City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Today is August 17, 2026. The 16th meeting of the 27th Council will come to order. All councillors are present this evening. Please join us now in a moment of silence, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance in English and in Spanish. Please join us in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Vice President Champagne.

Thank you, Madam President. Civic parking passes are provided by members for members of the public. You can obtain your parking pass from the Council staff at the table near the Chamber's entrance. Members of the public, city staff and the media have the ability to view this meeting in person and on live streams through four different platforms. GovTV on Comcast Channel 16, the GovTV website, YouTube and Zoom webinar. The live streams can be accessed from most smartphones, tablets or computers. Also, this meeting is closed captioned, so you may enable the 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 the videos online, please call 505-768-3100 for assistance during business hours of Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Council will take a break at approximately 7 p.m. this evening, if needed. With regard to the quorum in the chambers, we want tonight's proceedings to be as civil and respectful as possible. Please, please do not make... Any personal attacks and please no applauding or snapping or other outbursts during the meeting. The president will provide one 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 be asked to 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 do 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 the council and one another. council staff has received over 50 public comment signups for this evening's meeting so pursuant to the council's rules of procedures article 1 8c the public comment time will reduce from two minutes to one minute allow to allow everyone to speak please begin editing your comments to fill within this time frame now please this time we will move to administrative question and answer period council rogers

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I just wanted to follow up from our conversation last week about cleanliness in District 6. So I'll ask the directors, Solid Waste, Transit, Code Enforcement, GSD, DMD, and Parks and Rec. Come on down. And I don't have another slideshow, so just don't, won't put us through that again. I just wanted to publicly thank this team for your action last meeting after we went through that exercise. I saw a visible change in my district and in some of the cleanliness and things that are happening in District 6. But I just wanted to ask a follow-up question. What did we learn about the telephone poles and the shoes? Who actually removes those? I know that was something we weren't sure of last time. So just wondering, what did we find out about? Who removes the shoes from the light poles and all the different things that we have?

Madam Chair, Councilor Rogers, it's my understanding it's PNM. And I know, I'm not sure somebody was going to reach out to PNM. I don't know who that was.

Thank you, Madam President. Who reached out to PNM? Thank you, Madam President. I'll take that as no one. Thank you.

Madam President, Councillor Rogers, we have multiple ongoing conversations going on right now with PNN. I think we have an arranged phone call, and I will make sure that we include that on the list to ask them about how they go about prioritizing and scheduling that, because I don't know that any of us have insight into their shoe removal strategy.

Thank you, Madam President. And then I know it does the city have bucket trucks. And in our fleet.

Madam President, Council Rogers, we do, but we don't have the authority to touch PNM lines. So like there are strict restrictions around PNM poles, PNM lines and all of that. So that's a big part of our utility franchise agreements.

Is that what we would refer to?

Madam President, Councillor Rogers, so yes, DMD Traffic Engineering does have bucket trucks that are dedicated every day to addressing traffic signal issues that, as you know, when the traffic signal goes out, it's an emergency. We deploy people. We have them on staff 24-7 to make sure those safety issues are handled, but we do not have authority to interfere or handle PNM equipment. Sure, thank you.

That helps the public also know who we need to hold accountable for those things. But at least my expectation was someone on our team would have reached out and asked that question or asked them to remove them. So I would love to see a regular process for that. And then I just do, Director Keener, I do want to ask for some extra help on our bus stops because I did not see... a big change in our bus stops, especially ones that you and I have talked about putting benches. There's no trash cans if it's just a single bench. And so I would love your help, especially along Central on the bus stops, especially the one outside the ID library, because that one's still pretty in disrepair.

So could you help me with that? Council president council Rogers. Yes, we can we're actually working through some staffing issues right now on the bus stop maintenance side But they're holding interviews next week So we've got about 14 applicants that we're going through right now and a new supervisor that'll be onboarded on the 24th so we should have some some good movement on the bus stops there. Wonderful. Thank you.

I do see them on the platforms a lot, and I know they're focusing on the platforms, so I just wanted to say that. Thank you. And then code enforcement for Pizza Hut on Central and Wyoming. I saw that Pizza Hut, did we clean it or did Pizza Hut clean it?

And Council President and Councilor Pizza Hut have received several notices of violation. They've been fined on it. They are cleaning it, and they hopefully are to the point where they're willing to just tear the thing down and clear the lot. That's where it looks like we're edging them towards that decision.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. So thank you all so much. I did see a visible change in the district after we went through that exercise last time and I promise I won't do it every meeting because I really want to because it worked. But I know we can figure this out and we will still, our team is going to reach out to all of you to meet so we can get to this litter ordinance and make some changes because there are some silent things about who handles neighborhood cleanliness that I think we can as a team figure out together. So thank you so much. Mr. President, my next question is for APD and ACS. If I could have Chief Barker and Jody Escobar. And while you're coming down, I'll preface my question. Before we left on break, I asked specifically about officer-involved shootings and our process for those and asked specifically in one case why ACS wasn't dispatched. We had another case, another person lost their life again. Same type, I don't know the facts of the case, but first, Chief Barker, thank you for having your team send me a breakdown of all of your processes that helped me understand what you all do when these things happen. And so I thank you for that, and we'll follow up. I know you couldn't make the meeting we had scheduled this week, so we'll try to reschedule so that I can ask some specific questions about that process. And then, Jody, Director Escobar is not here.

She's not here tonight.

Okay. Thank you, Walter. I'll be happy to ask you my questions. I asked Director Escobar for a breakdown of the dispatch and why ACS wasn't dispatched, and I haven't heard nothing back.

Okay. We'll make sure we get that for you.

Can you, do you know if anybody from the department has looked into this? We have. Since I asked?

Council President and Council Rogers, yes. Myself and Jody have gone over that. And we do have an explanation that we would love to sit down with you and talk to you about. We did follow policy as far as the dispatch goes. But we would like to just review that with you so that you have that. And we have had the opportunity to talk to other counselors and go over that with them as well. Thank you. I'm doing this for the public.

Not for counselors. We're doing this for the folks who have lost loved ones, who have asked for some kind of follow-up. So I would like it to be public of what happened. And so if we're not able to do that today, then I'd ask that you have that for us for next time so that we can, the public needs to know, not just counselors privately.

President Pena and Council Rogers, we would be able to discuss that today, but I would like to put together a presentation so that it's thorough. If we can do that at the next council meeting, we would love to do that. That sounds great.

We'll work with you to do that. But the no response from Director Esquivel is not, you know, I'm the biggest champion for ACS up here, but you're not exempt from my tough love either. And so I would appreciate a response to that. And I thank you for letting me know at least you guys were both working on that. Thank you, Madam President.

Councillor Groh.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I have a few questions for Director Stoker from Human Resources. Good evening, Director. Thank you for being here. This week, I asked you a few questions. Last week, I sent these questions to you last week about some employees that didn't get the 2% across the board raise that council approved in the fiscal year 27 budget. Could you please, very briefly, describe the practice of red circling for everyone watching at home?

Certainly, Madam President, Councillor Grout, red circling is a long honored and well established practice in terms of compensation. And in some, it means that when an employee's pay is above the maximum of the pay range assigned to their position, they do not receive increases. That's borne out in the city's current rule structure in section 703 of the personnel rules and regulations.

How many employees were red circled and didn't get the raise that council called for?

At the beginning of FY27, we had 104 employees that were in non-bargaining positions who did not receive a 2% increase.

Okay. How many employees received that raise and are now eligible for red circling?

So no one that was... Trying to think how to answer your question, uh, counselor, either the positions were already red circled or not. So there were, I believe some positions that were at or near the maximum of their pay range that have subsequently become red circle.

Okay.

They would have received the entire 2% increase.

Okay. Thank you. I understand the red circled employees are going to get a payout equivalent to the 2%. Does this lump sum count towards their para retirement payments and their overtime pay and future percentage increases? Does this lump sum count toward those items?

Madam president councillor grout. I believe that those would fall under compensation that is considered for Pera and their retirement It is not a change to the base rate that those employees get so it would not impact overtime or other things of that nature Okay Are you sure about that Because I think it

I think that this practice does put them at a disadvantage, some of those. So I think we need to follow up on that.

Madam President, Councillor Grout. So to the extent that when you compute the hourly rate for an employee under the FLSA, you have to look at their overall average compensation, then yes, it might have a small impact in that realm in terms of it being a change in their base rate for things like contractual overtime or things of that nature. Not that this applies to any bargaining unit employees, but it would not count in those circumstances.

All right, thank you Sir. I think we need to fix that. Mr Vice President, I have one more comment to say, actually a couple, but I wanted to commend talk about to doctor or excuse me, Chief Barker. You don't have to come up, but I wanted to say that on Saturday evening I was invited to observe the DWI checkpoint. my in the foothills where we represent so I got to go on that checkpoint evening and I have to say that that team is very professional it's very well organized and And so that was very cool. I also was equally impressed with the officers and the engagement they had between the folks that they did do the search, not the search, but go through the process to see if they qualified or not. And it was very professional. It was equally neat to see the people that they were interacting with were also very respectful of the officers. And then one of the coolest things that I thought was when the person was not arrested for DWI, the officers escorted them back to their cars very nicely. And the interaction was just really good. So I was impressed. with the um on both sides to see it was very good that there was respect on both sides so i want to commend your officers for that and then the public too you know and then the people that came through the checkpoint it was it was very smooth and so it's as it should be so very good thank you And then finally, for Director Turner, I had asked for a list of a timeline for when some street projects were going to be done in my district this year, and I have yet to receive that. So would you please get that to me this week?

Madam President, Councillor Grout, so CAO Sengal had let me know while I was out last week about your questions for the timeline and so I went back through all my emails and our correspondence and I had actually provided a list to you of our up current and upcoming projects and so some of these projects are actually not slated until likely next calendar year they're just upcoming big projects in d9 um they're a total of actually almost 10 million dollars worth of street projects so that can't happen overnight and we also kind of reconcile ourselves with the fact that Obviously, all counselors want their street projects done immediately, and we have a limited number of contractors that can do that work and can't do, unfortunately, nine districts' worth of projects at the same time. And so I do not have a specific schedule right now of all of those projects, but we are working on them and look forward to, obviously, completing them and all of our projects around the city. Thank you.

Mr. Vice President, I will get back with you because I have information that you told me that I would have these things done this year. So we'll chat offline. Thank you. Thank you.

That's it.

Councilor Chavez.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I have a few questions for Director Varela. Lani?

Council President, Councilor, good evening.

Hi, good evening, Madam President. Mr. Varela, I am still waiting on information about the light readers for code enforcement regarding the lumens and codes because I've been continuing to get complaints from constituents about neighbors having lights directly into their lights. into their homes. And I recall that in April of this year, Councillor Lewis did provide $20,000 for a light reader to help with that work, but it was rescinded. And so I'm still waiting on information about why that was rescinded and if the $20,000 was returned to Councillor Lewis and the legal memo that you referenced in our conversation about not being able to issue citations for outdoor lighting complaints because of preponderance of evidence concerns. Have you been able to find that? Oh, and the SOP also. I'm still looking for the SOP on the enforcement process for the Lumens.

So, Council President and Councilor, I believe that you requested a copy of the notice of decision in one of the lighting cases. Uh-huh, yes. And I think that was sent to you. Mm-hmm. The other question was whether the department had used the funding string, and the answer is no. So if you don't use a funding string, you didn't get the money, so you don't have to return any money because that wasn't utilized. And then we had a brief conversation about different philosophies about how to treat people and I brought up the argument for preponderance of the evidence and so our standard in a code enforcement case is we have to believe that the person is probably guilty of the violation. This was in the context of lighting and the IDO, which went into effect approximately five years ago, exempts lighting, and we're talking porch lights, folks, things like that, that existed or were installed before the IDEO came into place. There's a provision in there, I think, that says by 2034, and I could be wrong on that year, people, even if they had pre-existing lighting that didn't comply, will have to change those out. And the example that I use is when I drive, because I thought about that a lot, And I drive through sections of town. I have relatives in different parts of town, some sections not wealthy sections, basic sections of town. And I drive through, and I can see people's porch lights. And I can see they have those lights that you used to buy at Home Depot that are what you call a can. It's like a can. And you can see the bulb. And under the IDO, those would be illegal. They'd have to get replaced by that grandfather deer. Uh, my recollection of the conversation was I said, uh, we were asked, uh, we felt some, some, some interesting, uh, pressure to drive around town, citing everybody who had those. And I said, uh, that's not our approach. That is not what we feel is constitutional. That is not what we feel is right. We have to, and I'm going to answer my question. So don't interrupt me, please. But, Council President, I said we're not going to do that. Where would we start? The International District? Would we start in the Northeast Heights? We're not going to do that. We continue to respond to complaints as they come in, normally through the 311 system, and investigate those.

okay Mr. Varela I'm going to interrupt you no no you can't Madam President I'm going to interrupt you Mr. Varela because your story is not at all what our conversation was about our conversation was about my constituent who for a year has been seeking assistance because there is a light that is shining directly into his bedroom and he has repeatedly submitted complaints to your department and have been told that there's nothing that we can do about it. When we had our conversation, Deputy Director Kaiser informed me that they don't have the correct tool to measure the lumens. And so I asked, what tool do you need? was brought to my attention that actually Councillor Lewis already gave you the money to buy that tool to be able to do that job. It was then rescinded. So I asked why was it rescinded and why didn't you buy the tool so that you could test the lumens so that my poor constituent can get some sleep at night. I have yet to receive an answer to that. The second part of that was I didn't ask if you drove around and gave citations. I said, how do complaints come into you? How do you track them? And what is your process? I asked for an SOP. There was no SOP. I asked, what do you do when you have a new employee come to your department for this particular job, what do you hand them so they know how to do their job? I have yet to receive that. I still don't know why The tool that is supposed to be able to test these lumens has not been purchased. Why the funding was rescinded. Um, the second part of that was I asked, well, why wasn't a citation issued? And the response was, well, there's a 10 year grandfather, so we can't issue the citations because we don't know about the 10 years. I then asked, well, don't you have a hearing officer to do that work? wherein you replied, yes, we do. So I asked again, why are you acting as the hearing officer and not issuing a citation? This is the same process we talked about. It would be like me being pulled over and getting a ticket for not having insurance even though I have insurance. I would still get a ticket and have to go in front of a, a judge to show them that I have my insurance. So essentially, you are acting as the judge by saying, we're not going to issue this citation because we don't know if they're grandfathered in or not. That's not your call to make. That is the hearing officer's call to make. When we had this conversation, you said you received a legal memo from your legal department instructing you that's what you're supposed to do. I've requested a copy of the legal memo so I can understand the process. I've yet to receive that. I still have a constituent who can't sleep at night because for the last year, a bright light has been shining right into his bedroom. So, again, my question is not whether or not you need to drive around and issue citations. It's for the citations, for the complaints that you receive, how do you track them? How do you then go and test the lighting? Mr. Kaiser informed me that you go out at night and use your meter reader, but you don't have the proper one, so you haven't been able to do it. So where is it? Those are my questions. So I don't appreciate you misleading our conversation. I just want the legal memo. I want the SOP. And I want to know why the money was rescinded for the tool that you said you needed. Thank you.

Director. Council President, if I could respond, please. Yes.

Yes, and so we have a memo that we put out earlier this year, and this isn't directed to Councillor Tejas, this is just in general. Directors are to be here till 5.30 to answer our questions, so I just want everybody to be just aware. We still have, I think, a few people signed up to speak, and we're limited on time, and I did also want to ask Mr. Watson to come up in light of his new promotion. So, yes, thank you so much. Go ahead.

