare infrastructure, the recruitment strategy for Sandia Labs, the hospitals, and the future quantum technologies that Albuquerque wants to bring into town. And yet we've already been through all of this with a fine-tooth comb 20 years ago. It took us 20 years to get there. And yet here we are again dealing with this basically from scratch. And yet the Pueblo had co-architected this from the beginning. We ask you to support the task force, please. Thank you. Thank you.

Miguel Alvarez, followed by Dr. Alexander Jenks.

It's been about three to four years since everybody started putting cameras all over the streets of Albuquerque, but yet these cameras do not stop the speeders, the drunks, and the people that are breaking the law all the time. I started walking a couple of months ago, and I almost got hit by a car that ran a red light, even though the red light was heavy and shown for all the other vehicles. Now, when are you guys going to start doing roadblocks and start getting some of these idiots off the street? We got a lot of people that have been coming in from other states, and they bring their garbage with them. They're not driving the way we drive, and they're not obeying the laws that we got. These cameras are useless, these cameras are foolish, and these cameras are wasting a lot of our money. If you decided of putting cameras up on these poles to keep these cops from doing their job, that's exactly what you're doing because a lot of these officers are not enforcing the law anymore. They're just putting on their uniforms to get a paycheck and everybody else is breaking the law. So when are you guys going to start doing roadblocks and start checking for people that are driving without license, insurance, and without license plates on their vehicles? There's a lot of them doing it because my insurance keeps on going up every month. I know a lot of people's insurance are going up and up instead of down and down. There's a lot of people that are speeding, drunk driving, and a lot of them got warrants on them. So when are you guys gonna get smart and start doing some roadblocks? When are you guys gonna do away with these cameras that are useless? Nobody answers, right? Because nobody knows what you guys are gonna do from one day to the next.

Thank you, Mr. Alvarez. It's always nice to see you.

Dr. Alexander James followed by Dr. Lisa Christopherson. Dr. Lisa Christopherson, followed by Art Goodman.

Thank you. My name is Lisa Christopherson from District 2, speaking here today. Thank you, Councillors. I do not envy your jobs. I'm speaking in favor of humanity, and so, Councillor Champagne, I will direct my comments to here, but it truly is intended for the public about our mayor. I feel like our mayor has disdain for human beings. It's evidenced in how the administration is... As you said, Baca, I feel has disdain for our traditions, has disdain for our heritage, has disdain for things that we've been doing in this community for decades and years in different communities and the traditions that we have created within our community. And we see that in the way that human beings are being treated. This weak leadership is... Utilizing totalitarian methods, it's evidenced by the increased police presence that we have in these chambers, on different streets, how they're treating the John Brown, who have been serving for nine years, and they have been providing a service for the community. The city reached out to them when the city wasn't able to provide John Brown Breakfast Club. They stepped in. they didn't get paid they provided the own food the volunteers not paid by the city and here we have the city having the audacity to tell them they're going to give them a free permit and let them serve in front of a substation in front of marquette the whole thing was to bring food to where people are at and have it be safe they offer a medical they offer they do haircuts i mean it's a full service free to the community why are we going against them So then we have also people in the community can say all sorts of things of this is happening or that is happening. Where's the evidence? Where's the proof that there's needles here or that there's, you know, the people sleeping there? And, you know, yes, we have all of that, but we can as community help with that. The police are not the only solution. We can work this out together. Please do not use police. They are killing us. Thank you.

Art Goodman, followed by Jim Dennis.

Madam President and other members of the council, I'm here to talk to everybody tonight about the increase in the city dump fees for people without water bills to $12. For people like myself or renters or formal condominium owners, you don't have a water bill. And so I'm afraid what this is going to do is this is going to increase illegal dumping. we all know that we already have a lot of problem with that in the city we have a lot of problems with vagrancy we have some vermin like rats and what that increases by illegal dumping i'm saying that you can only use your water bill what about a driver's license what about a p m bill and i don't think that well i've talked to the people that dump because i go there frequently i have a small landscaping business and the reply is you have to use a water bill and i just don't see how that's fair, and I don't see how that's going to work out for anybody in the end. What I'm suggesting we do is perhaps that if we need more revenue, and it's been a long time, I know since they've raised it, maybe just a general raise from five and a quarter an hour to six an hour. I think that that would be fair, reasonable, and would work for everybody. Most people you pay with a five and a one, and instead of getting back three quarters, you would get back nothing, but that's okay. I think that's very fair. Also, Montessa Park is being cut down to three days a week, and this, like the new increase to $12 an hour for those who are, it's supposed to stop, I guess it's supposed to be for county or non-city residences to $12. This is going to take effect. the 28th a week from today so it's three days a week the lines when you go to the eagle rock up in the north i think that's in your district that's already sometimes a quarter mile long and that's just going to increase a lot of a lot of tension and those poor cashiers that's a very hard job as it is to deal with the public day in and day out Some of them are going to be very irate. I don't have $12, especially in this time. We all know that gas is getting more expensive. Rent is getting more expensive. Food is getting more expensive. So I'm just suggesting that maybe we take another route. Thank you.

Thank you Council grow. Thank you, madam president. I'm Mister Whalen I wanted to ask about that when we went through the budget process and you wanted the increase in explain why you're having this increase and we did talk about having IDs to show and I don't remember it. I don't recall it saying that you just had to have your water bill to show.

The council president comes about you can use an ID I don't know if he was given this information, but it can be any form of ID or the utility bill that you have that shows you are a resident of the city of Albuquerque. So those are the people who will maintain paying the rate that they've always paid. It's out-of-city residents that are raised to $12 that was approved in the budget.

Correct. So, Mr. Whalen, you can use any utility bill or your ID.

Madam President, Council, yes.

Thank you.

Councilor Graff. Rogers thank you madam president I just want to make sure the gentleman left and didn't hear that answer so if we share his information can you just get that to him as well because I think he left and didn't hear that information so he can make sure he doesn't have to council president and council Rogers yeah we have his email here on the list thank you thank you Mr. Moyer Jim Dennis followed by Don Starr

Don Starr followed by Grace Dukes.