We have very different recollections of the conversation. It went into charge everybody, make them come in and prove they're innocent. I said, no, that is not going to be our approach. If there was a specific address in question that was not provided to me, that could be provided. Then we can look at the exact situation there. If it's the one that we sent the... hearing officers decision on uh... the hearing officer dismissed it in part because he felt that the party with the lights that uh... taken mitigating measures that were necessary so that's what happened thank you thank you accounts for those uh... figure or mister mr

Yeah, just because you're up here still, Director, I thought I'd come in. So my understanding is that, I mean, your department doesn't really enforce lighting issues then, right? I mean, you really have the...

guess the the policy background or the authority under our charter to do that or is it maybe I'm and council president and counselor if it's in the IDO the department does enforce that when we receive a complaint on it then we go in and look at that if we feel that there is a preponderance of evidence then we have a good faith basis for filing a notice of violation The department, as far as I know, does have light meters. Maybe they don't have the latest and greatest light meter, which I think you were going to help us pay for. If that funding becomes available again, I'll direct staff to order at least one of those. They cost, I believe, somewhere in there at $4,000 each, all improperly calibrated. So I was not involved with the particular conversations between your office and the code enforcement group. 891, 891 investigations are the number that code enforcement did in the last week across the hundreds of pages of ordinances that we do. 927, that's how many they did the week before. So we're happy to look into particular situations and we'll continue to do that.

No, I mean director I think from my office's perspective I think we've worked together really well and try to resolve I know some of the specific issues that were referenced to and we took that money back or we sent it just because It was it was it was more of just if you need it then you know What do you need it for and then so if you need it? We'll certainly Work on getting that to you. I mean and making sure you have that resource to help with it. So But I think that was more of our decision because I mean they got the time it maybe it wasn't just Within the purview of what you guys could do. So anyways, but That's all that's all I had on the with with the point. Thanks for the follow-up on that. I um my question um would just be to miss single we were talking about this earlier um and the i was looking at the map of the available properties so i was just looking at it i i i wondered um maybe just a brief explanation of how that map was populated i mean what was some of the criteria is it just a do we take every city property that we have and put it on there to start with or what's the what's the criteria on that map

Madam President, Councillor Lewis, our strategy has been to think about how to ensure that city-owned properties can be utilized across everything from short-term use availability through long-term potential development if there is a property that makes sense for that. The initial making available of those properties is one that is indicated to say any of the properties, if someone has interest, there's an interest form that they can then fill out and contact our real estate department, so that they can propose the types of uses that they would like. We have everything from neighborhood associations that like to use city-owned vacant property to have their block party, and that has been actually a very successful strategy, so a one-day use all the way through We know there are properties that are ideal for both housing development and other types of potential development, retail or whatever it may be. So we identified all properties that did not have an immediate use by the city so that the community would understand where those properties are and what they are. with the intent for folks to inquire with us what types of use they would like. It could, again, be anything from a day use permit all the way through to a development agreement, but it could be anything in between maybe a short-term lease. It could be a short-term use for a community garden while a project is being master planned you know sometimes that can take two years and so having the opportunity to have a garden while we don't move any dirt for a while would be a neighborhood of opportunity

OK and then you know, thank you, I mean and that that makes sense. I mean you you put it on there for inquiries like open land like let's say some of the some of the properties there. See believe where there's a there's a couple pins on there. One of them actually says it's under contract. It's just kind of vacant land and you know if it's under contract, what would that mean?

Madam President, Councillor Lewis, I don't know the specific one you're speaking to, exactly what the detail would be on it, but we do have a few properties, for example, that MRA, if it's in an MRA, it may have a development contract that's under negotiation. And because we are trying to show folks that properties are moving from unused to utilized for these types of uses and so if something indicates that it's under contract it would we would not be necessarily in a Just in a position to negotiate anything new related to that But since things are under sometimes contracts fall through developments end up falling through we were trying to again kind of shine light and transparency on all of the city available properties for types of uses and

And who would be managing like that specific property? Who takes those inquiries and with that property and says, okay, you can do this, you can't do that. Here's how long it's available. Who makes those decisions on that?

Madam President, Councillor Lewis, each property will be vetted individually in each inquiry. They'll come in to our real estate department, and they have understanding of what department owns that property, if that makes sense, whether it's assigned to a department or an MRA. or to MRA for the development options. But it comes through real estate. They work with the department that is currently assigned as the ownership department. And then we vet, we'll vet that with the executive level as well to make sure that the kind of use makes sense for the long-term plans and short-term plans for any piece of property.

Okay. So I guess I need to get up to speed on which of these parcels, which department they'd fall under. I'm assuming that um like because one of them that has a blue dot on is uh that's where you know our city-owned property you know designated future pool next to our multi-generational center i'm assuming that'd be under parks and rec might be under um you know housing maybe still from a previous deal and then the other one that actually says under contract is again it's open land it's designated for our library and park So city-owned property, hopefully we can get those developed in that way sooner than later. And we've been banking capital money and working to get those projects done. So I'm highly interested in who's under contract right there for... a pretty good sized property that is right next door to our multi-gen center, brand new multi-gen center, another neighborhood right next door, Ellison right there. I know it's kind of like, it's kind of, parts of it are designated as, you know, it's kind of run off. And so I'm highly interested in what contract that is. So I guess, and I think that I would want to be involved in like any any way those that properties used between now and when we actually build a library and park you know on that property and so if you could give me some insight into that and and uh and certainly if you could find out it's 101 silver avenue That's not even the one actually, so it's like I click on it and it highlights a different address, so it might even be a pin that's in the wrong place. But I mean, I would think that there's hopefully and I think that's the intention of it that people in the city you want people looking at this and. And we certainly want it to be accurate. And we want to have a pretty good process for how they might inquire. And maybe that's all in place. But I do want to make sure I'm very familiar with specifically that property.

Madam President, Councillor Lewis, I will look into that. It sounds like there might be a technical error if that's the case. And then the last piece I wanted to mention is which is disposal of property, surplusing of property, as you all know, comes through city council. So that process is still current and the current process that we have for. determining surplus. So that is still built into any long-term disposal of property or selling of property. And we do want to work with city council on the most fluid way to ensure that we can give good answers to the community around timelines as well, and remembering that that process comes through you all.

Okay, thank you.

Before we proceed, Vice President, so I know we have an agreement that the administrative staff can leave by 5.30, so I think that if there's no other questions for them, and we shouldn't be because it was supposed to be at 5.30, they're more than welcome to leave unless they want to wait on the announcement, but I just want to make sure you're aware of that. And then Vice President Champa.

Thank you, Madam President. And again, on that line, to streamline the timing on this, I'm going to go to a couple of councillors for follow-up questions before I move to next on my list. So, Councillor Barker.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Just really quick, what are we doing to protect the city's interests with these parcels? So, for example, to prevent land banking as opposed to making sure that land gets housing built on it?

Madam President, Councillor Baca, our intention is to make, we will have contractual documents that ensure that we're in a position to understand the intent for the property and milestones, expectations, and that it meets what we're trying to do as a city, which is to activate properties rather than have them sit empty. That process of negotiation will be, you know, we'll make sure we have light shining into the intentions and those contracts and, you know, vetting them appropriately for sure.

Perfect. Councillor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President. I just want to say thank you for doing this after I tried to get something passed on council that didn't pass for a fixed price program to get utilizing resources like this that the city has. So I just want to say thank you for doing this. This is this website. And for the public watching, you can just Google CABQ vacant properties. it'll come right up it helped us with our participatory budgeting projects that we have right now community members were able to use this to see city lots that we could potentially do pocket parks or more gardens this page helped them identify some really good lots in our district that may be able to help with that so I just want to say thank you and I would ask everyone to check it out because you can see a lot of great information on here that I think is super helpful for a lot of things, including pocket parks. And I love the spontaneous seasonal shop locations. I would like to see the people's market added to that. We just built that in District 6, and so I would love to see that added as a spontaneous spot people can activate. If you would please ask them to update that, that would be great. Thank you, Madam President.

Councillor Besson.

Madam President, Mr. Vice President, I wanted to circle back on the conversation with Director Stoker. No need to come down here, but I do have a follow-up comment on that topic from a while back. I met last week with Director Stoker, CFO Martinez, Director Padilla, and IG Pacheco, and although many counselors might not actually enjoy hearing what I'm about to say, I found it very informative, the meeting that I had with him, and I don't want to speak for Director Padilla, but I sure hope that you will circle back with the counselors I learned information that I did not know about the way the administration took the class and comp study and did not make that the new Bible they used that as a guiding tool and I think that's something that I didn't realize until I had a calm professional meeting with them and with our director and learned some of this information so I think it would be great if the director would make sure to circle back with the other counselors. I don't necessarily think and believe that there's been 100% misguidance. I think there might have been some misunderstanding when it comes to what red circle really means. And I thank you for that meeting. I think it was informative. I left and Director Padilla did say he was going to do more research, but that it was informative for him as well. Aside from that, I don't want to say any more for him.

Madam President.

So I want to call up our city clerk, Mr. Ethan Watson, and just congratulate him on his promotion, and wanted to know if you had a few words to say, so you're going to be missed here.

Thank you, Madam President and members of the council. This is my last council meeting. I'll be finishing up in two weeks and then taking a little time off to get ready to start my service as the director of the New Mexico Legislative Council Service. It's been an honor to serve you all. I really enjoyed working with any number of bills with all of you from the board board bill, which is not the end to the, you know, the hearing office bills, our biannual campaign finance bills, I also do really appreciate the council's support for the city's public records program. It really has become a gem, I think, in the state, and it's due to your support. That's really been critical, and so I will miss you all, but I'll not be too far away. We are moving to Santa Fe to make this all a little bit easier, but it's a big transition, but I'm very much looking forward to it.

Well, congratulations again. I mean, I think you've done an outstanding job. I know going in there and, you know, some of the issues we'd have as, you know, either just related to the office or related to running for office. And I love how you were able to kind of use a Gantt chart and it was across the whole office. And I think those are things and tools that are really important to help with your workflow. So I appreciate how you implemented that. I don't know if any of the other councillors. Councillor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President. I just want to say thank you too. Same thing, we geeked out over process improvement in those charts as well because I love process improvement and still want to see other departments adopt what you did for process improvement. It was really awesome. And I'm excited for, you know, sad to lose you here, but I know we're gaining your up there in Santa Fe. So I'll be knocking on your door a lot as I need to bring money back to District 6. Or the whole city as a whole.

Thank you.

Ms. Singleton, do you want to add anything? Madam President, thank you. I just want to, on the record, say how much I have appreciated working with City Clerk Watson. He has been a consummate professional in the work that he does and ensuring that the city is able to address some of the hardest things we have as a city when we think about the volume of inspection of public records, requests that we receive, and being really thoughtful about the issues that we have to understand and address to ensure that we're taking care of our records and taking care of our city. So thank you, Mr. Watson. It's been a pleasure to work with you. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam President. I was thinking about in 2009, it's been 2009 since I first walked into the clerk's office 17 years ago. And from the very beginning, there's always been a great culture within that department, that office. And certainly over the most recent years as well, I've noticed that great people that work there, they love the job. And they go above and beyond to really take care of people. And so thanks for what you've done to carry that on and to just put a lot of good people in the right places that enjoy the work and where you can really see the difference. So thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam President, that concludes admin question and answer.

Okay, we are on to other business, and this is EC 222, veto of R2630, adopting a proposition to be submitted to the voters at the next election to be held in the City of Albuquerque concerning an amendment to Article 5, Section 4 of the Albuquerque City Charter, providing the form of the question and the designation clause for such question on the ballot. And... So this is Vice President Champagne, but if you want me to read first, or would you like to just speak first?

You can go ahead and read first, Madam President.

Okay. So, and then I'll turn it over to you. If a Councillor wishes to attempt an override of the Mayor's veto, they will make a motion to override. If no motion is made, or if a second is not received, the Mayor's veto stands. Also, if a motion is made, Second is received but six voters are not obtained in favor of the override the motion Override motion the mayor's veto stands vice president champagne Thank You madam president that assumes that I'm going to make the motion But I will I'll make a motion to move to override the the mayor's veto There's a motion is there a second

I will second it.

There's a motion and a second by Committee to hold Chair Grout.

Thank you, Madam President. This bill that we put forth and this council passed on a 6-3 vote two weeks ago was to remedy and improve government. During a couple of incidents earlier this year and some investigation, it was shown that there were some deficiencies within the current charter that this bill goes to an attempt to remedy. It is not, again, just like everything else, it is not 100% effective. the solution in a sense uh... it is a solution in an attempt to repair these deficiencies that uh... were discovered it is again a direction to go in and i've said it back then two weeks ago that that it's a direction that's we could we have to change something in the way it is in the deficiencies that came up uh... and again this is this was an attempt to move toward that it showed that the the uh... the office of the city attorney uh... truly wasn't uh... independent office although uh... The findings of an investigation kind of prove that the city attorney already was in a sense, but there's no accountability for it. Right now, in order for a city attorney who, and again, please understand that this isn't a direction at the current person who is holding that office. It is a sense of the office in itself. That if they do not properly represent uh the city council or the administration that it is near impossible to remove that person right now and that's why this amendment or this this bill was put forth to show that there's some accountability not only to the administration but to the city council it also showed that a true independence is needed so that the city attorney can work for the city of albuquerque not for one entity or the other again this Incidents earlier this year proved that incident, proved that in itself, because it was decided or shown that there was preference being shown. And that's why, again, the whole purpose of this is to try to improve government. You know, we work through all these bills, we work through all these amendments, and we work through all these resolutions and proposals because we see deficiencies throughout all of the government, whether it be IDO, whether it be land use and zoning. You see these, and we make these attempts to say, hey, let's change something. Let's improve it. Let's go in a direction. That is not stopping anything from six months from now going All right, that worked 75%. We need to tweak it again. I believe truly that that's what we should be doing as lawmakers on this council. We need to be improving this, not just sensibly for a sense for us currently, but for who holds this position five years from now, 10 years from now. How do you improve government? And how do you keep it moving forward and moving around obstacles that we find? This veto was done based off of, from what I gather in reading this, off of one issue, and that is that this thing creates a total new branch of government. uh... which i find interesting that that that the the administration says in its uh... i will and i'll read what it says it says i i i will note that if it weren't for the changes in uh... e five lines twenty through twenty three i would sign this resolution will be five twenty through twenty three uh... says it requires a total new branch of government that is independent of the criteria identified in this and that's a judicial branch, something that shows that the city attorney works for the city. It doesn't work for the city council. It doesn't work for the administration. It works for the city. It is held accountable by the administration and by the attorney or by the council. Currently, again, I go back to it. Currently, if the administration wanted to fire the city attorney, the administration has to go to the OIG. It has to find that it has cause. Then it has to come to the council. And then all of us have to vote on it. It has to get a majority of the vote. This proposed amendment changes it so that Again, it's held accountable to the administration that if the city attorney goes rogue, that the administration can fire her without cause or fire that person without cause because they aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing. working for the city. The council then, again, doesn't have that authority right now. This puts that authority in the council of a 7-2 vote. So the city attorney would have to do something so egregious that it would cost seven of us to say this attorney isn't doing what they're supposed to. So I find it interesting that that veto came down. There was talk about how it would have to hire dozens of other attorneys because it resents this new branch of government. I think our federal government's on three branches of government, and I think our state is on three branches of government. But our council right now has attorneys that we go to. I don't go to the city attorney when I need legal advice on a bill that I'm proposing. I go to our council. Now, they're held accountable by not only their ethics, but also by the city attorney in a sense. The city attorney oversees these things. They are made aware of it, but they're not. Our counsel doesn't go to them for advice, but they are held accountable to that sense as well. That's what this is doing. And again, I love this job because I can come up with an idea and a direction, and you get advice from other counselors, and you try to adjust it and maneuver it. But this is an idea. I think this is a good move forward. I think it doesn't solve it 100%. And a year from now, when someone other than me or another council that shows up and says, I got a better idea, then you build off of that. That's the whole point. So with that, I do urge your support in overriding this veto.

Thank you, Vice President Champagne. So there was a motion and a second for an override. All those in favor, say yes.

Yes.

I'm sorry, I didn't get any hands raised. We closed, but I will, because I didn't get anyone raising their hand, but if you're okay with that.

I believe that was opening. Madam President, it wasn't a closing.

Okay, you had a comment as well?

Okay.

Okay. Councillor Tays. Thank you, Madam President. I have a question for our legal department on this matter. And this is just for my own clarification. I did not realize this could be a potential issue until recently, but the charter states that for a charter amendment there has to be two public hearings, but if at the second public hearing the proposed amendment has any revisions, Substantial amendments that a third hearing has to be held and I am just wondering if we failed to follow that or if please help me understand this because I I Was I'm not sure Madam president counselor tears, that's correct The Charter does require at least two hearings on a proposed Charter amendment with a third hearing required if there are amendments at the second

We've run into this scenario Several times in the past where we get into like four hearings or beyond the the three that's contemplated in the Charter and in those instances as we did here we Ended after the required third hearing so we don't continue kicking to a subsequent hearing infinitely the cutoff that we followed is what's in the text of the Charter and

Madam President, thank you, Ms. Clouton. But we only had two hearings on this.

Madam President, Councilor Taez, this was up before the council, I believe, four times. It was deferred three of those times and then reached final action with a final vote at the fourth hearing.

Okay, Madam President, can you clarify? So deferment isn't a hearing. It's just a deferment. We didn't hear anything, so I don't know how the deferment is counted as a hearing. We had two deferments and then two hearings.

Madam President, Councilor Taez, we're checking to see if the bills were on the consent agenda for deferral, but there was opportunity for discussion at each of those council meetings, which we do treat as deferral. a hearing and then the ultimate vote at each of those hearings was for a deferral to the subsequent meeting for additional comment.

Madam President and Ms. Calutohana, so is that the intent of that charter? Was that the legislative intent was to treat a postponement that had an opportunity for discussion as a hearing? It doesn't seem to me that that is the legislative intent. The postponement with an opportunity, but we didn't because it was being postponed. We all knew that was being postponed. So we wouldn't have any sort of conversation about it. And so the postponements in my logic don't add up to being a hearing. And so I'm just wondering what the legislative intent is here. And, you know, hey, man, I'm still new, so learning it, that's why I'm asking. But the charter specifically states that if such a revision is made at the second of two public hearings, the council shall hold a third public hearing on the proposed charter amendment, and any revision shall be posted. I just don't remember having that third hearing of those – amendments that were held, and I will fully admit that I did not realize that this was part of the process at the last hearing. So it's also on me that I didn't bring it up, you know, on the third, which is why I'm now bringing it up, because I don't recall having a third public hearing on those last amendments that were made. that changed the substance of the bill.

Madam President, Councillor Tejas, and to clarify one piece, the requirement for two to three hearings is for the amendments contained in the bill itself. We haven't treated it as you need to have two or three hearings on each subsequent amendment to the bill in addition to the bill itself.

OK, Madam President, please. OK. That still doesn't make sense. OK. All right. Thank you. Madam President, yeah. Roland, can you chime in? Thank you.

Madam Chair, Councillor Kayes. I don't know that the language in here, from the perspective of trying to figure out, is it deferment of hearing? is necessarily clear enough to be able to make that determination. However, as we see constantly with most appeals on most issues or suits that are filed, if there is an ambiguity, it's going to be grabbed onto. So it's certainly a risk that it could be an issue that is brought up. in a suit challenging the the piece of legislation or in this case the charter amendment um it would be an argument that was made um that could be made um that would be a reasonable argument whether or not uh that hearing itself or that the deferment was a hearing. If I recall correctly, there was some public comment that was done. Maybe that would be sufficient to make it a hearing. Maybe not. How a judge would come down on it is difficult to say. But I do think it would be something that could be reasonably challenged. Whether or not it would win or not, hard to say. And then additionally, there's the only other issue that I would call out is just the final sentence of the section. I mean, it does say, any revisions made shall be posted along with notice of the next meeting read as a whole. It can be hard to kind of distinguish between if they're talking about two hearings compared to one hearing. But if you read that sentence in its plain language, it suggests that any revision made would require those revisions to be posted for a following public meeting. Again, hard to say exactly how this would work out in litigation, but it would certainly leave open the opportunity for a challenge.

Thank you, Madam President. I just yeah, I I will just say I don't feel like We followed the process for this charter amendment. Now, I don't know if we can retroactively go back. That's another question. But it does, I agree that there can be potential risks here. And in particular, because it's going to be going on a ballot, that is also my other concern. This is going to be a very, very, very, very long ballot. um this coming November and City items are at the at the end of that so I I'm concerned that people won't see it and vote on it and you know I I'm just concerned about all those things coupled with the concern um and the risk that it could also lead to a potential lawsuit if if um any you know PUBLIC STAKEHOLDER DISAGREES WITH THESE BILLS. BUT THANK YOU. I GUESS WE'LL SEE. THANK YOU.

COUNSELOR BACA.

THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.

LEVEL A LITTLE BIT OF CRITICISM HERE.

MYSELF INCLUDED. NEARLY EVERY COUNCIL MEETING I VOTE AGAINST. going late. I don't think that's appropriate. People aren't available. We get sloppy in our work, myself included. And I thought this P bill, a portion that was left in there, Councilor Champagne just mentioned about the independent portion of it, stayed in there. And I fundamentally don't agree with that particular piece. And I don't agree with it because the IG report, which I think is a sloppy piece of work, to be honest, had an interpretation of the city charter that I don't agree with. And because of that, I think that the interpretation of the charter says that the city attorney essentially is serving the amorphous city. And because of that, did not do anything in violation of her ethical rules or professional rules. I fundamentally disagree with that, mostly because A, how we've worked under the city to interpret the charter, but also how the city attorney herself said it directly. Like she herself said that she did not, how she operated was not how the IG report came out. And so some of the criticism I think leveled is directly at the administration and how they handled this and how this went from a small thing to months and months of time and energy and thousands of dollars spent And none of it served the city of Albuquerque in any good way. Moreover, that report opens up a lot of questions about accountability, accountability for city attorney, who holds that accountability, and what they can do. Essentially with this, the city attorney, yeah, we're creating a judicial branch, and I don't think that's, I don't agree with that, because I believe the city attorney works for us, counselors and the administration. WHICH, OF COURSE, NOW DOESN'T REALLY EVEN EXIST ITSELF BECAUSE OF THIS IG REPORT THAT WAS PRODUCED. AND SO THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED 100%. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HOLD THE CITY ATTORNEY ACCOUNTABLE 100%. I THINK WE MADE SOME FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKES ON THIS PARTICULAR P-BILL LATE AT NIGHT. I'm kind of angry at myself for that, for not catching it, because I would have tried to make that change, because I would 100% be voting for sending that to the electorate, and hopefully they would pass it. And I'm not happy with the administration, with the way you guys have handled all this. And the mayor and I have talked, and I've let him know my frustrations, exactly how I feel about what's happened and how this has played out. so so i do hope i am going to vote to to uphold the veto i'm going to say that out but i want people to know that you know he put in his message i'd like to see i'd like to see that sent down by request uh that that change in the people um i'd like you know we got the ec there's going to be another city attorney coming down i look forward to having questions with that with that attorney and how that person interprets our city charter and how we can expect them to actually function within that role given that interpretation, their interpretation, which I hope fits with what we've been operating under for the last decades or so. So I just wanted to get that out there. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Baca. So I don't see any other questions or comments, so I will go to Vice President Champagne to close.

Thank you, Madam President. I wanna say I urge everybody's support on this and I thank everybody for their input. Again, it was, it still is a thought, an idea and a direction that we can do to improve government. So I do urge your support with the override.

Thank you. So there is a motion and a second for an override. All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Opposed, no. No. That motion fails on the four to five. Okay. Okay. We are now on to proclamations and presentations. There are none. We are now on to the journal. I move approval of the August 3rd journal. There's a motion and second by Vice President Champagne. All those in favor say yes and raise your hand. Yes. Opposed? Same motion. Motion carries. We are now on to communications and introductions. Are there any changes to the letter of introduction? So I move that the rules be suspended for the purpose of pulling EC26192 out of Finance and Government Operations Committee and placing it on the September 9th Council Agenda for Action. EC 192 is the mayor's recommendation of award for street outreach housing services. Second. There's a motion and a second by Councillor Feeblecorn. So a motion has been made by Councillor Feeblecorn, seconded by myself, seconded by Councillor Feeblecorn to suspend the rules to pull EC 192 out of FGO and place it on the September 9th Council Agenda for Action. Is there any objection? Hearing none, the motion passes. We are now on to EC 223. I move that the rules be suspended for the purpose of introducing EC 26223 and placing it on the September 9th Council Agenda for Action. EC 223 is the appointment of Joshua D. Boone to the position of City Attorney. Second. There's a motion and a second by Committee of the Whole, Chair Grout. To suspend the rules to introduce EC223 and place it on the September 9th Council Agenda for Action. Is there any objection? Hearing none, motion passes. We are now on EC210, Councilor Piepelkorn.

Madam President, EC210, I move that the rules be suspended for the purpose of pulling EC26210 out of the Finance and Government Operations Committee and placing it on tonight's agenda for action. EC210 is the approval of the development agreement for the Uptown Connect affordable housing project with Family Housing Development Corporation to utilize workforce housing trust funds and state capital outlay funding towards the new construction of a multi-family rental housing project.

Second.

A motion has been made by Councillor Feeblecorn and seconded by Councillor Tayes to suspend the rules and pull EC210 out of FGO and place it on tonight's agenda for action. Is there any objection? Hearing none, motion passes. So I move approval of the letter of introduction.

Second.

There's a motion to second by Vice President Champagne. All those in favor say yes and raise your hand. Opposed say motion. Motion carries. We are now on reports of committee. Councillor Lewis.

Madam President, the Finance Government Operations Committee met on Monday, August 10th, and reports out the following. EC 175, receive be noted. The matter of EC 190, 191, 199, 201, that they be approved. The matter of 200, 043, 045, and 046, that they be without recommendation. The matter of 048, 049, that they do pass. The matter of 044, that it be without recommendation as substituted. And 047, that it be without recommendation as amended. I move to accept the committee report.

There's a motion and a second by Committee of the Whole, Chair Grout. All those in favor, say yes and raise your hand. Opposed, say motion. Motion carries. Councillor Passant.

Madam President, the Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee met on Wednesday, August 12th, 2026, and reports out the following items. In the matter of EC 208, that it be confirmed. In the matter of O55, that it do pass. I make a motion to accept the committee reports.

There's a motion and a second by Committee to hold Chair Grout to accept the committee report. All those in favor say yes and raise your hand. Opposed, same motion. Motion carries. We are now on to deferrals and withdrawals. Counselors, are there any deferrals or withdrawals at this time? And I will go to myself. So EC160, approval of the agreement with HomeWise to utilize housing and neighborhood economic development funds in the amount of $2,835,000 to administer a homeowner rehabilitation program. I move withdrawal. And there's a motion and a second by Vice President Champagne for withdrawal. All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Opposed say motion. Motion carries. We are now on the consent agenda. Are there any changes to the consent agenda? Hearing none, for 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. Second. There's a motion and a second by Councillor Rogers way over there on that side. So there's a motion and a second. All those in favor say yes and raise your hand. Yes. Opposed say motion. Motion carries.

We are now on to announcements. Councillor Rogers. Thank you, Madam President. There will be a local government coordinating commission meeting on Thursday, August 20th at 5 p.m. here in the Vincent E. Griego Chambers basement level of the Albuquerque Government Center. This is a hybrid meeting, and I just want to thank our staff from the bottom of my heart for helping us. APS was enabled to host, and our team stepped up very quickly to get this done in the proper ways for our Open Meeting Act, and they did that on a Council Monday. So I just want to give a shout out to our team, because to ask them to do that on a Council Monday, Allows us to have this meeting and not have to cancel it again, especially with opioid settlement dollars We need some updates on where those monies are going so we cannot cancel that meeting. So thank you Thank you. Thank you. Shout out to our team Ernesto Michelle Julian everyone that helped us make that happen I thank you from the bottom of my heart I didn't want to ask them to do that on a council Monday, but they saved our meeting and thank you so much

That's great. Councillor Bassan. Madam President, there will be an Intergovernmental Legislative Relations Committee meeting on Wednesday, September 2nd at 3 p.m. via Zoom video conference.

Thank you both. We are now on financial instruments. Councillor Baca.

Thank you, Madam President. 038, authorizing the issuance and sale of the City of Albuquerque and Mexico Taxable Industrial Revenue Bond Dreamcatcher Sawmill Hotel Project Series 2026 in the maximum principal amount of $40,520,267 to provide funds to acquire, construct, equip, and improve the Dreamcatcher Sawmill Hotel at dual-branded Hampton Inn and Home 2 suites with an anticipated 135 guest rooms. The move do pass.

second there's a motion in the second by councillor rogers for a due pass and so i'm going to just um read a little announcement here 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 comment anything related to quasi-judicial matter including proposal site plans or other land use or permitting action related to this development. Failure to comply with this rule may result in your comment being cut off. So just reading that out loud, I would just like to ask our staff, our legal staff, You know, we went in circles about this and, you know, there's commitments from the community and quasi-judicial. So I'm not going to go into the site, but I'm just going to say, how do we hear from the community if they're going to talk about some of the agreements that were made that may have zoning implications?

Council President, the existence of the discussions that happened and whether they were productive or not is not a quasi-judicial matter in itself. It's getting into the specifics of design or aesthetics that would veer into what would be considered quasi-judicial. So to sum it up, that there were discussions is fine. The subject of those discussions is not. That's the line to draw.

So how do we hear from the community about what those agreements were. And this just, I mean, I think I'd like to hear from the city attorney as well, just because I think this has gotten very complicated and we're getting all these different rulings on how we address community concern. And I say that because if all this is in the best interest of the community and the community can't do anything until a site plan is but yet we provided an IRB without any of these concessions to or agreements with the community.

So, Councillor President, the procedure by which a site plan would be approved would allow for that kind of input. So at this junction, this is only for the issuance of the IRBs. At a later time, when the site plan is being approved, if there's concerns about those aesthetic designs, those designs of the building itself, how that can fit within the character of the neighborhood, that would be an opportunity for input from the public.

It's like putting the cart before the horse. I mean, I don't know. I'm curious to hear from the community to really find out what we need to do or if this would require potentially a deferral to allow the community to really work with the developer to figure out what needs to happen. So I guess I won't go to the city attorney just yet. I think we have a couple of floor amendments that we'll move those first, and then we'll go to public comments. Okay, so we have floor amendments A and B, and I think they are in front of us. And so I have an amendment, and it's proposed amendment A, which will now become floor amendment number one. And what this is, is that beginning on page six, insert a new section as follows and number the remaining sections accordingly. And this really the explanation without reading the whole thing is this amendment mandates that the company proposes a good neighbor agreement between Sawmill Land Trust and nearby neighborhood associations to address concerns that may arise with the operation of this project. And the reason for this is that because of the concern that I just stated so I move floor amendment number one. So there'd be no second. There's a motion and a second by Councillor Besson for floor amendment number one. And is there any discussion?

Councillor Bissau. Madam President, I'd like to ask Mr. Cox if he can confirm or let us know, was there another, was there a good neighbor agreement for any of the other properties in the area that got an IRB for any developments?

Councilor Besson, I don't know if I am the right person. That might be our bond council or anyone who has done the IRBs, but to my knowledge, we have not had any good neighbor agreement tied to IRBs or any community benefits of such either.

Okay. So then madam president, can I ask director Mitchell or Mr. Muirhead or I guess whoever might have a firm answer, was there a good neighbor agreement on any other IRB in that area?

Madam President and counselors, not that I'm aware of, but I would ask because last council meeting, we were not given the opportunity to present the project. So before public comment, I would ask that we be allowed to present the project at least.