Madam President and members of the council, I'm here to oppose any support of transferring 10,000 acres of Sandia Mountain into the Sandia Pueblo Reservation. Why is this so urgent? Because Representative Melanie Stansbury has stated in every public town hall she's held that these are Sandia Pueblo's lands and they will be repatriated to them. She has canceled all meetings with affected neighborhoods and six attempts to reschedule. The change she supports without any consultation from the public would change jurisdiction, fire response, utility access, emergency response, road maintenance, and most critically, access for everyone in Albuquerque. Coach T. Pueblo recently closed Forest Service roads and blocked access to private landowners and public access to the forest. Laguna Pueblo barricaded County Road 36 and Santa Domingo Pueblo is about to barricade public roads to private property this week in Santa Fe. As another speaker stated, Sandia Pueblo is not interested in engaging to resolve management concerns. Given this, why would we imagine they would be interested in keeping long-established access, trails, trams, or roads open when they've stated that these areas and activities are currently considered trespassing to them? Sandoval County Manager Wayne Johnson has publicly said that Sandoval is prepared to rescind its support if this is actually an ownership transfer. Bernalillo County Commissioner Walt Benson has publicly opposed the transfer and called for the 2003 preservation settlement to remain in place. Senator Heinrich has proposed strengthening co-stewardship and starting a task force to resolve all the issues now. I urge you to openly oppose any transfer of ownership and support the 2003 agreement designed to last in perpetuity. And please join the task force, thank you.

Grace Dukes followed by Althea Atherton.

It is clear that you all, under the cover of a completely corrupted federal government, have chosen to act in favor of corporations over the people who elected you. Over and over, the people come to this podium and tell you the same things. And over and over, you ignore them. We get frustrated. We act out. And then what do you do? That is your response every single time the people express frustration at your corruption. You failed to remember the 71 votes separating you and your opponent last election. You failed to recognize the 153 separating you and your opponent from the last election. Margins that thin should make you listen louder, not bang louder. What do you say to those voters, the ones responsible for you sitting up there right now? You're banging the gavel at your own constituents. People suffering at the hands of a police force with no accountability and an ever-increasing budget. People dying and dying and dying. And what do you do? You say our grief is out of order. You say our anger is out of order. You say our demand to be heard is out of order. Well, you are out of order, Madam President. You, you, you, you, you, you're out of order. Every one of you sitting up there protected by procedure while the people you serve bury each other, you are out of order. This chamber, this process, this performance of order while real harm compounds outside these doors, that is what's out of order. That is what violates decorum. I'm out of order.

Thank you, Miss Dukes. I think we're not supposed to have props, correct? So, yeah. And that was out of order. And if you actually bring it again, you will receive warnings accordingly. Thank you, Miss Dukes. Appreciate you.

Althea Atherton, followed by Sanford Ballard.

Madam President, I just wanted to say thank you for entrusting me with a second term on the Transit Advisory Board. There's no time like the present to strengthen public transit. I know many of us are feeling the effects of high gas prices on our family budgets, and I also know that an estimated one-third of people in Albuquerque do not have driver's licenses, and that percentage is expected to grow as our population ages. Serving on the tab has been an honor and I really look forward to continuing the civic duty over the next three years and in celebration I invite you madam president your colleagues on the City Council and and everyone who's here today to participate in the National Week Without Driving, which takes place from October 1st to October 8th. And yes, I know that's balloon fiesta, and no driving to Don Patrol when the 140 bus doesn't run on the weekends is a very tall ask. But this challenge does not require full abstinence from driving. You do not have to fully abstain from driving. It does require, though, full awareness and empathy of how people like me navigate this city. I encourage you all to keep a diary of when you go places. If you do use your car, look up how long it would have been on the bus. Look up how much it would have cost you to take an Uber instead of using your own car so you can know what people like me are living in this city right now. And also the other part of this challenge is if you have not ridden an ABQ ride yet in this year, 2026, it's time to do the important role and work of oversight and find a time to ride the bus. Even if you just replace one car trip with a ride on the bus in the coming weeks, I would be so grateful. And I challenge you to see this bus system as the veins of our city like I do, circulating thousands of students, workers, parents, mentors, neighbors, and families where we need to go. I think you're going to find that there's many ways that our system has improved in recent years under the leadership of Director Leslie Keener, but we also still have a significant amount of work to do. And I continue to be an eager resource, available to answer any questions, go for ride-alongs, anything you want to talk about the bus system, I'm here for you. Thank you.

Dr. Sanford-Ballard, followed by...

I apologize. Councillor Rogers. Sorry, thank you, Madam President, for the moment of privilege. I just wanted to say also congratulations to Althea because she was our Volunteer of the Month for July. Not only is she serving on our board for transit, but also she's one of our rock star ambassadors on the transit bus helping navigate, and she got Volunteer of the Month, and I'm just so grateful for your service, so thank you.

Thank you Madam President. Dr. Sanford Ballard followed by Charles Newman. Charles Newman followed by Marlena Addison. Marlena Addison followed by Anthony Womack. Anthony Womack followed by Dr. Karen Mahajan. Dr. Karan Mahajan followed by Jonah Bearden.

Jonah Bearden followed by Mama Z. Madam Chair and counselors, may I use the overhead? My name is Jonah Bearden. I live in District 7, and I represent the undergraduate student government of UNM as a senator. This morning, we made the front page of the Daily Lobo. DOJ files suit against state over scholarship eligibility for undocumented students. ASUNM resolution affirming student support for state policy awaiting final vote. I'm excited to vote upon it this Wednesday and bring it hopefully across your desks so we can begin discussing how the council can help protect our own student body here. A little bit now transitioning onto AI. I've been involved with both UNM's AI Steering and Rules Committee and New Mexico's AI Caucus. I hope that research informed city and state policies could be beneficial with collaboration across the entire governance spectrum. I appreciate the establishment of the Emerging Technologies Advisory Board and all of the policies surrounding it. And I'm looking forward to potentially helping coordinate that process in every sphere. I want to say please support our unhoused siblings. The mayor has no spine in supporting them, and they're also just criminalizing them. It's not okay. To my uneducated people pushing against the land reform movement, it's always land back. APD and private security are behaving like terrorists. Please help. You guys have all of the power. You guys have the toolkit. We're all out here crying for your guys' support. The solutions are there. And I think that it just takes a little bit of more communicating, a little bit more connecting, a little bit networking. And I think that these are some really great places to start. Thank you, guys.

Yes, followed by I'm sorry, it's joy. I'm councillor Terry tears and then thank you madam president. Thank you.

Mr. Maria Mr. Bearden, I wanted to thank you for bringing that up to our attention. I also want to share the UA UNM Faculty Union does have a international legal defense fund for any dues-paying bargaining member who does not hold United States citizenship and I would urge you to reach out to the Faculty Union with ASNMSU and see if you can work together to develop a process. I know The union worked really hard to ensure that we are able to cover expenses for members who are facing emergency immigration proceeding to protect their right to due process of the law. So if you are a faculty member at UNM and you do not hold United States citizenship, the union does provide a legal defense fund for them to use and we would be happy to work with you in developing something for students as well. Thank you.

And thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to quickly say Mr. Bearden's like the fifth person that's reached out to me asking about how to apply for the Emerging Technologies Board. And I know that it just passed and it's not up. But I was going to ask if we could please prioritize getting that online so that folks that are interested can put in their applications. I just don't know how long to tell them to wait, but there are lots of folks in our community very interested.

Mr. Moyer. Thank you, Madam President. Mama Z, followed by Rhiannon Samuel on Zoom. Rhiannon Samuel, followed by Sally Didratke.

Good evening, Council President Pena and members of the Council. My name is Rhiannon Samuel and I'm Executive Director of CREDA New Mexico. I know that I talk to you all often at both publicly and privately in private conversations, but I think it's a point worth mentioning to you as city leaders to see what's keeping Albuquerque from growing and being a more welcoming city for residents and investors alike. When housing providers and businesses look to invest in Albuquerque, they need a land use process that is predictable, transparent, and fair. Clear, consistent development procedures are essential to supporting housing production and economic development and local job growth across our city. Every time a project faces excessive red tape, duplicative reviews, or unnecessary delays, Our community loses out on essential services, new homes, hospitals, grocery stores, and job opportunities. These prolonged delays drive up costs, create significant barriers to building up a vibrant places where our residents live, work, and play. We look to this council to be intentional and thoughtful about removing administrative obstacles that stall progress. In your letter of introduction, there are several bills by Councillor Lewis that do just that. By establishing balanced, accessible, and efficient standards, you can protect meaningful community participation while welcoming the responsible investment Albuquerque needs to survive. Thank you.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Sally ,, excuse me, followed by Janet Sayers.

Good evening, Madam President and council members. My name is Sally. I'm a mom to three little kids and we are listening to the city council meeting live at my crafting group. Tonight we are making kites to honor children that have been murdered in Gaza during genocide happening there. But what I wanted to comment on, many of us are parents. And I'm so proud that we have so many parents to young kids serving on the Albuquerque city council that represents representation really matters. People should not have to choose between their families, their jobs, and serving the community. There are conversations happening right now surrounding technology in our schools. So it's been on my mind and I wanted to call attention to a way technology can work with civic engagement. I absolutely think in person participation matters, but I was extremely concerned by counselor Lewis suggesting that counselors may be required to attend his committee meetings in person. And it seemed targeted at a counselor balancing caring for their young child in a family with two full-time working parents, which is very common in Albuquerque. This is a time when technology can serve a community purpose. If we want working people and parents to participate in local government, people who truly represent the community and not just business interests, we need to be thoughtful and selective about requirements that create unnecessary barriers. We support accessibility for moms in government.

Janet Sayers, followed by Justin Rogers.

See, I think I just turned on my video and my, yes, thank you so much. Good evening, Madam President, members of the council, and I am here tonight as the chairperson of the Library Advisory Board. I'm Janet, excuse me, and I do live in District 9. I just wanted to comment about the challenge of the city continuing to construct new facilities while at the same time, literally hundreds of its buildings are in the lifespan of 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 years old, and needing basics like HVAC, roofs, plumbing, and electrical. The 2025 bond issue had $1 million. The entire library renovation for 16 buildings was only $1 million. You'll be working on the 2027 bond issue coming up, and I do hope that there will be more than $1 million for the 16 library buildings. But in the meantime, we do continue, the library board has been advocating to get capital outlay, again, this coming 2027 session, as the costs of the HVAC at the main downtown library continues to escalate. Thank you for your time and attention. And I would like to add, we've been celebrating the 100th birthday of Route 66, but next year is the 100th birthday of the Kimo Theater, constructed in 1927. And I do hope the city will proudly plan many events around this unique, very special building. Thank you for your time and service.

Justin Rogers, followed by Patricia Wilson.

Good evening, Madam President and Council. I appreciate getting a two minute public comment tonight, but I don't think I'll need it. I'm going to try and just rapid fire these points here. Number one, I think it's bad to close Robinson Park in my neighborhood. I've lived nearby, I've never felt unsafe, but I feel like now you're creating three times a day for police encounters with people that could turn deadly. I know maybe that's not the council's decision, but wanted to mention that for the administration. Number two, we hear a lot about people being offered services and refusing them. So I think we should not be closing a shelter on Yale where people receive services. I'm sorry to hear about that decision. Number three, just thought of this from another commenter, I think we should give to the Pueblo land back to the Sandia Pueblo. When we say land back and have an opportunity like that part of the Sandia Peak, let's take it. Number four, I'm pleased to hear multiple councilors now are um engaging in participatory budgeting in one form or another um that's awesome to hear and i hope it continues to expand and number five um the week coming up october 30th and 10th is national week without driving so i'm going to try and many people i know are going to try seeing how we can get around the city with nothing but buses and bikes and i encourage you all to try it too and see what challenges there are thank you patricia wilson followed by courtney bryan

Madam President and counselors, items on tonight's letter of introduction may serve to further marginalize neighborhood associations. In a phone call today with the sponsor, I was told that O2661 would actually strengthen neighborhood associations. I personally do not see how that's possible. I will not bore you with statistics regarding the loss of associations since the 2022 revision of the neighborhood association recognition ordinance. Not only does O2661 revise the narrow again with no public input and in violation of the prescribed IDO amendment process, it removes all language requiring the developer to quote, act with diligence and good faith, promote collaboration and listen with respect to neighborhood concerns, end quote. It also makes the contact information for the two designated points of contact publicly available rather than by request. That could be the death knell for neighborhood associations. And as I always write my script for one minute, I'm done. Thank you very much.

Courtney Bryan, followed by Mike Voorhees.

Mr. Moya, one second. I'm sorry. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam President. Ms. Wilson was referring to the four bills that were introduced tonight. Because they're public and introduced, I mean, this is one of those forums. And so, you know, appreciate the comments on it. These bills will go through all the public comment that's necessary, discussions by the council, and most importantly, I want to make sure they have enough discussion where everyone understands them and the many miscarriages that often come up. that there's an opportunity to be able to ensure that people know exactly what the bills do. But these bills do empower neighborhood associations, and that's the intention. In fact, I believe that many of the decline in true neighborhood associations that represent their area that should have a say in uh... the in what happens in you know uh... uh... that that that i think the reason for that is because uh... the coalitions have have you served that power that we've given them and we've given coalitions a whole lot of power to do that and sometimes to the tune of representing you know up to four council districts and you know we don't give that kind of recognition recognition and therefore you know those associations coalitions have the kind of power that's that's second to none other than the mayor in this city when it comes to You know what happens in our neighborhoods and so you'll make no mistake about it these these these bills They do strengthen they empower our neighbor associations the only real change that they make is You know limiting the recognition of coalitions because we want the neighborhoods to have the the real, you know power and strength and say and standing in what happens in our neighborhoods, our communities. And so definitely encourage you if you're listening to this to read those bills and you're welcome to be a part of the discussion in every way. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Mr. Moya.