Okay, after the amendments. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments?

I'm sorry, Madam President. I'm still trying to get my answer, and it doesn't seem as though I have one, so can I just at least make a comment?

I think she was still not done with her comment. Okay. Okay. Sorry about that.

Madam President, Council Bresson, no. There were no other agreements outside of the standard IRB documents for those other sawmill transactions.

Thank you, Mr. Muirhead. I guess my comment now is that I supported the last IRB. I support this IRB. I don't think it's fair to put different burdens on different groups and individuals and different projects in the same area. So therefore, I'm not going to support this. I think that if we were going to do it, we should do it for everybody. We shouldn't do it just for some and not others.

Thank you, Councilperson. Is that it? Okay. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam President. And I tend to agree with that. I'm just interested in maybe, I would just be interested if the, I mean, the developer is coming to ask him for the IRB and I'm just not sure if, I mean, I'd want to know how they feel about some of these amendments that could put some additional, or even if they understand what a good neighbor agreement is, what are all the implications of it. I mean, I guess if I was to be in favor of this I'd be interested in hearing from Hearing from some other folks on that just their understanding of it Thank you, I mean if you want to call the developer up, but we're not on that right I mean I didn't necessarily don't need to I guess if you want my vote for it Then I'd probably need to do that But if not, then if that's not appropriate for them to come up and weigh in on it Then I guess it is what it is

It is appropriate if you want them to come up.

Okay. Well, let me give them that opportunity then if they're here and would like to.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilors, for having me here today. My name is Dipesh Kolharvalaf with Sun Capital Hotels. I am the developer of this project, and we've had several meetings with the neighborhood. We had meetings with the Sawmill Area Neighborhood Association. We had meetings with Historic Old Town Business Board of Director meetings. And then most recently, after our last August 3rd meeting, the council directed me to meet with additional folks, the trust and Senator O'Malley, and we did do that. We had a really good conversation with the senator and the trust, and I thank you for that opportunity. And we showcased how we got to our current design so it does incorporate a lot of the fabrics of the neighborhood. And then post-meeting after Senator O'Malley, we made some elevation changes so that we broke her biggest- Councillor Croson, I'm sorry to jump in.

This is exactly the kind of quasi-judicial discussion about designs that later would come up under a site plan or under another permitting process that we're concerned about. And the risk here is that if the council hears on this and votes on this, then it could be effectively precluded from voting on if there's a site plan or if there's a permitting or a variance that comes up in the future related to this property.

Madam President, maybe I can restate the question. So, Depeche, if you could really just specifically on your understanding of what a community agreement like that this amendment is offering, your understanding of it, and if it is something that would be agreeable with you, I guess. Are you okay with some of these? In this portion of the process, which is the approval or not approval of an IRB, I mean, how do you feel about these amendments?

Madam President, Councillor Lewis, it is ambiguous. I don't know what good neighbor policy is, or I wouldn't know how to define that. So when it's written in the amendment like this, I wouldn't know how to interpret it.

Well, I mean, that's kind of, Madam President, just a little bit of an indicator that, I mean, we're, again, we're putting something on, I mean, regardless, whether it was on you or on the community or whatever, I think there's a pretty clear understanding that there, well, I mean, I think it's clear that there's not really an understanding of what even that agreement means and what the implications are of it.

Thank you, sir. So, seeing no one else, I'll just close by, you know, I'm not sure that this was going to pass, but, you know, we've been kind of going in circles on, again, like I said, the cart before the horse. I mean, when we're doing IRBs in the community, that's a lot of tax deferment for these big projects. And I think it's important that when we're doing maybe a policy should be made that we do site plans before we do IRBs so the community knows what's going in the community. I agree that it's not fair for them to have to adhere to this, but what protections do we have for such an historic neighborhood like Old Town, one of the gems of our city, That if we're not sure when, because, and the other thing with the other properties that are on here, they do not abut a neighborhood. This is going to abut houses. And so I'm uncomfortable voting for this knowing that we don't have any of those protections. We can't talk about the protections. Community can't come up and talk about whether they agreed or didn't agree. Amendments can't be made because of quasi-judicial. So I mean, not just this project, but I think it really leans towards we shouldn't be doing our IRBs unless we've had community input. So thank you. So I would, thank you, sir. So I would urge your support. All those in favor of floor amendment number one, raise your hand and say yes. Opposed, no. Motion fails 8-1. I didn't even get 1. So then now we're on floor amendment label B. It will now become floor amendment number 2. And this is Councillor Baca.

Thank you, Madam President. I think, yeah, this has become very convoluted. And the groups did meet. And they came to some agreements. And we'd hoped to put those as amendments into here. And our attorneys are telling us we can't do that. My understanding is we can put conditions on an IRB. But the question isn't what conditions we put on. later in the process, if there's an appeal, will we be able to weigh in on that? And if it's very specific to one specific project with details like that, then we wouldn't be able to. Part of this is I would hope that whatever agreements they came up with, the developer will stick to those. They won't change those. And within the site plan, I assume this is the point where if he doesn't follow through on his commitments to the community, that they'll appeal and I'll be able to support the community in that context. And so that's... So that's the long way of saying here's our amorphous amendment that I want in there to acknowledge that the community met the Sawmill Land Trust, the Sawmill Association, other members, and everyone's kind of worked together to come to an agreement, including the developer, to come to an agreement on what this hotel will ultimately look like and be a net positive for the community. So I move. Move in a second. Thank you.

So there's a motion in a second for floor amendment that was labeled B. That's now floor amendment number two by Committee of the Whole, Chair Grout. Councilman Besson.

Madam President, I just want to point out for the clerk, there's just a typo in there that needs to be corrected. It needs to say trust, not trust. And I guess to Councillor Baca's point, I don't think that this, I think this seems fine, but I do hope that both the developer and the neighbors and the sawmill trust and all of these different entities hold up their end of the bargain too. and that this is something that works both ways and mutually because I think that, you know, we talk about wanting to improve areas in Albuquerque and I don't think, I still don't think it's right for us to start discriminating one IRB in a very similar location over another IRB in a similar location.

Any other comments? Councillor Lewis.

Madam President, I mean really this is just a statement that says that folks met together and were able to reach a mutual agreement. I mean why, I don't know, it just seems like a statement that has a lot of implications but yet it's very vague. I'm not even sure what it means. I mean, and maybe it's vague because we're afraid to get into some of the quasi-judicial. Is that it? So in that regard, I mean, it's just, I don't know. I don't really agree with it or not. It just seems like a, I don't know. I'm not sure of the point, but okay. Okay.

Was that a question? No. Okay.

It was an observation.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam President.

Counselor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President. I think my question is also with the tea. Are we going to add the tea? Okay. And then my question is what I'm worried about, and I think I'll go to our legal team, is What I'm worried about on this one is the way it's worded means we did the community engagement, everything's great, we met, we discussed the concerns, and we have a mutual agreement. But we've only heard from one party today. And so I'm worried that this is going to lock us in to say that's already done, check the box, move along. Am I interpreting that correctly because it says we have met doesn't say that there's any more to be done Like it's done.

We did it Madam president councillor Rogers this would exist separately from the site plan process that we've been dancing around a little bit So there are additional public engagement requirements associated with that side of the development and so This doesn't touch whatever that entails. This is just for purposes of considering this ordinance.

Thank you, Madam President. So this does not bind the community to say we agree? Because I read it as that.

Madam President, Councillor Rogers, no, it does not bind for this ordinance.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers. Councilor Lewis.

Madam President, so I'm going to take this to say, because I think it's what it does, it says that the company, the Sawmill Land Trust, and other nearby residents, neighbors, and organizations are supportive of this IRB, that everything's been worked out, and everyone's good. Am I wrong?

Madam President and Councillor Lewis, I think what we need that the council, it's important to understand that these are two separate processes. So one process is trying to deal with the site plan. That's quasi-judicial and that's its own process that goes through its own thing. This is not going to be binding based on that. That is what they worked through as a separate process. The IRB, you can put anything that you want. There's a lot of different things that can be included in an IRB. The issue is if you include certain things in this particular IRB when there's a site plan that's going through the system, then the council could potentially, would be in a spot where they wouldn't be able to hear a potential appeal of the site plan. So that's what's going on here. That's why it's difficult because you don't want the council, What our legal team of city legal we've talked to are both doing is trying to be sure that if a site plan is appealed to council, council can weigh in and won't have to recuse. So separate processes. You've got the IRB and you've got the site plan.

Madam President, and I get that. This is an amendment attached to the issuance of an IRB for this specific project. And so, you know, if we just relate it to that specifically, then I'll take the statement for what it's worth.

Is that it, Councillor Lewis? Yeah? Okay. Anyone else? So with that, Councillor Buck, I'm going to close. There's a motion and a second for floor proposed amendment number, floor amendment number two. All those in favour say yes and raise your hand.

Yeah.

opposed no 6-3 motion passes so now we are back on the bill as amended and we will now go before we go to counselors we'll go to public comment so mr cornelius can you call our first speaker thank you madam president our first speaker is senator debbie o'malley followed by dr lisa christopherson

Madam Chair, Councillors, I just want to do, I do want to say that we did meet. I thought it was a good meeting. I think we really need to figure this thing out when it comes to an IRB versus, you know, it was mentioned there's two separate processes. Well, but then now it looks like council is kind of like combined, I mean, your legal council is now combining them. And it's my understanding that you can put conditions on an RV. And I just want to say that we don't have an agreement. We have an understanding. I think that's a mischaracterization of what happened. And the understanding was that we would have some strong amendments dealing with the issues we discussed, the conditions we discussed. And now we were told, of course, that we couldn't do that. So, you know, I think that we're headed in the right direction. However, now it looks like we can't talk about anything having to do with the site, the building, height, mass, anything like that, because that would become a problem. And by the way, I just want to say that that does not mean we have remained, we remain neutral on the IRB, just so you know. Thank you.

Dr. Lisa Christopherson, followed by William Kelleher.

Thank you all very much, and thank you very much for the good neighbor agreement. I would have voted for it. That's a good idea. I would say to answer the question why now, not why before, truly, honestly, we weren't organized the way we are now. We weren't organized that way before in getting information out to community. Hey, did you know that this is happening? Because sometimes, as you'll hear, here has happened with in my situation. I lived close to a property that I didn't get notice on because of you know the amount of space legally, right? So I would say that NMSTC supports construction as long as there have been conversations with stakeholders. We maintain that for everything going forward. We're not like against developers. The community is not against housing, etc. Just are we including so I would ask that same question. When does the community? get to express our concerns about height, light, how far, the parking, the traffic, all of that. So I would appreciate if we could have confirmation that they got the agreements that they wanted. That's really what we're asking for. Let them work with the community, however long it takes.

Thank you.

William Kelleher, followed by Michael Silva.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam President, counselors. My name is Bill Kelleher. I'm here just as a member of the public, basically. I grew up in Albuquerque. I've worked here all my life. And I currently manage a family real estate company. And I'm, more importantly, a big booster of Albuquerque. I want Albuquerque to be better, and this is something that will bring places to stay to an important part of town. We've mentioned Old Town and Sawmill area. It's a great area, and this will bring people there. This particular place won't have a bar or a restaurant in it, so the visitors will walk outside, drive outside. They will go someplace and spend a little bit of money, and the business visitors will be doing business here. So I think it's just a part of developing Albuquerque, and I hope that we can get behind it.

Michael Silva, followed by Pete Casetas.

Hello, my name is Michael Silva. I first wanted to say I dealt with this hotel company in a previous entrepreneurial endeavor that I own and operate. And I found them to be incredibly kind. I found them to be incredibly community driven. I found them to be the type of people that wouldn't be comfortable in their success so much so that they would forget about those around them and the greater good. So I just wanted to put that on record first. Kindness is essential, and they appear to me to be kind operators. As a business owner that's impacted by this, I am the co-owner of the, from what I know, the only tour company in the state of New Mexico, Tour ABQ. We operate the city tour, the trolley here in Albuquerque. I'm in favor of more people being in the Old Town Sawmill area because that means they're going to get on my trolley. And that means that's economic development. And we are, as a company, the best first thing to do in Albuquerque. That's how we promote ourselves. We take people and show them all that is Albuquerque and gives them a greater view of the city so they can go out and explore and do other things.

Thank you.

Pete Casetas, followed by Troy Bradley.

Good evening, Councillors. My name is Pete Cassettis. I was at the last meeting, and here I am again. I have skin in the game. I manage Plaza Don Luis, which is an old town. I own Outpost 1706 Taproom in Plaza Don Luis, and I live in the heart of Old Town. I support the development in the IRB. I feel if it's given to other developers in the area, it should be extended to this developer. New construction is difficult in Old Town, in the Old Town area. Here we have an opportunity, and it's usually difficult because of land, and we have that. We need to take full advantage of it. I do not think this brand or this project will lessen anything in the particular area. It will add to Old Town, especially since the fact the developer will not be putting a bar or a restaurant in there. Those folks will take the rail trail, they'll walk to Old Town, they'll come to my establishment and many others, and spend money and have a great time. I also think it provides an affordable option for the tourists coming through Albuquerque to stay in that downtown Old Town area. So I think that's a plus also. In addition to that, it creates jobs for the local community. Thank you.

Thank you.

Troy Bradley, followed by Adeo Rose Bennett Herrick.

Madam Chair and Counselors, thanks for allowing us to come and speak on this. My name is Troy Bradley. I'm the Executive Chief Pilot for Rainbow Riders, well known for the ballooning community and the largest ride operator in North America. And we've grown out of Albuquerque. That's where we're from. But what we're looking for is we want everyone to think about, envision if I say Albuquerque. Right there, what's the first thought that comes to your mind? All of us are from different neighborhoods. We're all from different areas. We have a vision of Albuquerque that is our own. When we say Albuquerque to an outsider, to a tourist, Old Town is the vision that they see. That is what we sell. That's what we are promoting and pushing because that's what people want to see. They want to have the Old West. They want to have the Old Town area. Recently, I was in part of two organizations that RFPs had gone out to, and they had responded with Albuquerque as being one of the possible host cities. We lost both of those bids due to the cost of staying in the Old Town area. So I think that this would provide a good mid-scale lodging need that is necessary down there. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Adele Rose Bennett Herrick, followed by Grace Dukes.

So this is why we want caretakers, not developers. I would ask that you pull that Amendment 2, Amendment B out. I live near Old Town. I can't support this. They're pushing people around and out of their homes.

DALE ROSE, if you don't mind. I'm going to take a personal privilege. First time I've seen you since the last time you were here, and I just want to make a public apology to you for how I announced you the last time. So, again, I apologize. You take care. Thank you. Okay, our next speaker.

Thank you, Madam President. Grace Dukes, followed by Ben Michael Barreros.

I've been watching these comments for a few months about this hotel, and frankly, I'm surprised by the way people talk about this. You would think they're trying to build another Burj Khalifa in the sawmill, but in reality, this is a five-story hotel that's going to give people more options. It's a locally owned project. But I can't in good faith support this with the moment be. This essentially binds the community into approval and silence. I came into this supporting the IRB, but now I genuinely don't know how to feel. This feels incredibly fishy. And the fact that you don't know that the site plan will stay the same from tonight, approval this IRB, to when they break ground should be grounds to vote this down, regardless of how you feel about the options that this would open up.

Ben Michael Barreras, followed by Austin Scholl. Austin Scholl, followed by Consuelo Abeyta.

Hello, everyone. I'm not a big public speaker, so bear with me. But I'm here for a second time because I really do believe in this project. My name is Austin Scholl. I'm a New Mexico native, born and raised in the North Valley. After graduating from St. Pius, played football at UNM, and I now operate a small business in the village Los Ranchos, own and operate a small business. I'm here to speak in support of the proposed hotel after recently looking for a room for a special occasions I find the the prices of the two local closest hotels are pretty darn expensive You know Chaco at four hundred and seventy seven dollars and then two hundred eighty five dollars a you know a night just it's not doable for young people that are trying to Try to be in the area A nice, new, locally owned and staffed mid-range price hotel and walking distance of all the gems that we know and love is much needed in the area. All in all, I think it would be a fantastic addition to the old town in Albuquerque as a whole. I want to thank you all so much for your time.