Thank you, Madam President. Courtney Bryan, followed by Mike Voorhees.

Counselors, thank you so much for your time. I'm here regarding Sandia Pueblo's proposed land transfer. And before I jump into it, actually, to Justin's point two speakers ago, there's a big clap of land back to which we do believe Sandy is for All, which is a nonpartisan group of volunteers who are working to spread public awareness about this proposal, that all of North America does belong to Native Americans. That said, this proposed land transfer will take 10,000 acres of federally protected wilderness and transfer it from the Department of Agriculture, of which it is currently managed by the US Forest Service and Sandia Pueblo today into a private trust for the Pueblo. Now keep in mind Sandia Pueblo has less than 500 members and there are 65,000 other registered tribal members across New Mexico and 18 other Pueblos that thereby will have compromised access to these lands. We believe that these lands are a free and natural resource for Native Americans and everyone alike. We want to make sure that they're protected for all persons, not just Sandia Pueblo members. So we ask that you please help us maintain the 2003 Toph Sherbian Preservation Act, which was put into Congress in 2003 after many, many years of litigation to protect all interested parties. It was set into effect to protect the public's cultural and religious rights to the land, as well as public access to these beautiful lands. We believe that they are a critical natural resource for Albuquerque. We believe that they are a place of refuge for people seeking mental, mental haven, I mean, from a maddening land. And we believe that in a disparaged society in which we do have compromised public health and we do have compromised, you know, education systems, that this is a gorgeous resource that we really want to protect and maintain for all. So we do ask that you please oppose this proposed land transfer, work with us in the task force to mitigate the Pueblo's management concerns, and keep the ownership under the Department of Agriculture where it can be protected as federally designated wilderness for the Pueblo and for the public alike. Thank you very much.

MIKE BOYLE. Mike Voorhees, followed by Joanne Wright.

Madam President and Councillors, this is the dystopian future George Orwell warned us of. Councillor Lewis's press release is the finest example of doublespeak I have read in a long time, stating that his proposed legislation aims to empower Albuquerque neighborhoods when it in fact is designed to gut or eliminate neighborhood associations, HOAs, and neighborhood coalitions in order to silence their voices. Apparently, Dan is tired of losing in court and wants to change the rules. We are tired of hedge fund investors forcing more car washes, self-storage facilities, high rent apartment complexes, and endless fast food drive-throughs onto our communities. Counselor Lewis's four bills drip with the same hostility for which he was called out by the judge in his attempt to illegally remove view protections for Petroglyph National Monument. Councillor Lewis has cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in legal work for his unlawful actions and refusal to admit he is wrong. And now, even after signing a settlement agreement with the State Ethics Commission requiring him to recuse from all matters relating to the Asphalt Pavement Association of New Mexico or any of the members of APANM, he is sponsoring legislation designed to benefit APANM uh development projects at the same time by targeting neighborhood organizations based upon false allegations with these punitive measures counselor lewis's legislation is a prime example of unconstitutional bills of attainder at least his antics give counsel the opportunity to refresh their understanding of the constitution by sponsoring this ill-conceived and unconstitutional legislation he is in violation of the settlement agreement and should be held accountable and his proposed legislation should be sent straight to composting. Thank you.

So, Madam President.

Councillor Lewis.

Madam President, and then, again, this is a public forum, you know, I mean, you can use public comment to say anything you want. And, you know, even, you know, executive committee, committee members of coalitions, of neighborhood associations that are undemocratic, that abuse neighborhood associations that have abused the city's process Can come and say whatever they want, you know, there's a few of them like mr. Voorhees who just You know appeals everything Everything that that every good idea on the west side that neighborhoods want is Oftentimes goes through a legal process, you know abusive of our city Processes and ultimately to to district court and often there, you know from gentlemen like, you know, mr boy Voorhees Who just make accusations and just crazy? you know, say things that just aren't true. So, again, you could say anything, but that doesn't mean that, you know, I mean, you can get a response, you know, and people know the truth about it. But, again, these bills do not in any way limit neighborhood associations. They certainly don't devastate neighborhood associations. They could devastate coalitions, and that's why you're seeing the response from someone like Mr. Voorhees. So I make no bones about it that they simply do not recognize, I mean, changes so the city does not recognize coalitions, which again are led by folks like Mr. Voorhees. They're undemocratic. their political organizations many times, and they've abused our neighborhood associations. And so, again, you can say anything you want in public comment, but that doesn't mean that, you know, that a counselor can't, you know, say. And by the way, there's, from, you know, introducing these bills, just like any other counselor, you know, certainly doesn't, you know, violate any kind of recusals that counselors are normally having to, Make because we're citizen, you know, we're citizen Lawmakers and so anyways what you know these bills will come up the next meeting and we'll have plenty of time for Good public discussion and input and good discussion among the council. Thank you madam president Thank You.

Mr. Maya Thank You madam president Joanne, right?

i'm here i'm here i just gotta find my picture miss wright you're gonna have to unmute please There we go. Madam President and counselors, my name is Joanne Wright. My comments tonight are my own. I am also the president of Santa Fe Village Neighborhood Association. I strongly oppose O60, O61, M1 and M2. planned to be heard by you on October 5, 2026. I respectfully request that you oppose them also. The intent of these four proposals is absolutely clear to remove processes for development decisions that balance the interest of the city, property owners, residents and developers and ensure opportunities for input by affected parties, IDO13R. It attempts to in part by deleting recognized neighborhood coalitions and the unrecognized and neighborhood associations hoas and other groups they represent charging individuals and neighborhood groups almost four times the cost to file an administrative appeal of a project approval then the city would charge a property owner or developer to appeal a denial rewriting the narrow with less than three weeks of public notice the current narrow in effect was enacted in may of 2022 following 15 months of public notice and meetings and was preceded by two-year neighborhood engagement process these proposals are not about housing job creation or ensuring transparent land use. They are transparent. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Madam President, that concludes general public comment.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moya. We are now on approvals, and we are on EC 209, final objectives report for fiscal year 2026. I move a receipt be noted. There's a motion and a second by Councilor Rogers. I'd like to make a comment. Okay. Motion and a second by Councilor Rogers. Is there anyone signed up to speak on this? Mr. Moya, can you call?

Thank you, Madam President. Dr. Lisa Christopherson, followed by Marlena Addison.

to address fiscal objectives I would love for us to see as a city that we put humanity and our human beings at the basis and the foundation for all of our fiscal objectives all of our goals all of our proposals I would like to Somehow I don't know how to get the intention of City Council from the perspective of a lowly little citizen person here, but We don't have metrics in place to all this money is going to be spent How do we know the millions and millions and millions with a one point whatever? Billion dollar budget for the city of Albuquerque 16 years coming to the City Council meetings I still cannot hear in this space in a public hearing how we're, what we're getting for that money, like what measures are in place and how do we know they're being met? How do we know we're getting the bang for our buck? We know we get a lot of bang because we're being murdered out on the street. We know we have more people at MDC. We know we have, we had to create a whole day at a courthouse just for a policy that this mayor implemented rather than getting housing. How are we going to include into our fiscal objectives as a city that human beings are valued and our lives are valued and our voices and everything that we exist here is somehow included in the dollars that we give you all for you all to use to help us. So if we cannot get your attention through methods of coming and speaking, we will be back out in the street again. So Mayor, please do understand, we made a deal. You have had five years of good peace here. That is not gonna be the case if one more person is murdered and killed in this city by APD because ACS was not called out or because they are mentally ill or they're unhoused. We will shut down this city, I promise. Thank you.

Marlena Addison.

We're not playing at all.

Madam President, that concludes public comment on this item.

Thank you.

we are uh... back on the bill so there was a motion in a second by council rogers is there any questions i have council grout with the first question or comment thank you madam president uh... dr single um... last meeting i had um... sent you some questions earlier before the meeting because we had some follow-up these objectives that we uh... come up with they're not uh... they're thoughtfully thought it out uh... it helps us uh... In our decisions and preparing the budget and knowing that that we are spending our money wisely and well And so there we had a lot of questions and so I didn't want to just pass something for the sake of passing it I wanted those questions answered And I had respectfully asked that we receive those by Friday before the weekend so I'd have the weekend to go over them. We received them at 3 o'clock this afternoon. I have not had a chance to go over them. Neither has our staff. So again these budget this these objectives are tied to our budget. We need to know if if they are if the objectives are out of line if they They work together, and so we've got to make sure that they are appropriate. It's not a gotcha at all. We want to make sure that the department is doing their jobs. And I want, we all want the outcomes. We don't just want the outputs. We want the outcomes of what we're doing. And that's what community is asking for too. So with that, I would like to move a deferral until October 5 so that we have time to go over the answers and hopefully understand better and then we can go from there. Second.

There's a motion in a second by councillor tears to defer the EC 209 to October Madam president just a quick question for procedure.

We already had a motion for move for receipt be noted in a second So do we need to dispose of that first?

No, okay.

No, it's making sure this one Okay, this one trumps the other the other one takes precedence Thank you

so anyway so okay so this one so there's a motion in the second for a deferral to october the 5th and it seems like the administration wants to jump in. Just jump right in there.

Okay, thank you, Madam President. Just quickly, I wanted to just acknowledge it was just an oversight and communication between myself and another employee as to when they would be sent. We had it ready on Friday, and it was my error in not saying send, so it was not intentional by any means to hold those back, and when we realized that they hadn't been sent, we wanted to get them over before the meeting.

Okay, so all those in favor of the deferral until October the 5th, raise your hand and say yes. Yes. Opposed, say motion. There's seven, I mean, eight, one. Motion passes. Seven, one. Oh, he left, sorry. So Councillor Buck is excused. So we are now on, I think what we're gonna do, we have I was trying to take a tally of who wanted to go on break. And so I think what we're going to do is we're going to take a break at this point. And we will return at 7, 8, 8.05. So thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you Thanks for watching! Thank you. you

okay welcome back everyone so we are on approvals and we are an item B under approvals EC 211 recommendation of award for environmental maintenance hospitality and safety services and I move approval.

Second.

There's a motion and a second by Committee of the Whole Chair, Grout. Do we have anyone signed up to speak on this? We have no one signed up to speak. Are there any questions from councillors? No? Seeing none, all those in favor of EC211, raise your hand and say yes. Opposed, say motion. Motion carries. We are now on EC 218, Mayor's Recommendation of Award for Golf Course Concession, Ladera Golf Course. I move approval.

Second.

There is a motion and a second by Councillor Tayes for EC 218. Is there anyone signed up to speak? Okay, we'll start there.

Yes, Madam President. Our first speaker is Larry Hinman, followed by Kathleen Catwell.

Thank you. It's exciting to be here. I haven't been here before.

I'm here to support or speak about EC26218. And my name's Larry Hindman. I'm speaking today in support of the current concessionaire at Ladera Golf Course, Mr. Bill Harvey and his team. And I've lived on the west side of Albuquerque since 96. and I've been golfing since 2001. I'm the organizer of a small group of about 20 golfers, and we play each Saturday and Sunday. I have been for about 10 years, and several of us play during the week as well. So I'm retired, and I get to play a lot of golf. Our group wanted to voice our concern that changing from the current concessionaire to a different one may not be in the best interest of the golfing public. So we're happy with what's going on there. The majority of golfers I talk to, and there are a lot more than just the 20 in our group, do not believe changing leadership at the course makes much sense. Bill Harvey and his staff have, in our opinion, done an outstanding job, and I think that's evidenced by the drastic increase in the number of rounds played in the last several years. I know the city golf management department is responsible for maintaining and for the maintenance and care of the course, the grass, basically. And that's a good thing. They're doing a good job. However, Mr. Harvey and his crew obviously work well together with the greens keepers and the city staff to make the golfing experience at Ladera a welcome and fun place to play. The improvements since Mr. Harvey had been there, including the lighted practice range, the paving of the golf paths, the improvements to the restaurant and bar, the general cleanup of the course, have all helped a great deal. I understand this is not all based on Mr. Harvey's direction, but he has clearly championed these improvements and continues to do so. I also wanted to let you know how friendly, helpful, and professional Bill and his staff are with the customers. To me, that's one of the big, to me and I believe most golfers, this is probably the best aspect of Mr. Harvey's team. Thank you very much, and we support Bill and his team.

Thank you.

Kathleen Cantwell, followed by Jim Brewster.