Consuela Abeyta, followed by Viola Martinez.

Hi, I am Consuelo with Sun Capital Hotels. At my Hilton property, we have made several upgrades to improve our environmental footprint, which includes water-saving fixtures, LED lighting, motion-controlled thermostats, high-efficiency laundry units, and other planet-friendly practices. Bulk amenity bottles have been replaced or have replaced individual amenities. Hilton's Save the World program recycles our amenity plastics and used bar soaps. The new Sawmill Hotel will continue the same spirit of sustainability. I will personally make sure, excuse me, I'm so sorry. I will personally help make sure we bring these same standards to this hotel and operate it as a responsible neighbor in Sawmill and Old Town. I support this IRB.

Viola Martinez, followed by Bernice Guerrero. Bernice Guerrero, followed by Robert Avalos.

Hello, good evening, councillors and president. My name is Bernice. I lead the housekeeping department at Sun Capitals. When I started, speaking English in front of people was very difficult for me. Throughout the leadership program, I learned to communicate better, present in English, and become more confident. Today, I lead the entire housekeeping department. The company supports our families. They provide Thanksgiving meals and help us with school supplies for our children. This is more than a job for me. It's been an opportunity to grow and become a leader and better support my family. Thank you.

Robert Avalos, followed by Orlando Alvidrez.

Hello. Hello, Madam President, Council Members. I'm Robert Avalos. I'm also with Sun Capital Hotels. And at our hotels, we work hard to support nearby restaurants, bars, and local businesses. Our guests are looking for places to eat and things to do, and we want to help them connect with the neighborhood. I will be helping with the new sawmill Hilton integrate into the community and build relationship with nearby businesses. Like for myself at my hotel, there's five, six, seven restaurants around us. And so when we have teams coming in or we know big sports events are coming in, we help coordinate that with those restaurants. So then they're not surprised with a party of 20 or 30 coming in the door. They're, you know, made aware of that and they can prepare properly for their stuff as well. Because the hotel will not have its own restaurant or bar, that partnership will be important. We want our guests walking into Sawmill and Old Town and spending more money with businesses already there. And that's good for guests, that's good for the hotel, and that's good for the community. I think it's important that we spread the wealth. It's something I learned in our Visit Albuquerque ACE class, and not just kind of keep it in one area, but spread it all around Albuquerque. So thank you. Hope you support this IRB.

Orlando Alvidrez, followed by Haleah Todd.

Madam President and Councillors, my name is Orlando and I'm the Director of the Sawmill Community Land Trust. We met with the hotel developer and our Councillor Joaquin Baca in good faith Friday before last to come up with amendments that address our concerns. We felt it was our responsibility to speak up for the historic neighborhoods immediately east of the proposed hotel. There is no development that exceeds three stories that immediately abut single family homes in the area. As we know, the developer slash property owner has the right through zoning to build 60 feet. However, it's clear that he needs the financial incentive of the IRB to build his hotel, and this is where Councilor has a say. We are asking that you support strong amendments to this bill that deal with the issues we discussed. Thank you.

Helea Chan, followed by Dipesh Kolwadwala.

Good afternoon, Madam President, counselors. I wrote a speech today, but I'm not going to say it. I want to thank you for your time. I want to thank you for hearing us out the last couple of weeks. I have learned so much by coming to these city council meetings and how I can be a better member of the community and how I can support us in joining what you councilors are working on in your districts. We have a really cool leadership program that you've heard us talk about over the last couple weeks. And we are really about growing individuals. So we don't hire a person that maybe goes to college or necessarily that's not the right path for them. But we want to give them career opportunities, something really tangible to hold on to. And that's a career. We invest in them. We want them to start out in a very beginning position and have the opportunity to grow. And whether they grow with us or whether we help them go out and find a job someplace else, we want to do that for our people. We also want to be a part of this community. So thank you guys for hearing us today. And I'm excited for what we can do next.

Depeche called one walla followed by William R Stafford on zoom.

Hi, Depeche. I can't do better than that. I just want to thank you for your time today.

William Stafford, followed by Ray Strom on Zoom.

Good evening, Madam President and counselors. Thank you so much. My name is William R. Stafford. I'm the owner of Sadie's of New Mexico. Very proud to say that my family's been serving authentic New Mexican cuisine for 72 years in the Albuquerque area. My support for this project comes in many aspects. What stands out the most as a destination city for Albuquerque is affordable overnight rooms. We need more of that. We need destination. We need that economic development. And secondly, employment opportunities. I think that all of us as business people in this area, in the city of Albuquerque, the village of Los Ranchos and beyond, really understand just how important it is to get people. Let's hire more Albuquerqueans, New Mexicans. Let's put them to work. Thank you so much for all the work that you do. I really appreciate it. God bless.

Ray Strom, followed by Zachary Pohn.

Madam president council members, thank you for this opportunity. This is the 2nd time I will speak to you about this project. I am fully supporting of this project and I think it's compelling. We've heard a lot of. Statements about the economic, the positive economic impact of a project of this nature. And and the quality and benefit to the, to the community and to Albuquerque. And I'm speaking you today as a long time resident that will retire here. I am a professional risk manager and an insurance broker for 47 years. I've worked with Sun Capital for over 15 years. I've walked every one of their properties here in New Mexico, and I could assure you that the quality of the buildings, the quality of the product that they will produce, and they have produced many, will make our community proud. They meet and exceed the standards that you would expect for life safety, for public safety, and fire prevention. And I cannot advocate for them. I'm so impressed with the leadership group. They do such a great job I hope you could support this project. I think it would be a benefit to everyone.

Thank you Zachary home followed by a Jordan McConnell I Thank you guys for your time

In support of this project and giving these guys their IRB, I have a business with two locations that would be affected by a bit of foot traffic from a hotel like this. And I think that's a positive thing for the community. I live in the area and I would welcome the addition of extra affordable rooms to bring customers to my bar. I also think that building hotels will help us take the pressure off converting housing into Airbnbs. And that's something we desperately need in Albuquerque is more affordable housing. And I thank you guys for your time.

Jordan McConnell.

Good evening, President Pena and members of the council. My name's Jordan McConnell. I'm a District 2 resident. Earlier in my life, I worked in hospitality as a front desk agent, a night auditor, and in hotel management. This was during a period of my life where I struggled financially, and having a hotel job within walking distance of my home literally kept me housed. I'm asking you to approve this IRB. The developer's done what we asked developers to do. They've followed our rules, they've listened to neighbors, and they're responding to concerns. The project will comply with planning frameworks, neighborhood age requirements, and at some point the process has to mean something. And to Grace's point, it won't be a Burj Khalifa. We're investing millions in the rail trail through the sawmill in Old Town. This hotel complements and leverages that investment by putting visitors within walking and biking distance of all these lovely businesses. That's also what an IRB does, leverages investment. Council already approved an IRB for another property in your journal center. I appreciate Councilor Besson for underlining that. We want this investment, we want these jobs, and we want this project in our community. Please approve this IRB. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I was unable to locate four speakers in Zoom, so that concludes comment. Thank you.

Thank you. Before we go to Councillors, Steph wanted to present.

Thank you, Madam President and City Councilors. Tonight I am pleased to present the Dreamcatcher Sawmill Hotel Development, a project that represents a significant private investment in an underutilized site that continues the redevelopment of an important area of Albuquerque. The applicant is requesting $40,520,267 in city-issued taxable industrial revenue bonds to support the construction of a new dual-branded Hampton Inn and Home 2 Suites Hotel at 1018th Street. The development will include approximately 135 rooms that comply with the IDO and Old Town Historic Overlay, along with parking and new landscaping. The development has intentionally decided not to include a bar or restaurant in the hotel to generate broad community benefit to local small businesses. The hotel replaces approximately 25,600 square foot office building that will improve traffic patterns by staggering them throughout the day rather than current concentration at peak hours Monday through Friday. This investment will also put this property back into productive use that generates gross receipts tax, lodgers tax, Albuquerque tourism marketing district assessment, and contributes to much needed foot traffic in the area. The project also aligns with several important economic development priorities. It is located within a metropolitan redevelopment area, an opportunity zone, and a historically underutilized business zone. These designations reflect the area's potential for redevelopment and make this project an opportunity to advance both local and federal economic development goals. This project is expected to create approximately 42 to 47 permanent full-time and part-time jobs. These positions will include professional, supervisory, clerical, and operational hospitality roles. This project also provides meaningful benefits to its employees. Eligible employees will have access to medical, dental, and vision insurance, as well as retirement plans. This fiscal impact is also positive. According to UNM Bieber of Business and Economic Research, the project is estimated to generate approximately $6.4 million in taxes by 2045 and remain tax positive throughout the term of the bond. I also want to emphasize that no city funds will be used and the city's credit will not be pledged. This project will be eligible for up to 20 years of property tax abatement on the land, building, and equipment. Equipment purchased with bond proceeds will be exempt from gross receipts and compensating tax. At its core, this project takes an underutilized property, bringing more than $40 million in private investment, creates jobs, generates long-term tax revenue, and contributes to the local tourism economy. The Dreamcatcher Sawmill Hotel development represents a strong example of how the city's industrial revenue bond program can leverage private investment and support economic development, job creation, and revitalization. For this reason, staff recommends approval of the Dreamcatcher Sawmill Hotel. I would now like to invite Dipesh, if you choose to hear from him. Thank you for your time.

Madam President, Council, I had a presentation, but I'm going to skip it because of what we talked about earlier.

Okay, so does that finalize your presentation? It does. Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So we're going to go to councillors, but before we do, Mr. DePesci, you're already here. I would just like to ask a couple questions. So we have, I mean, we're hearing from everyone. I think the IRB, I just voted on IRB right down the street from there. We voted on IRB yesterday. that you have another project going and obviously this one in front of us and so I guess my question is is community right community is is you know the old town again like I said earlier is a historic neighborhood and all the positive that we've heard from everybody about how economic development it's a driver it's doing all these wonderful things in agreement But what about the residents that have to live there? So I guess my question to you is, is an amendment that says that you would adhere to the stipulations that you made with the community, are you amenable to that? Because I was told that you're amenable to the agreement. I think I received an email from you and you guys had some agreements. Can we have the staff be creative? and figure out a way how to say that you're committed to the neighborhood you're going to move into, an historic neighborhood, and that you're committed to those agreements, not additional ones, but the agreements that you discussed with the neighbors who live adjacent to it.

Madam President, members of the council, we did have the discussion. I think we had a very cordial discussion. It was very productive. And without getting into quasi-judicial items, we've agreed to make things look better. And we also talked about what can't be done, which allows us to do economic scale and really to make an affordable hotel. We've got to do certain things in our process. This, as Monica Mitchell said, we do comply to the current zoning planning, IDO, historic overlay, in this area. So we will do the best as we can to meet with the community. We'll continue to meet with them and take their input. And if recent progress is any indication, we have been listening. We've changed a few things already. And I've been sharing that with Senator O'Malley as the conversation goes on.

I would like to ask Commissioner, I mean, Senator O'Malley would come down and talk about those things. And I think it's important because I received an email from you saying that you had some agreements. So I'm not saying to do an amendment outside of those things. And so some of the things that you're mentioning now are, you know, they're words and the words you know, don't really mean anything after this IRB is approved, right? So I'm just saying that it would be nice to know that the residents and, you know, and if anybody in here doesn't know Senator O'Malley, Senator O'Malley really is a grassroots organizer who really was the leader in transforming the whole downtown area into what it is today. And when she speaks and says that she has some things that she wants to get addressed in order to do all the wonderful things that everybody wants in economic development and bring businesses, I think we should probably listen. So I would just ask that if Senator O'Malley, there was some agreements that were made. I have an email. I don't know what they were. But I think that, and Mr. DePesce, you're the one that sent me the email. I would like to see if maybe staff can get creative and figure out an amendment on how we can ensure that the community, historic community, can be protected. So Senator O'Malley, if you can add to that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do believe that we did have good meetings. The trust board also met afterwards. I believe that it was more of what can we do to affect as best we can to affect this development so that it's not as I guess we would say obtrusive in the sense of its size, et cetera. And I think that the developer listened to us. I would think that there would be something we could do. I mean, I think that there are understandings that we have. As we move forward, of course, you know, as was mentioned, there is still that process that the developer has to go through, and that's the process as he goes toward the permitting process. So there was some confusion about that, that this was actually a site plan that that was approved, it was not, it was just part of the IRB presentation. I think, you know, it's been kind of frustrating, I think, and it's something I hope that the council will look into in terms of how this process plays out because it is more of a, you know, kind of a cart before the horse kind of thing. And I understand that the developer was looking for financial incentives because he saw that this project wouldn't pencil. So I understand that. I guess the big issue for us was, again, and I'll repeat the same thing was, You know, the property is adjacent to single-family housing, and it's right there. And also, so that's one of the reasons. We did talk about it, and so that was good, and I think we have some understandings about that. And then the other issue, of course, was traffic. And we are talking about a local street, which is 18th. We have to look at the bigger area. We did talk with our counselor, Joaquin Baca, about it. We have to look at the area around traffic, mobility issues, pedestrian access, et cetera. This is getting to a point where it's getting pretty dangerous. And so that was a big issue for the trust as well because there's, what, over 250 people that live in the trust. And we've been, as a trust, as you mentioned earlier, we've been very, very careful and very considerate, I believe, as developers as we move forward when we do development. We consider a lot of things and we do consider character and those kinds of things and movement and traffic and things like that. And we're basically an island of affordability. The Somerland Trust has developed permanently affordable housing. The average price of a house when it goes to resale is about $150,000. That's unheard of. And that's because we kept the subsidies within that house. And we want to make sure that we keep that going and that we support families within the area. It did come up, Madam Chair, that there's concern about children. We have a lot of families there. So that said, I certainly understand from a developer's perspective his investment, that he wants to make sure that he gets the highest use out of his investment. I certainly get that. But those were the concerns we had. And all I can say is we had an understanding that somehow the amendments would reflect that. but apparently they cannot. So that's kind of where we are. I appreciate the...

So just to say that there were some agreements made, right? There were some understandings, I think. Okay, some understandings. So then the developer is saying, see, this is the concern, right? So you're looking like you didn't agree to it because you don't have to. if this thing passes without those amendments. So I'm just saying that all the wonderful things about this project, which I agree, I'm not opposed to it, I'm just saying that how do we then ensure that those agreements that aren't just words, that are solidified in some type of language. So I don't know if we can actually put in there that, you know, you have to, as the process goes on, you have to meet with the community and look through those stipulations or ideas that were made and be able to figure out how you walk down this path together because when everyone leaves at night and goes home from their businesses and leaves the area, it's the neighborhood that's going to have to deal with what's there. So it's a big thing for me. I mean, I don't know whether I have votes or not votes, but I think that it's important. So I'd like to turn to our staff to ask them, how do we get the community's voice heard with this project moving forward? And then I'll go to Councillor Besson.

Madam President, I think in terms of what we can do inside this IRB bill while still protecting your ability to hear an appeal that may come before the council in the separate site plan, we will, I think, need to do some brainstorming on other ways to approach that. I will add, again, not to sound like a broken record, but a lot of these things can be captured in the separate site plan application. And so that is one place. I know that's not quite the answer that we're looking for, but that is one place where those things, those concerns, those agreements can be reflected. But in terms of this bill tonight, we'll give some additional thought to what we can do to navigate around maintaining your ability to hear a QJ appeal.

Correct. And I understand that, but the IRB will have already been given and we can't take it back if they decide they don't want to listen to the neighborhoods.

so madam president in that case there the other option would be a deferral while the site plan runs its course so that the qj side separately has been resolved before the council is asked to vote on the funding piece which i know there's nuances and other pitfalls to that approach as well but just so

And I think that would be a challenge on the developer while he's trying to go through the process. And yeah, so our city attorney, I'd like to hear from you and then Councillor Sahn.

Councillor, Chair, Madam Chair, sorry. think is it's going to be very difficult to come up with language that is going to address the concerns of the community what what level of language agreement that they come to without putting it in language into the irb when uh without running the risk of the challenges we've been talking about all night if there is a appeal and becomes quasi-judicial So I'm happy to work with Julie and Victor and see if we can come up with something, but I do think it's going to be challenging to meet the kind of the criteria and the threshold that you guys are looking for without running the risk of being problematic down the road.

Um, well, thank you. And I mean, this is really a difficult situation, right? I mean, I think the hotel's cool. I feel really bad for the neighborhood that they don't have any assurance.

Um, but anyway, council person, madam, madam president, I think that I feel like I, at least I'm sitting in a different universe tonight when it comes to these, uh, If we want to improve Albuquerque and we want people to invest in Albuquerque and we want people to come here and we want tourism and we want business and we want to reduce crime and we want to increase affordability and we want all of these things, We sure also seem to want to make it excruciatingly difficult for businesses and developers to want to even try this site plan. And I would like to ask our staff on this to kind of roll down a little bit The process because I think we're talking about two different things if we don't incentivize certain larger projects They're not going to happen We're going to have a vacant building on a vacant piece of property that causes a whole other problem that we've been facing and if we incentivize Then there's still the planning process and this is what I want confirmation on whether it's from this runs Whitmore or whether it's from our staff or whoever that needs to be and But if we don't incentivize through something like an IRB, developers aren't even going to try. If they try and we give them the IRB, I believe, also Mr. Muirhead, I have a question for you to please confirm. Isn't it in here that if the developer doesn't deliver on certain commitments, then they don't get all of the benefit. And I would like to hear, I mean, I've read it, I get it, but I want to hear in an IRB, Mr. Muirhead, isn't it true that there are certain requirements that the developer must follow through on in order to qualify and keep any of this incentive?

Yes, there are things in the lease agreement after the IRB closes, which puts requirements on the developer to enjoy the city's benefit and the incentive you mentioned for the full 20 years.

Thank you, Mr. Muirhead. So that prevents what I'm going to coin as a bait and switch as far as the IRB is concerned when it comes to the site plan and the details that I think we've heard it multiple times so far. conversation. There's been it sounds to me like maybe there's been some willingness on certain things on unwillingness because of probably because of very valid reasons on both sides. But at the same time, is there not? And so I guess Miss Renz Whitmore, just so I can get our staff off the hook, because we've gone in a few circles on this, but. Can you please confirm when this site plan is getting approved? One, will it eventually come before the council, especially if there's a problem or disagreement?

Madam President, Councillor Besson, so a site plan won't come before you for approval, but if an approval gets appealed, it will come before you.

So if there's a problem, then it will come before us. Yes. And if the problem is that there's a disagreement in any of this, and the developer or the community have not linked together and there's a problem there's a problem it will come before the council the site plan does does that process for everybody watching have a community engagement process where there is going to be the cross t's and the i's dotted for at least making sure to deliver what this is going to look like what this will be have the community express their concerns and then potentially have an agreement or not or an appeal that comes before the council

Madam President, Councillor Besson, are you asking about the site plan approval process?

Yeah, well, I'm asking if a site plan, in the process to even just get the site plan approved, is there any community involvement?

So, Madam President, Councillor Besson, the site plan would be approved administratively. There would be notice that goes out to the Neighborhood Association and a sign on the property so people could send their comments, check the design, make sure it met any agreements that were made privately between the parties. The site plan can absolutely reflect what that agreement was. What the city couldn't do is put into the site plan approval that no change could ever be made or that a different building height than what was allowed in the IDO You know, that they could never maximize what's allowed under the zoning. So the site plan can absolutely confirm the agreement, but it couldn't lock it in forever.

Right. Okay. And thank you. Because to me, I'm trying to get at, I think that the trust and the neighborhoods, they have an ability to be able to get this in communication formally. with the developer and the developer has an opportunity to formally respond and all of that can be wrapped up hopefully with a bow for everybody in order to do this but the point to me is that if we don't incentivize then we're not going to get this across the finish line and by this I don't mean just this project I mean a lot of them that come before the council in the city And respectfully, I do think that Old Town is a gem, but some would argue that the open space is a gem, and some would argue that the foothills is a gem, and there's other gems in the city. So where do we draw the line on that? If our process is broken, which I'm not saying it's not, then let's not take it out on this particular piece of legislation. Let's take that out and fix the process, which we're all getting really good at wanting to do. So let's do that. Let's fix the process. Instead of taking it out on this potential applicant for something that we've done recently for other areas of the city or we've done recently for the same area of the city, I just think that we are getting a little mixed up in some of what on other instances has been very simple. And on this one, I can suspect what my thoughts are as to what the hiccups are, but I just don't think that that's fair and that that's the right way to govern.

Senator O'Malley, you had your hand up.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say, you know, the reason that we have focused on this one is I think we're saying, oh, this whole area. Well, that whole area, depending on where the building is, is very different. And the reason that we looked at this particular one was its adjacency to single-family housing, which is that lot that abuts single-family housing. That's the reason we focused on it. And also the other issue was concern about traffic. That's why. And I don't want to, you know, and we'll look at the other IRBs. I think that I know the ones that you all supported for Jim Long with Heritage Hotels. And I know that a lot of folks think, well, you know, let's be fair. After all, you've given Jim Long. But I do want to say something in defense of Jim Long and Heritage Hotels is that they did create the destination there. So let's not slam them for asking for IRBs and of course you have the right as a council to decide what conditions you put on the IRBs. What we need to get straightened out I think here is the right for you all to put a condition on an IRB. It's my understanding that you can because you are making the financial commitment for something and you're right it could end up or something doesn't get built or the site plan gets appealed or something like that can happen but you still have the right to do it and that seems to be very unclear with the council and so I have concerns about that but that's all I have to say and that's I just wanted to respond to that Mr. Depeche if you wanted to add anything to that you're more than welcome to since I allowed her the time no madam chair I don't have anything else to add

Okay. So I'll just end with, you know, I know what, oh, Councilor Rogers. Well, I was still on my, yeah. So I'll just end. You guys can have a seat unless they have any additional questions of you. But I just want to end by just saying that I agree with what Councilor Besson is saying. I mean, we do need economic development. But just saying that we can do economic development and just do all these IRBs or all this stuff for development in the community without taking into account neighborhoods is really going in the wrong direction, right? I mean, if you live in an underserved neighborhood, zoning actually, the NARO, the Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance, really came into play. It came out of the Civil Rights Movement, and it was the federal government's way of making sure that underserved neighborhoods had a voice in planning and local government, right? And now even some of the underserved neighborhoods don't really have a voice like they should. They don't have lawyers who are on their boards. They don't have zoning people who are on their boards. So some of what's happened with our neighborhood associations is some of what we talk about naysayers is some of the more affluent neighborhoods that don't want like a Starbucks in their neighborhood, don't want all these other things. I think we as a body need to look look at that. But when you're looking at marginalized communities, historic communities, we really, really need to make sure that the communities have a voice. And I'll just end with that. I mean, I don't think there's an appetite for a two-week deferral. I think everybody wants to vote on this. You know, I think it's unfortunate. I think that I do understand the process to go through the site development plan, but they'll have already gotten their IRB, so I just think it's kind of backwards. So, Council Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President. I just have a question for Mr. Meerhead. I'm looking through the packet because we have to stick to what's in our record. Are there any clawbacks in this actual agreement for the IRB? Usually for my IRBs that I've sponsored, I've gotten a copy of the actual agreement. And I'm just seeing a summary in the packet. So are there any clawbacks written in if, for instance, there don't?

Madam President, Councilor Rogers, yes, it is consistent with other IRBs is this one that if they fail to live up to the terms that they are subject to clawbacks of some of the benefits that have been obtained.

Can you talk, thank you, Madam President, what are the clawbacks?

So it would depend on where in terms of, the agreements that you and I have worked on and talked about are in the LEEDA context where they're employment driven. And so you see clawbacks based on if they don't hit those employment targets or they don't stay in the community for ten years that they might suffer 50% reduction, 25% reduction. In the IRB context, it's a little bit different because they aren't driven by employment. They're driven by the other economic development goals. So if there were clawbacks, it would be drafted in a way that if they don't live up to the terms of it at any point during the agreement, they could be subject to clawbacks. And that could be negotiated with companies subject to everybody's approval. But that absolutely is common. that there would be clawbacks if they fail to live up to the terms of the deal. And they don't live up to their side of the bargain.

Thank you, Madam President. I'm just not seeing where they are in our record. So there's no clawbacks on this one, the counselor is saying. For this IRB, I'm getting conflicting answers from the sponsor and then from you. So I just want to clarify.

Yes. So Madam President, Councilor Rogers, yes. So there is a standard form of lease agreement that is prepared and is available. And then in terms of the clawbacks, then when we move toward finalizing and closing it, we can put those provisions in. And again, in the IRB context, it is not as common as in the LIDA. But given the discussion and everything that's happening, it certainly would be part of the discussion on behalf of the city that that is in there before this closes.

Thank you, Madam President. I think just we're dealing with this right now with the state fair, right? Community benefits. And so we took an exploration trip to find out cities that have actually successfully done this. I'm not proposing we do what the county did here. Because I think there's a fine line between being business customer service friendly to our business owners and making it extra hard for them. There's a fine line that I think we're pushing a little bit. So I would be interested in what that looked like here. Because I think that would make folks more comfortable that, hey, if the developer, if we're giving them this amount of a tax break for this long, 20 years, That we want to see that there are some things we can do to if they don't meet those that we get our money back And I think we're even dealing with this on some other things in the downtown area So just wanted to offer that Thank You madam president Seeing no other questions or comments we're gonna go to break after this but counselor pocket of clothes I

Thank you, Madam President. Man, this has gone along. We're going to end up staying past midnight again. I'm going to vote against that again because we make bad decisions at midnight. That said, I think there are some serious concerns in certain parts of our city that matter. This is a historic neighborhood. There is some residential in there. There's also industrial mixed in there. So it's not cut and dry the way it is. But both parties met in good faith. They worked a lot. I'm disappointed we couldn't put something in written word to satisfy everybody. I think that is disappointing. And so that leads us to trust. I mean, I have to trust that Folks are gonna do the right thing if this was a out of state. I'd be like no way. I don't trust anybody Mr. Depeche those actually from Albuquerque and has multiple businesses here. He's not leaving and I hopefully this process. We fix this process, the IRB process for sure. And there's some serious concerns in terms of traffic. I hope the administration prioritizes the roads that we want to get in there and the larger study that we're going to do to help out because there's a lot going on over there right now. So all that said, I'm going to trust and I've seen all the work that everyone's put into this and so I urge everyone's support.

So there's a motion and a second for a due pass of 038 as amended once. All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes. Opposed, no. Motion carries on 8-1. Thank you. So now we're going to go to break and we'll return at 8 o'clock.

Thank you. do do ¶¶ you you Thank you. . . . . ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ you Thank you. . . . Thank you. Thank you.

All right guys we're back from dinner and as you can see things have changed a little bit so. We're back in Final Instruments and we are going to be going to, once I get my proper paperwork in order because I feel really cool being in the official seat. We are on 052. or not i know fifty two it's it's it's a sign I think that's used to separate it, push it out. There you go. There we go. All right, financial instruments. Letter B, Councillor Bassan.

Mr. Vice President, O52, approving a project involving Securin Incorporated pursuant to the Local Economic Development Act and City Ordinance FS0410, the city's implementing legislation for that act and to support the expansion of Securin's cybersecurity technology operations in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I move that you pass.

Motion is a do pass and seconded by community. The whole concert grout counselors.

Any questions, Mr. Vice President? If I may open, yes, I apologize, Mr. Vice President. I know that deputy director Monica Mitchell is here and since she's here for her big. Glory tonight there. She's going to be busy. I'd love for her to go ahead and do her open.

Thank you, Madam President and city councillors. Today I'm proud to present a proposed LITA project for Securin, a rapidly growing Albuquerque cybersecurity company that protects organizations around the world through vulnerability, intelligence, and attack surface management. Securin is exactly the kind of homegrown company we want to retain, grow, and celebrate. cybersecurity is essentially a nearly every modern industry and demands for these skills will only continue to grow this project gives albuquerque an opportunity to strengthen our high value technology sector creating well-paying careers and demonstrate The innovative companies can start here, scale here, and compete globally. Securin has chosen to remain and expand in Albuquerque because of our growing technology ecosystem, skilled workforce, and research institutions, and collaborative business environment. The company plans to recruit locally through partnerships with New Mexico universities, community colleges, workforce organizations, and professional networks, helping us build a sustainable cybersecurity talent pipeline right here in New Mexico. The company plans approximately one million in private investment and will relocate to approximately 13,000 square foot facility at 8801 Horizon Boulevard. The proposed City LIDA investment is $100,000, alongside $250,000 in state LIDA funds. In return, Securin has a binding commitment to create 44 new jobs over 10 years. Most importantly, this is a performance-based investment the fiscal analysis projects that this city will recoup its investment within the required 10-year period with an estimated 689 000 in net fiscal benefit the project is also expected to generate approximately 62.7 million in economic impact Securin is homegrown, globally competitive, and positioned as an industry critical to our economic future. This is an opportunity to keep a successful Albuquerque company here, support quality technology careers, and strengthen our local talent pipeline. For this reason, staff recommends approval of the secure and lead-up project. I would now like to invite Frankie Hermosillo, our senior economic developer, to present the staff analysis. FRANKY HERMOSILLO.

Before you go on to that next part, I understand that whoever put up a sign is trying to express something in the concern being brought, but signs are not allowed within council chambers. Would you please take it down? Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam President and City Councilors, for the opportunity to present this economic development project. Secure and Incorporated includes approximately $1 million in a private investment for their headquarters that were formerly in Uptown, moving to 8801 Horizon Boulevard. The facility is zoned MXM. and the proposed use is permitted by that right. The utility has been noted as unremarkable. In return for this $1 million private investment, the city is contributing $100,000 and the state $250,000. The economic impact analysis projects the city's investment will be recovered well within the required 10-year period. As such, 02652 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, staff recommends approval of 02652 as proposed in the project plan application. I'd now like to introduce Len Romano of Economic Development New Mexico to speak on behalf of the state's support.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the Council. My name is Len Romano. I'm with New Mexico Economic Development, and I've also owned a business in downtown Albuquerque for close to 30 years. We're very pleased to support Securin's continued growth here in Albuquerque. And Albuquerque is rapidly becoming a hub for industries like aerospace and defense. advanced energy, quantum technology, and advanced computing. And with that growth, we see more high quality jobs and career opportunities being created right here. And that's exciting because it wasn't so long ago that many of our young people felt they had to leave New Mexico to pursue careers in these fields. So homegrown technology companies like Securin are part of that changing story. The state is proud to support Securin's expansion with $250,000 in leader funding alongside approximately $1 million of their own private investment and a commitment to create 44 new high-quality jobs here in Albuquerque. We appreciate Securin's continued commitment to our community And we appreciate the city's partnership in helping companies like this grow here. So on behalf of New Mexico Economic Development, I respectfully ask the council to support 0-26-52. Thank you for your time.

One second. I do apologize for the interruption. The person who is behind with the sign, I understand what you're trying to do. You took the sign down, and I really appreciate that. But by you holding it up so that the camera can see it is no different than you putting it on the pole. So again, put the sign away, or I will ask you to leave. And the same that goes for the one behind it. Sir. I can't see who it is. Take the sign down, or I will ask you to leave. Are you talking to me? I'm talking to anybody who has a sign that seems to want to put it up so that the camera can see it. It violates the rules. Please, don't. I don't want to have to, but I will. Again, I apologize for the interruption. Please continue.