Madam president and counselors. Thank you so much for having me here tonight I am also coming to affirm the recommendation from the mayor on continuing on with Bill Harvey. I serve on Ladera's ladies association as part of the golf advisory board and so I also serve with the city and have had the opportunity to work with Bill on to observe him, to watch him, and how he has literally brought Ladera Golf Course back to life. I have also had the opportunity to take golf instruction from Bill, and for anybody that cares, he's brought me from about a 27 handicap to a single digit. He's really good at what he does. Really good at what he does. He has a passion for golf, but more than that, he has a passion for people. He wants people to enjoy the game and he wants people to bring vitality to that section of the city. And for any of you that haven't had a chance, you should go on a Thursday night. I am a native to Albuquerque in New Mexico and I want to see our city thrive and I truly believe that not only golf but Ladera Golf Course has brought us that opportunity. People love being there. It is a fun place to be and that is because of the leadership of Bill. He has a well-trained staff, very respectable, approachable. They are all quality, quality people and he is a quality man. of integrity, of strong leadership. He is personal. He would do anything for you. He says what he means and means what he says. He's a strong leader and that's part of what I love about Bill and the chance to work with him. So I hope that you'll consider and I would like to offer my affirmation for this award. I think he is by far the absolute best instructor in the city. And for a number of reasons, it would be terrible if we had a change there. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you for listening.

Thank you. Council Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President. Ma'am, I just wanted to, I just didn't catch the name of the association that you'd mentioned for women.

It's the Ladera Women's Golf Association, and I am part of the board that works with the city, so the golf advisory board.

Thank you so much. I would like to reach out to you just on a separate matter. And so I just wanted to get that information. We have a student, Collie Award, who I understand to have shot the lowest ever recorded by a woman at Ladera. So I would love your help to just verify that so we can celebrate her. OK. Thank you.

If you ever want to play a round of golf, let me know.

Oh, I'm learning. I'm not good at that. But I will. Thank you.

Jim Brewster, followed by Colin Gillespie on Zoom.

Madam President, members of the Commission, thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. I've known Bill Harvey for several years. And I will tell you that since he came to Ladera, and I've been playing there for over 35 years, he has transformed the course. not just talking about the golf part of the course of course that's important he's a good instructor he has good instructors working for him i take lessons from his head assistant and he's helped me a lot they do that really well and they treat you well but what he's really done well that most people don't think about is that he's improved the non-golfer that goes there. He's improved their ability to go there, have lunch, have a drink, sit and chat and look out over the back porch, have a beautiful porch area and veranda. And it's a place to go for non-golfers and golfers alike. And that never used to be the case. My wife is not a golfer. She's here in the yellow shirt back there. She's not a golfer. I've tried to get her to go, but bless her heart, she doesn't want to do it. But She loves to go over there. We go over there quite often and have lunch or breakfast. And what Bill has really done well, in addition to the golf, is he has made the course an asset to that community and to the city. And the city would be foolish not to give him more time to continue his great work. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Colin Gillespie.

President Pena, counselors, thank you for hearing us tonight, and thank you for your consideration of this matter. My name is Colin Gillespie, and I'm one of the attorneys for Bill Harvey Golf. I've been a president of Albuquerque for a long time, and I've been playing at Ladera as my home course for 30 years. representing bill harvey golf as i mentioned i just want to speak a little bit about bill as you heard bill's a pga professional he's in the northern new mexico golf hall of fame and he's taught more than 20 000 lessons in the city and he's represented albuquerque in the u.s senior open he's run madera since 2016 and i would say that the last 10 years have been very good both for the city and for the Madera and the community. That's what Bill's really done here. He's helped improve and build in the community. The junior programs and high school teams have grown. There's a lot of youth out on the course. The leagues and associations are there. And as you've heard on weeknights, especially Thursdays, the patio fills up for live music one night. He's got karaoke going on. People come for the course and stay for the atmosphere. Rounds are up, and as you've heard, the administration has recommended the award. We ask for your approval, and thank you for your consideration either way. And, of course, I'll stay on for questions should those circumstances arise. Thank you, and I yield the remainder of my time.

Thank you.

Madam President, that concludes public comment.

Thank you, Mr. Moya. Councillor Crowe.

Thank you, Madam President. I love golf. I used to golf a lot, but I haven't in many years. So I'm really pleased to hear that Ladera is thriving. That's great. Being outdoors is wonderful. And so I'm glad to hear that it's doing well. But I do have some questions. about the contract itself. Why is the city paying 100% of the cost of golf carts, but only getting 15% of the rental revenue?

Madam President and Councilor Grout, these are percentages that we have set throughout all of our golf courses. It's a percentage that we get most of the revenue from the golf carts, and then we do pay a certain percentage, just like we receive a certain percentage of concessionaire revenue sales as well as a couple other items from the pro shop. We do get the green fees.

Okay, thank you. Do we, Madam President, do we own or lease the carts?

Council President and Councilor Grout, we do lease them. We did change our model this year, whereas in the past they were leased through the concessionaire. But this year we've changed to a new model to go in line with all of our other golf courses to where the city is leasing them.

Okay. Thank you, Madam President. What is the cost to preventive maintenance on these carts?

Madam Council President and Councilor Grout, I don't know what the preventative maintenance would be, but they are new, so they are under warranty, and we are responsible for the daily maintenance, you know, just the regular wear and tear. But they are new carts and even with as with our old courts, we do do some of the minor maintenance.

OK, thank you, Madam President. How long is the lease on the carts?

Council president in council route, I do not have that number exactly but I think it's 5 or 7 years, I'm not sure but I can get that number for you.

Okay, well how long is the warranty on them.

I was council president comes about I don't have that number, but I can get that and send it to you in the mail.

Thank you and then I just want to move to the RFP required the RFP required a letter of credit from the bank. Did Bill Harvey Golf provide a letter of credit?

Council President Council Grout. Yes, they did, and we do have one of our Jerry Becker from purchasing here. She can answer some of the questions, but there was a letter from the bank that we got from both concessionaires.

OK. All right. So OK, so you did get a letter of credit and not a letter of reference.

Madam President and Councillor Grout. It was kind of a letter of of. Affirmation that they were in good standings of both respondents had a very similar letter. It wasn't an actual letter of credit that named a dollar amount.

And is is that required on our RFP's a letter of credit?

Council President and Council Grout again, Jerry Becker from our purchasing is here, but it just depends on how the RFP is written and what the RFP is for.

Madam President, how is this RFP written?

This RFP did request a letter of credit bank. It did not say sign letter of credit or anything. That was the requirement in the RFP simply.

Okay. Is there a reason why it was different than other RFPs?

Madam President, Councilor Brown, we have started requesting for financial information because we've had to redo RFPs when companies couldn't provide the service afterwards, and that becomes double.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Taas.

Thank you, Madam President. I just want to thank all of our public comment speakers who came today, especially Mr. Hinman for coming out here of your first time to council. So thank you for joining us. I hope you enjoyed yourself. And I appreciate again everyone coming out. I was also just wanted to say to Susan, maybe we can take a bike ride together to Ladera and then Jim and I can golf a little and counselor grout and I can join the Ladera women's golf. I used to golf. So it'd be nice to pick it back up again. I was on the varsity golf team in high school. I just throwing that out there.

Thank you I appreciate it. Thank you so seeing no other questions there was a motion and I apologize I didn't get the who the second was I always write it down so you and Councillor Grout was the second for EC 218. All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Opposed say motion. Motion carries. So we are now, if you're looking at your agenda, D was deferred. We are now on E, which is OC18, Albuquerque City Council Legislative Program for the first session of the 58th session of the New Mexico State Legislature. And I move a receipt be noted. Second. There's a motion and a second by Councilor Grout. And yeah, so. We usually do the amendments first, right? OK. So before we do anything, I think we're going to go ahead and move to the amendments and. We have proposed floor amendment labeled in your packet will now be for amendment number one. Council crowd.

Thank you, Madam President. Floor amendment number one is sponsored by myself, and I'd like to add Councillor Rogers on there as well. This is to replace attachment one with this new attachment. And this amendment inserts into the list of 2027 state legislative requests a new legislative request to enact legislation to fund a system that all homeless and housing service providers will use to capture data statewide. So important. It also adds a QR access page for story map projects in council districts and a table of contents. I would like to move this.

Second. There's a motion and second by Councillor Rogers for floor amendment number one. Any discussion? Councillor Rogers.

Thank you Madam President. Thank you Councillor Grout for allowing me to co-sponsor this with you. This has come out of a lot of the work we've been doing on the motel vouchers and looking at how we handle and also our work on the Homeless Coordinating Council and really thinking we need the state to take the lead on a statewide database that can roll up so that we can actually be able to look at the landscape of homelessness to actually make good decisions. Right now data is one of our biggest, biggest challenges. I think we've seen that in our IGA reports and just all of the things that we are trying to ascertain when it comes to this specific My opinion the number one issue facing our city and so it would help To have some partnerships and we will roll up our sleeves and work with the state Being the largest city of the state that really holds the brunt of homelessness. We know we have municipalities from all over our state sending folks to the city of Albuquerque that really land in district six a lot of the time and And so I think that this would be a great partnership and ability for us to work together on a statewide database. Especially with the windfall of funding that we're gonna have at the state, this is the right time to move this work forward once and for all so that we can make some good decisions using sound data.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you.

Councilor Gruff to close.

I urge your support.

There is a motion and a second by Councillor Rogers for floor amendment number one. All those in favour say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Opposed say motion. Motion carries. Now we are on, I will call this floor amendment label B, which will now become floor amendment number two. Councillor Crowe.

Thank you, Madam President. Floor amendment number two, we just need to change a little bit of wording under District 9's list. Jean Bellema Park, the title's correct. The description, we just need to change a few words. And it changes the name of the park and the description of the request to be consistent with the correct name and the title of the request. I move it.

There's a motion second by councillor Rogers for a do pass a floor amendment number two any discussion I heard your support all those in yes Madam president the the amendment.

Can you put that amendment back up on the screen? I think that you were handed out a Prior draft so the amendment that would be voting on is going to be on the screen now

Okay, so...

It's substantively the same. It's just formatted properly with the new amendment that's on the screen.

Okay, so councillors disregard the floor amendment that you have in front of you, and this will actually be the actual floor amendment that's... We're good? Everyone's good? Yep. Okay. So all those in favor say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Opposed say motion. Motion carries. So now we are back on the bill. Do we have anyone signed up to speak? Mr. Moya.

Thank you, Madam President. Althea Atherton, followed by Richard Schaefer on Zoom.

No, it's okay. Madam President, thank you for sharing these legislative goals with us for this coming legislative session. I'm really especially grateful to see so many capital outlay requests for traffic calming and active transportation safety improvements on this list, and also some of those library improvements that Janet lifted up in general comments. These investments is how we prioritize human-centered mobility and address significant pedestrian and cycling fatality rates, which Councillor Baca had given a voice to earlier this evening. I'm especially excited about the legislative request for pedestrian safety and for Councillor Feeblecorn's request for a state transit fund that can support not only ABQ Ride and the Rio Metro that serves us right here, But the other transit agencies that we transfer to when we travel throughout New Mexico, they're all underfunded. We all are underfunded in New Mexico. And so being able to have state money going to these agencies is going to be life-changing for so many of us. And I'm also grateful to see that these goals will just continue to prioritize the people in our community who are most vulnerable. Children, elders, marginalized people who are more likely to use public transit and be pedestrians. And I would also just finally ask that city legislative staff who's receding this call Let us know as residents of Albuquerque how we can support these goals how we can be helpful and Call our led to call on our legislators so we can be an asset in support. Thank you and may it be so Thank you Richard Schaefer Anzu

Thank you, councillors and Madam President. I sent you an email with what I was going to say.

I was going to do a bait and switch. It was actually a general comment. You can read email. So thank you. Good night.

Madam President, that concludes comment.

Thank you. So we are we are an OC 18. Any discussion from councillors? Seeing none, all those in favor say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

No, same motion. Motion carries. Thank you so much. We are now on OC 17, 2027 appointment of candidate to the Board of Ethics. And we actually, we have two candidates. We are going to, our staff is going to pass out the forms. We'll take a vote. And as they collect the ballots and tally them, we will table this item. And then we'll move on to EC 263. And so we have two candidates for the Board of Ethics, and they are Timothy Allen and Bruce Roach. Both individuals are available to address the council if we have any questions or would like to hear from them this evening. The Council rules provide for a procedure for appointments made by the Council, and we are following that procedure this evening. The ballots are being distributed, as I had explained, and Councillors are to indicate that the order of your preference, one for your first candidate and two for the second candidate, after Councillors complete their ballot, staff will collect the ballots to tally the results. You know, I'm like, no. So, okay, so I move to table this item. Second. There's a motion and second by Councillor Rogers to table OC17 as they're tallying the votes. All those in favour say yes and raise your hand. Opposed say motion. Motion carries. So we will now move on to EC263, approval of the risk fifth supplemental agreement to add funds for outside council legal services between Holland and Hart LLP and the City of Albuquerque. I move approval.

Second.

There's a motion to second by Committee of the Whole Chair Grout. Is there anyone signed up to speak? No. Any discussion from councillors? Seeing none, all those in favor of EC 263, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Opposed say motion. Motion carries. We are now on OC 17, 2027 appointment of candidate to the Board of Ethics. Nope, we're not there yet. We are now on final actions. So we are now on R 62 under final actions. Councillors Grau and Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President. R62 is adopting an amendment to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Comprehensive Plan to extend the Main Street Corridor designation from Wyoming Boulevard to Tramway Boulevard. I move a due pass. Second.