Thank you, Vice President Champagne. I'd now like to introduce Jennifer Littlefield. She's the Chief Financial Officer for Secure and Incorporated, and she can share more about her project and stand for any questions.

Nice to meet you guys. I'm the city council. So I'm the chief financial officer for Securin. I'd like to also kind of add, they did a great job of presenting us. I really don't have too much to add. But we are going on our five-year anniversary in New Mexico this week alone. So this is very exciting for us. Again, we've been homegrown since the beginning. This is not the first company that the CEO has also opened here. He opened another cybersecurity company that was around for 10 years before they Required by another company and he decided to start all over again here We do love this community very much and we're happy here in New Mexico and in Albuquerque We work really closely with the universities and we have an internship program So we're starting to try to build them from the very ground up to ensure that we keep those candidates here So 44 is what we're hiring a full-time, but that does not include our intern candidates We have about 18 of those currently and we hope to expand it. Thank you you guys if you have any questions Counselors do we have any questions?

COUNSELOR TAYLOR.

THANK YOU, PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT FOR NOW. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. I'M GLAD THAT YOU HAVE INTERNS. ARE THOSE PAID INTERNSHIP POSITIONS? YES, ALL OF THEM, 100% PAID.

THANK YOU.

AND WE HAVE ABOUT A 75% CONVERSION RATE. SO THOSE ONES THAT WE HAVE, WE CONVERT THEM. IF THEY LEAVE US SOMETIMES IT'S BY THEIR CHOICE, NOT ALWAYS OURS.

PERFECT. THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANYTHING ELSE, COUNCILORS? Councillor Bessandra, close.

I urge your support.

I don't think we have to take. She's not here. Nobody's online. So all those in favor of O52, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Any opposed? Seeing none, move on to C. Councilor Besson.

Mr. Vice President, O53, approving a project involving quantum, say that three times fast. Sorry. Continuum LLC pursuant to the Local Economic Development Act and City Ordinance FS0410, the city's implementing legislation for that act to support the acquisition, construction, and improvement of a facility for a quantum computing facility with phototonics Photonics and ion trapping labs to be located in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

I move a do pass So we have a motion for a do pass on no 53 second by committee of the whole route Council person for opening mr. Vice President.

I would like to invite deputy director Mitchell up to open Thank you

Thank you, Vice President, City Councilors. Today, I'm proud to present Quantinium, one of the world's leading quantum computing companies and exactly the kind of global significant technology company Albuquerque should be competing for. Quantum technology is not simply another emerging industry. It will help shape the future of computing, national security, scientific discovery, and advanced manufacturing. This project gives Albuquerque an opportunity to turn New Mexico's world-class research strengths into high-wage careers, private investment, and long-term economic growth. Quentinium chose Albuquerque because very few communities can match the concentration of quantum expertise we already have. Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratories, the University of New Mexico, CNM, and our growing private sector ecosystem provide access to exceptional research partners and talent. And importantly, this project is also about creating opportunities for Albuquerque residents. Quintinium is working with Central New Mexico Community College and its quantum technician boot camp to build a local workforce pipeline, creating an accessible pathway for residents to enter this emerging industry and pursue high-paying careers The economic investment is significant. Quantinium pays, plans to invest approximately $32.5 million and establish a 13,263 square foot research and development center at 5501 Wilshire Avenue Northeast. The project is expected to create 25 new high wage jobs with a salary of $2.5 million. And with a salary spend of approximately four million in the first three years alone. and generate approximately 86.4 million in economic impact over 10 year period. The proposed LIDA package is 1.5 million split evenly between the city and the state, leveraging more than 32 million in private investment. The city's independent fiscal analysis projects approximately 480,000 net benefit and 1 million estimated city payback within the required 10 year period. The project brings global credibility to our quantum ecosystem, creates exceptional career opportunities, and converts our research strengths into private sector growth. It gives Albuquerque the opportunity to help define the future of an industry in which New Mexico already has a genuine competitive advantage. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the Quantinium lead-up project. I would now like to invite Frankie Hermosillo, Senior Economic Developer, to present the staff analysis. Thank you.

Hello again, Vice President Champagne and City Councilors. Thank you. Quantinium is proposing to establish a 13,000 square foot research and development center. It will be located at 5501 Wilshire Avenue Northeast. The facility is zoned non-residential light manufacturing and the proposed research and development use is permitted under the current zoning and based upon a July 20th, 2026 email with

ABC the water authority fully request your support of this ordinance. So you can be the fiscal agent for that leader. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice President champagne. I'd now like to introduce Denise Holmquist. She's continuum CFO and she can share more about the company and their investment in Albuquerque.

Good evening, Vice Chair, and good evening, council members. Thank you so much for having us here tonight. And on behalf of Quantinium, I would first like to thank you, the city of Albuquerque and the state of New Mexico, for really investing in quantum. Quantinium is very excited to be here tonight to be considered for a LIDA proposal, a LIDA grant. And thank you for having me to speak. We were the first full-stack quantum company that decided to plant our flag here in New Mexico. And we really did that because Albuquerque checks all the boxes. Albuquerque has a commitment and the state has a commitment to quantum technologies. Certainly there are technological resources here spearheaded by Sandia and Los Alamos National Labs. And there's also a very strong academic and workforce development strategy. And we can benefit from all of those. And we hope to help build that ecosystem. One great example of workforce opportunities that we've recently had is the first cohort of the quantum boot camp at CNM. We brought an intern in this last summer, and we have converted that employee to full-time employment now. And so we really do appreciate the academic resources that are found here in New Mexico. As mentioned, we do plan to invest over $32 million in capital and create over 25 high paid jobs and that are well above the average that we see in the region. We are building our research and development labs here focused on integrated photonics and that will fuel our next generation quantum computers. We have leased a facility here in Albuquerque and we plan to use these funds to help us construct and improve the lab and our business operations here. We do expect this project will really help us deepen our relationships across the ecosystem that you've built here in the city of Albuquerque and the state of New Mexico. And I respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you very much, guys. Councilors, any questions? Comments, concerns? Seeing none, Madam Clerk.

Approximately $142,000 during the first three years. The project is expected to generate approximately $228.4 million in economic impact over 10 years. The proposed LIDA package is $1.25 million, including $250,000 from the city and $1 million from the state. Our independent economic analysis estimates the city will net fiscal benefit of approximately 1.98 million with the city's investment expected to be recovered in three years. This is also a project with strong performance results and requirements. The agreement establishes a commitment of 152 new jobs with the first 40 positions tied to 100% clawback provision. City staff will also work with CNM, UNM, APS, and the academies and other workforce partners to connect local students and graduates with these opportunities. BlackBee strengthens our aerospace ecosystem, creates outstanding careers, leverages assets that we have spent years developing, and represents a strong performance-based public-private partnership. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the BlackBee LIDA project. With that, I will turn it over to Frankie Armacillo, our senior economic developer, to walk through the project details. Thank you.

Thank you again, Vice President Champagne and city councillors. Black V, as Deputy Director Mitchell said, is an advanced satellite manufacturing serving US national security needs. The company is requesting $250,000 from the city of Albuquerque to complement the $1 million from the state of New Mexico incentives. Black V is proposing to expand into an already existing 50,000 square foot light manufacturing facility, which is located at 4000 Ranger Road Southeast. The project represents a commitment to 152 new jobs. The project participation agreement uses an existing Albuquerque and New Mexico employment baseline of 24 employees and establishes a final employment target of 176 employees. The 152 job commitment is the difference between those figures. The separate figure of 52 full-time employees represents Black Fee's total company-wide workforce across New Mexico and Virginia. The remaining 28 employees are located in Virginia and are not included in the Albuquerque baseline. The project will occupy an existing industrial facility and requires no zoning change and is expected to have a negligible or otherwise unremarkable utility usage. The first 40 new positions are especially important because they are tied to a 100% clawback provision. For incentive compliance purposes, these must be qualifying project jobs based in Albuquerque and filled by employees who reside in New Mexico. Remote employees residing outside of New Mexico do not count towards the commitment. I'd like to bring now Beth Waldrip from the Economic Development Department of New Mexico on their contributions for this project.

Thank you. Mr. Vice President and councillors, the state is firmly committed to supporting this company with $1 million in state lead-up funds for 152 jobs, an average salary of $145,565. They offer stock options to their employees, 5% matching 401 and excellent health benefits. and the state strongly urges your support. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice President and city councillors. I'd now like to introduce you to Dr. Peter Wegner, the CEO of Black V, to share more about their company and their investment to Albuquerque.

Good evening, Mr. Vice President and counselors. Thank you for having me here this evening, and thank you for the support of my company. We started the company two and a half years ago at the CNM Workforce Training Center, and we've been embedded there growing very, very rapidly. and in fact growing out of the space. And so that's why we really need to expand and we were lucky enough to find an existing facility that meets our needs right near Kirtland Air Force Base where many of our customers and partners at Sandia National Labs and organizations on Kirtland Air Force Base reside. Albuquerque is a great place to grow a space company. I first moved to Albuquerque in 1995 and started working at the Air Force Research Laboratory and I had a dream back then that, you know, to start a space company here where you could build and design satellites and operate them here. I ended up moving away and started three other companies in Seattle and other places around the country. But three years ago when we looked at starting a new company, we looked around the country and decided Albuquerque was the place. So I'm really excited to be back, really thrilled to grow the team. I've got a wonderful team here locally that we've been able to hire from organizations that, you know, from New Mexico, students from New Mexico, New Mexico Tech, UNM, New Mexico State. So really excited for the next chapter in the company and appreciate your support tonight.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Councilors, any questions? Seems cut and dry. All right. Madam Clerk.

Councilor Baca.

Hold on one second, Madam Clerk. Yes, you may close.

Thank you, Madam President. Oh, sorry. That's a habit. I didn't let you close, so. Mr. Vice President. I just wanted to, and I don't want to belabor it, but I just want to talk about the clawbacks, because I know we mentioned it a little bit, and I'm very grateful to the department who already knows what I want to see in these and didn't even have to ask. It was already included. Some of the clawbacks are around the employees that targeted that they have to hire before December 31st, 2027, as early as 2027. If the employment falls below 36, which the cap for that period of time is 36, then they may be required to pay repay up to 100% of the applicable public funding after a 180-day cure period, which is really important. If they don't get to the 176 employees by December 2036, then there's another trigger for clawbacks there as well. And so I just am grateful that that's what I'd like to see, and that's why I love working with the department on mine. because we make sure that those things are already built in, in good faith, that they're already homegrown company, they've been here, they're pouring back into our community. Even then, we still need these assurances if we're using public dollars. And so thank you to the department. Thank you to the CEO and the community because we want these things here just in a responsible way. If something happens and it doesn't, we don't, it's out of all of our control sometimes that the public's money is still secured and we can get it back. And I think that's the point. So I will urge your support.

Thank you. Council Rogers clerk.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Thank you, we'll move on to appeals now. AC07, the Yale Village Neighborhood Association and D. Love's Restaurant LLC appeals the zoning hearing examiner's decision to approve a conditional use for an overnight shelter for the property located at 2300 Yale Boulevard Southeast. Mr. Hall.

Thank you, Vice President Champagne. Counselors, this is an appeal for the ZHC's decision to approve a conditional use permit with 19 additional conditions. This property is located, like the title says, at 2300 Yale Boulevard Southeast. This property is formerly a Ramada Inn that is directly south of the Waffle House near the airport, if that helps orient anyone. The conditional use permit would permit this property be used as an overnight shelter. the applicant in this case erroneously believed that at the time they began operations in november 2025 that a permit was not needed predicated on some incorrect advice from unknown city staff nevertheless the application came before the city in december 2025 and then produced thereafter three hearings in front of the zhe At the first hearing in front of the ZHE, there were some questions raised about some of the impacts that were going to be faced by the neighborhood and surrounding area due to the proposed grant of the conditional use permit. Notably, it was whether the proposed conditional use would create significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties, surrounding neighborhood, and our larger community. That phrase will come up often because it's one of the required elements of the shall grant scheme in a conditional use permitting scheme. On that basis, the ZHE order a continuance to get some clarification on those questions. The ZHE continued that hearing until February 17th, 2025. The February 17th, 2025, the ZHE held a second public hearing. and while some answers some questions were answered the zhe still felt that there was an outstanding question regarding the adverse impacts on the surrounding adjacent properties around neighborhood larger community and what efforts could be taken to mitigate those impacts with additional conditions while the parties during that hearing appeared to agree that there need to be some kind of conditions that would be adjusted or changed or added neither party to the Zhe's you know estimation believed that there was that they had the any kinds that they wanted to offer so the Zhe continued the hearing to the April 21st hearing and the interim directed his staff to consult different applicable city departments and commenting agencies including but not limited to CODE ENFORCEMENT, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, ALBUQUERQUE COMMUNITY SAFETY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS, ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND ALBUQUERQUE FIRE AND RESCUE. SO WE COME TO THE THIRD ZHE HEARING. AND AT THE THIRD ZHE HEARING, THE ZHE TOOK COMMENTS FROM OR AT LEAST TOOK SUGGESTIONS FROM THE THREE COMMENTING AGENTS THAT RESPONDED. APDs, AFR'S ABANDONED AND DILAPIDATED BABY PROPERTY TEAM ALSO KNOWN AS ADAPT AND CODE ENFORCEMENT. Following those comments, the ZHE constructed 19 additional conditions, including several subparts for some of the conditions, that he then added to the conditional use permit. With those 19 conditions, the ZHE approved the application for the conditional use of an overnight shelter at this property location. On appeal, there are two appellants, the appellants at Yale Village Neighborhood Association and D. Loves Restaurants, LLC, doing business as a Waffle House. They generally challenged on the basis of failure to show sufficient evidence to support the ZHE's decision, arbitrary and capricious decision-making that resulted in the approval of the conditional use permit and that the ZHE misapplied the IDO. July 30th, Luho held a quasi-judicial appeal hearing in which the applicant and the appellants appeared and provided testimony. So as a threshold finding, a threshold issue, Luho recommended that the council find that the Yale Village Neighborhood Association does not have standing. The reason for that being is that under the IDO, a neighborhood association must provide a submitted petition. A majority of all property owners are tens of 600 feet of an application inclusive of rights of way. The Gale Village Neighborhood Association failed to present this petition. And on that basis, the LOHO found that they should be dismissed from this matter for lack of standing. That does not apply to appellant D. Luggs. They are the Waffle House directly adjacent to this property, and so their standing remains unchanged. To the merits of this matter, the LUHO found that the ZHE's decision should be partially denied and partially granted. In looking at what is partially denied, at least the appeal should be partially denied, that's what I mean to say. The LUHO found that the Z80's decision to be partially denied and partially granted, gosh. The LUHO concluded that the appellant D. Love's appeal seeking reversal of the decision did not meet the standards for reversal. Specifically, the LUHO hinged on the appeal the conditions that were attached by the ZHE, the 19 conditions, and found that not only did they apply the IDO correctly and the objection to the IDO, not only they provide substantial evidence, but they also show that they were carefully and considered based on the expert testimony, so to speak, or the expert submissions by the commenting agencies. I emphasize that when these are the types of conditions that are not merely speculative but are, quote, specifically designed to sufficiently mitigate adverse off-site and on-site impacts linked to the overnight shelter use. So on that basis, including the additional 19 conditions with subparts, the LUHO found that the ZHC decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, was not in error implying the IDO, and was supported by substantial evidence. However, and this is where we get to the partially grant the appeal, the ZHE's decision, the LUHO felt the ZHE's decision should be partially granted only to the extent that some timelines for conditions should be cut to a shorter timeframe than what's normally allowed under a conditional use scheme. under conditional use scheme, it's a year standard to meet those additional conditions. The LUHO felt that because there are adverse impacts being felt to and testified to by the appellants and by surrounding businesses and those representatives or members of the surrounding neighborhoods, that some conditions needed to be addressed sooner, not within a year time. The LUHO proposed that four different requirements be met within 60 days and that four different requirements be met within 90 days of the council's final decision. Those conditions that were met within 60 days are requiring adequate lighting, requiring natural surveillance and clear lines of sight on the property, requiring installation of exterior lighting, and requiring on-site security response and oversight procedures to be implemented for level two security. Within 90 days, the LUHO recommended that the applicant be required to ensure adequate locking devices on exterior doors, limit and clearly delineate access to the property, install no trespassing signs directly visible upon entering the property, and implement controlled access practices to the facility. The remaining additional 19 conditions minus eight, so 11 conditions, would be implemented no later than May 5th, 2027. So, on that whole summation, the LUHO recommends that the City Council partially deny and partially grant the appeal. It would be a partial deny of the appeal as to overturning the entirety of the ZHE's findings, but it would be partially grant in adjusting the time frames for eight different conditions. I stand for questioning.