There's a motion and a second by Councillor Rogers for a due pass of R62. Councillor Grout to open.

Thank you, Madam President. I've enjoyed working with Councillor Rogers on this over the last year. We've been working on this for a while. And with our council staff, Central Avenue is already a main street in the comprehensive plan from 98th Street to Wyoming. And so this bill is going to extend that all the way to Tramway going east. Main Street corridors are more walkable, more pedestrian friendly, and have higher design standards for buildings. There are two senior apartment buildings in my district, Luminario and Farolito, and they were both built to Main Street design standards. And they're just lovely. And I'm looking forward to more of this development, this kind of landscape. In our district, it will not, this change will not affect the current businesses that are along the way there. But this bill projects a vision for in the future. And so I do urge your support. I think Ms. Deepa, she will go over everything with us. And one more thing I'd like to say is that over the last year, we have met with our business owners along East Central to share with them the different departments of things that are available to them for improvements and for help and all the things. And so we've been rolling this out and meeting with our community community members, with the neighborhood associations, and I think it's been well received. I think people are excited about it. Ms. Deepa.

Thank you, Madam President, counselors. I have a quick presentation to go over what the ask is. Yes. Our comprehensive plan is a Rank 1 policy plan that guides growth and development in the city under a 50-year long-term vision. It prioritizes a framework of infill growth and development along centers and corridors. Our comprehensive plan describes main street corridors as highly walkable, lively streets lined with neighborhood-scale businesses and designed for safe pedestrian walking environment with trees, sidewalks, streetlights, etc. Currently, the Main Street corridor runs along Central Avenue all across from Coors Boulevard to Wyoming Boulevard, parts of 4th Street, parts of Bridge Boulevard, Broadway Boulevard, and San Pedro Drive. This proposed amendment is to extend the proposed designation east of Wyoming Boulevard all the way to Tramway Boulevard. This amendment is largely in compliance and is consistent and aligns with a lot of planning efforts done by the city, starting with the Route 66 action plan. The Route 66 action plan reinforces East Central Avenue as Albuquerque's eastern gateway. And it signifies it as a historical cultural corridor. And the proposed amendment is consistent with all the primary five goals of the Route 66 Action Plan. It is also consistent with the East Gateway MRA plan. The MRA plan prioritizes investment and redevelopment along Central Avenue, reusing vacant underutilized parcels and designating this corridor as a main street corridor would strengthen this would reinforce this effort in coordination with the development incentives under the IDO. Apart from that the corridor is also identified as a tier one priority under vision zero action plan for pedestrian safety and since 2021 the city has invested and in in a few capital projects to build safer infrastructure. So the proposed designation is in line with this vision plan. Lastly, it is direct in alignment with the recommendation of the East Gateway CPA assessment report. I want to further elaborate on the land use implications of this proposed amendment. Under the idea, properties located within main street corridors are provided increased flexibility to support higher and best use of the property. Some of these incentives are 50% of the front setback area of the property shall be landscaped. Off street parking loading area should be pushed to the side. properties are entitled to parking minimums. And largely, all of these incentives is to enhance the pedestrian experience and activate the street frontage. Additionally, with 069 that was passed two years ago, all housing typologies have no restrictions All housing typologies with no height restrictions are allowed in all residential zones along a quarter mile of main street corridors. This was added to the IDO for the purpose of having more housing in areas that are close to businesses and future investment. Lastly, with the current IDEO update in Feb 2026, there are certain uses that are prohibited on Main Street corridors. These include car washes, light vehicles, sales, retail, self-storage units, warehouses, RV parks, paid parking lots. And primarily, these are all auto-oriented businesses which are contradicting to the definition of a Main Street corridor. Largely, the design focuses on the relationship between the built environment and the road. If the proposal is approved, both public and private future investments along the corridor will have to align with the DPM standards that include with wider sidewalks, like 10 to 12 feet sidewalks, landscape buffers, and bike lanes. Apart from that, this proposal is consistent with other comprehensive plan policies for placemaking, resilient economic support, supporting local businesses, preserving the historic identity, and encouraging a diverse built environment. Some of the recent development along other main street corridors in the city include a housing project along 4th Street and Candelaria. and an infill development and retrofitting an old hotel to have more commercial spaces right on the street, increasing the street active frontage. Um, apart from that, I just want to remind all of us that the main street corridor is a future looking document. Uh, it, even though the current existing corridor is more auto oriented, uh, this is, this amendment will act as a catalyst for future growth. And so I stand by any questions.

Any questions? No. Okay. Seeing none. Do we have anyone signed up to speak?

Thank you.

I think she left. Okay, so back on the bill, any discussion, Councillor Rogers? Oh, you're gonna close? Okay, okay, Councillor Rogers to close.

Thank you, Madam President. I also have really enjoyed working on this over the last year with Councillor Grout. Our business owners are excited, our neighborhood associations in the corridor are really excited, and I think this is exactly the catalyst that we need on East Central. I'm especially excited about the sidewalks. We know from our work with those Safe Streets for All work and pedestrian safety in the same corridor that our right of way on Central for ADA compliance needs work. And it's all going to be a hard, hard thing to tackle. But I think with this and if we... hold our fingers that we get this grant, we can really make some big headway, especially on ADA compliance on this corridor, which is so needed. I think that's one of the reasons we have such a high pedestrian facilities, because the sidewalks are narrow. If we have a bicyclist, a pedestrian, and someone in a wheelchair, the person that's getting onto the road is the pedestrian. And so I'm really excited that we can work together on this. I urge your support.

Thank you. So there was a motion and a second by Councillor Rogers for a due pass of R62. All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

No, same motion. Motion passes unanimously. Now I move to untable OC17. There's a motion and a second by Vice President Champagne. I'll take one of yours tonight. All those in favor say yes and raise your hand. Yes. Opposed, same motion. No. Motion carries on a 7-1. And so we are now back on OC 17. And so the candidate selected to the Board of Ethics is Mr. Timothy Allen. No, we don't vote on it, right? Yeah, we vote confirmation, but we don't have to vote on the candidate, right? Yeah, okay. So I don't know if he's here. Is he here? because they had said they were here. Okay, so now do I, we already moved to confirmation though, right? So we moved the motion or we didn't? Okay, so I will move confirmation of Mr. Timothy Allen to the Board of Ethics. There's a motion and a second by the Committee of the Whole, Chair Grout. All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Opposed say motion. Motion carries. We are now on item 15, other business. There is none, so there being no further business, this city council meeting is adjourned. Good night, everyone.