Councillors, do we have any questions for Mr. Hall? Councillor Tayes.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Mr. Hull, on the 60 days, those are items A, B in the

Yes, Vice President and Councilor Taez, that would be 25A, 25B, 25Q, and 25P, as reflected in the ZHE's order of April 21st. I believe if you look in the appeal packet, that would be page 16 and 17.

Thank you, Mr. Hall. Mr. Vice President, and for the 90 days, I see it's items F, G, and what were the other two? F, I, M, and N. F, I, N, and M. So not G. I thought it was G2. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. One more question. What are we going to do if... THIS BODY ACCEPTS THAT RECOMMENDATION, HOW CAN WE ENSURE OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ON THOSE 30, 90, AND 365 DAYS?

SO VICE PRESIDENT CHAMPAGNE, COUNSELOR TAYLOR, THAT WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CODE ENFORCEMENT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE MEETING THOSE OBLIGATIONS AND FOLLOWING UP. We think that because of the prolonged period and the contentious nature of this matter There's likely going to be pretty serious oversight of making sure those conditions are met in fact the luho noted in Fifth and finding 15 that the applicant should be advised that quote if any conditions are not met with this time The approval is void citing IDO section six four.

Oh Thank You mr. Hall and mr. Vice President one more question for our planning director or who's here on behalf of codes I Thank you director. Have you reviewed these recommendations from the Louisville for the 1690 and the 19 recommendations of the work that needs to be done.

And Council President and Councilor, no, I have not. We're waiting to determine what City Council does with this. But no, I have not personally gotten involved with this particular case.

Thank you, director. Are you able to just kind of do a quick review and just let us know based off of your capacity and codes if you think you can meet those particular? Vice president.

Go ahead. I apologize for jumping in while you're in those questioning. The purpose of this accept or reject proceeding at this time is on a closed record. So I would not recommend that this body take any outside information that's outside the record.

Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Vice President.

Councilor Rogers.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I'd like to move to reject the Lou Hall recommendations and schedule a full hearing at the next council meeting.

All right.

There's a motion to not accept, correct? To reject it.

Yes.

I just want to make sure the recommendation. OK. Then we have a second by Committee of the Whole Grout. Councillor is there any discussion on the rejection. On the motion. Councillor Lewis. OK. All right. That being said Madam Clerk.

Councillor Baca.

Yes.

Councillor Persaud. No. Vice President Champagne.

Yes.

Councillor Feeblecorn?

Yes.

Councillor Grout? Yes. Councillor Lewis?

Yes.

Councillor Rogers? Yes. Councillor Tayes? Yes. President Pena? It passes on a 7-1 vote.

OK. We will move on to general public comment. 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 our website uh... last friday as a reminder pursuant to our rules and procedures article one section eight general public comment shall not be permitted on quasi judicial matters please do not include in your comment anything related to any quasi judicial matters including proposed site plans, zoning map amendments, or the loophole appeal we just heard. Failure to comply with this rule may result in your comment being cut off. Please take this time to edit your comments. Here are the public ground rules for tonight. Each participant has one minute to present. Comments will be addressed to the councillors only through the council vice president. Any disruption, any disruptive conduct will result in removal from the meeting. Again, there is a one-minute time limit, and the indicator, your bell will ring. So, Mr. Cornelius.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Our first speaker is Tad Numitzki, followed by Dr. Lisa Christofferson.

Excuse me, just a second. Would you give me your overhead? Thank you. That's all we're looking right here. My name is Ted Niemiecki. What we're looking right here in the consent agenda, almost 5% new taxes. Let's go now to the real issue, economic and neighborhood redevelopment. Anybody can remember what used to be Wienerich and so on? Years back, well, everything went downhill, nothing deserted on the 50s. Look at now, how beautiful Uptown, vibrant, everything, restaurants, hotels, all offices, everything, and even incorporated with Hoffmantel, now compared to here, downtown. Why Mr. Chavez on the front of his building, the property, city posting parking lot meters. How did you like a neighbor like he has? Thank you.

Dr. Lisa Christopherson, followed by Marilyn Mokino.

Good evening, Vice President Champagne, city councilors. My name is Lisa Christopherson. I speak to you today about three matters. First of all, I am super excited about democracy and how in Albuquerque we are able to tackle things together, even when we're this far apart, and we work it out. So I'm very excited, and you all are part of that, allowing us, I mean, I know it's constitutional, but... the public comment, getting to interact with you all. We're solving things. So my two things now. The moratorium on the sweeps, having to have a special court for civil citations, for trespassing, loitering, blocking sidewalks, hindering passage, all of the versions of that. I would ask for us to consider the task force that we're working with the businesses to try and have alternatives. If we might have an avenue where we might offer some alternative solutions to the constant incarceration. And the second thing is for the mayor, abundance policy. I don't know what that is that he was talking about. I would love an explanation because it really sounds like let them eat cake.

Marilyn Mocchino, followed by Adonica Gravingood.

happy happy Monday vice president and counselors my name is Marilyn Mocchino and I'm a third generation vendor with a permit in the old town portal market program where I have held a permit for over 50 years and I am here today to request your immediate help to move vendors back to our original front spaces at 206 San Felipe Street Northwest in the Old Town Plaza. Following the recent ruling by the Landmarks Commission on August the 12th, 2026, the Landmark Commission voted five to one.

Ma'am, I'm going to have to stop you real quick. Okay. You're commenting on something that couldn't come in front of this council as a quasi-judicial issue, and we can't hear that during public comment. Because that ruling could come in front of us, and then it presents an issue for us in order to rule on it. Does that make sense?

Yes, I understand. So can I continue with...

Not if it's going to be commenting about a possible issue coming before this council. If it's an opinion just that you need to return things or we'd like to see things back but you can't make comments that go specifically to the appeal or to the issue at hand.

Well, I'm just requesting that we have been moved with our spaces. We have been moved to the south side where the private property is, and we're under an ordinance on that 206 San Felipe Street that we are required to be on the west side under a public right-of-way under an ordinance. Okay. So we're just asking to be moved back to the front where we're supposed to be.

Okay. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Councillor Bauckham. Thank you, Mr. President. Dr. Singel, can you? I know that is a violation of the existing ordinance. Can you work with Ms. Mocchino to get folks back to where they need to be until everything gets resolved?

Mr. Garrett.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Our next speaker is Adonica Gravengood, followed by Joseph Laycock.

Hello, Vice President Champagne and city councillors. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm the last speaker's daughter. My name is Adonica Gravengood. I'm also a fourth generation vendor with the permit in Old Town where I've held the permit for 23 years. I'm here today for the same purpose as my mom to request assistance to move our vendor spaces back to the original front spaces at 206 San Felipe South or Northwest, excuse me. The building owner made unapproved changes with his building, replacing the old windows, and that's what prompted the space has been moved. The city departments have allowed ongoing violations of the city ordinance subsection 13321, section A. Since former arts and culture services director Dr. Sanchez succeeded her authority by moving six spaces to private property on the south side in April 2026. I'm just asking you for any help that you could possibly provide for us to get us back up front, where the ordinance protects us.

Thank you.

Joseph Laycott, followed by Letts Otvo. Letts Otvo, followed by Brick Jonesy.

Vice President, Council Members, I don't know what a citizen is supposed to do. You seem very concerned about your ordinances and that they're followed to the letter. And if somebody doesn't do that, you haul them off to jail, right? We can all agree upon that, don't we? We do. Because your jails are full of people. Lord forbid somebody with intelligence tries to tell you that your police officers are currently in violation of New Mexico's Constitution, which I think would have a little bit more sway than a simple city ordinance. So if you all got a pen and paper, you might want to write down Article 20, Section 1 of the New Mexico Constitution. And if I'm wrong, you tell me about it, Mr. Clerk, because I've approached you and you blew me off and told me to go to the city attorney. Well, guess what? You're the city attorney.

Brick Josie, followed by Grace Dukes.

Give the overhead, please. It's going to be kind of hard to see.

That's OK.

Yeah, you can see it, good enough, okay. We've all heard the saying, this is your brain on drugs, well this is your brain on flock. That's your whole country on flock. Or whatever surveillance state that the country's produced. That's the state. It's not so bad out here in New Mexico, but it's still there, right? There's your city. All them flock cameras. Oh look, we can actually detail all of that surveillance. Oh look at that, downtown. That's your surveillance. Just pointing it out because obviously you guys don't really want to watch us. But when I pull out the camera, I got a camera right here too. This is my own personal camera, right? But I'm a citizen. People expect the citizens to be able to Press, because that's our First Amendment. But I don't really expect to walk out onto the sidewalk and have you guys watching me everywhere I go. Just saying. That's your city on fire.

Grace Dukes, followed by Anami Das.

Good evening. Yesterday, I was out knocking doors with my dear friend, Abby Foster, in Councilor Besson's district that she likely already knows. And the thing I took away from it is that money isn't in the right places. We are skipping meals and living out of our cars because we can't afford to live and you don't help us. Instead, you try and raise the GRT. Our city's financial stability can't come at the cost of ignoring the fact that our federal government is being decimated and we are not picking up the slack. Any new GRT revenue must go to our safety net, which we don't do because we're uninterested in shifting away from the military industrial complex that's sending your kids to die for Israel and perpetuating the cycles of poverty and extraction. So I'm here to demand accountability from President Pena, who isn't here. She must start serving us, not her donors. And if she doesn't have the balls, then she needs to resign and let someone who actually knows Robert's rules take the gavel. Thank you.

Anami Das, followed by Adeo Rose Bennett Herrick. Adeo Rose Bennett Herrick, followed by Laura Alderete.

Justice for Solo Garcia. I get why Anami can't be here today.

Laura Alderete, followed by Ben Michael Barreras.

Vice President and Council Members, Jose Armas, a tall, striking young man with defining features and by all accounts a mama's boy. Born and raised in Albuquerque, he was 23 years old, a big brother to four siblings. He was my nephew. On May 26, Jose was having a mental crisis. He wanted the pain to stop. It was not his first, but one of many since experiencing PTSD after working as a correctional officer for the county. ACS did not show up, and I'm here to ask each and one of you, why? Isn't that their primary function? APD likes to function in if scenarios, so let me pose a few for you. If ACS had showed up, Jose would be alive. If APD had allowed his mother to talk to him, he would be alive. If APD would not have created a chaotic scene, it would have been clear that Jose was not armed or shooting from upstairs. Jose was lethally shot at the front door, and just a few steps from there, he bled to death and died. Jose was murdered, but his spirit was not killed. And this is the prelude to a movement that will be his voice for justice. Thank you.

Ben Michael Barreras, followed by Eva Montoya. Eva Montoya, followed by Mervyn Tilden.

Good evening Vice President and council members. Thank you. I'm just calling to comment or coming in to comment on like super speeders and chronic speeders who are basically not just stacking up ticket after tickets of the automated cameras and they're just not paying them. I guess I just stumbled across a Facebook thread and there's people bragging about how like I have like you know, double digit tickets now and I'm never going to pay them. And it's just people that are talking about going, you know, you're having to go 10 miles over to get these tickets. So it's just what are we going to do about this situation if there's no consequences to getting these tickets? That's all I kind of wanted to bring up. Hopefully we come up with some ideas to remedy the situation. Thank you.

Mervyn Tilden followed by Damien Malone.

Mr. Garrett, one second please. Councillor Rogers.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I just wanted the admin to speak to that, because I also saw the same thread. And there are consequences for not paying your automatic speed tickets. So do we know what those consequences are? I do, but just wanting to, for the public to make sure they know that there are consequences.

Mr. Vice President, Councillor Rogers, there are steps, obviously, of consequences. I won't get them in the right order off the top of my head, but there are consequences that we follow, and we'd be happy to provide you those answers.

Thank you, Madam President. So yes, I think it would be good because we're trying to educate the public. So what I remember of the consequences are the fee goes up if you don't pay them after a certain amount of time. You get pulled over and you see, we see, you know, police officer sees all of those. They can use them. They can boot your vehicle. If you're in a parking meter and let's say your parking meter runs out, they look up your license plate and see that they can boot your vehicle, which then you would have to pay all of those tickets on top of the booting fee to get your car unbooted. Then finally, it also is referred over to court. as well after a certain threshold and then we'll go on collections as well so there are lots of different consequences for not paying your automatic speed tickets this council did add i was happy to sponsor one of those amendments to add that you can volunteer for four hours at any of the list of of events we had it for juneteenth we had about 48 volunteers that were there to pay off their automatic speed tickets. I've never had so many volunteers for an event. And so if you're not able to pay for that, you can volunteer at a city event that's listed on the website, and you won't have to pay your fee. But there are consequences. So just wanted to put that out there. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I appreciate you humoring me on that.

Mr. Croyance. Thank you, Mr. President. Damian Malone, followed by Dale Krantz.

OK. My name's Damian Malone. I'm a member of IATSE 423. I represent stage technicians and skilled workers who make events and concerts. and public gatherings. I'm here regarding a recently approved amphitheater project at 1500 Desert Circle located behind Revel. I want to be clear at the outset I'm not here to oppose the project. I'm here to ask that this project moves forward. City leaders and the public keep workers at the center of this discussion. I work with NRG in the beginning of I started in 98, and in 2024, I was removed from work from the company without a phone call, formal notice, or explanation. I was simply taken off the work app. Before workers began euthanizing, NRG paid minimum wage to the workers. In my experience, if you ever asked for a raise, you were let go. NRG also moved employees from W-2 status to 1099 status without permission or notice. Despite these obstacles, we did unionize it, and Danny has not gotten to the table with us. We just wanted to put that out there to you guys to keep an eye on it, keep an eye on Danny, and help the workers, please. Thank you.

Dale Krantz, followed by Sylvia Ramos. Sylvia Ramos, followed by Jessie Ehrenberg.

Mr. Vice President and counselors, I am Sylvia Ramos-Cruz. I live in historic Old Town and serve on the board of the Historic Old Town Association. I am here to speak in support of the portal market program and its artisan vendors. Over the past few years, the program has deteriorated, beginning with the elimination of the portal manager position that had been funded by the arts and culture department until late 2023. That deterioration culminated in October 2025 with the overnight unauthorized replacement of windows of windows with doors at La Placita, on the whose portals several generations of artisans have sat vending their wares and earning their living. Lastly, a few months ago, again overnight.

Vice, ma'am. I apologize. One second. Vice Chair, the issue with the door and involving the portalis is something that very well through the landmark commission could be a quasi judicial if it comes up.

Okay. Ma'am, again, as I explained earlier, The council wants to make sure they stay safe in this situation. I understand. So that we can hear it fully and be able to voice and vote on that issue. So we don't want to jeopardize that with any comments made. So if you could adjust your comments not to speak of the details of that issue.

Okay. So I am respectfully asking the council to restore order to this historic, cultural, generational, and financially viable market in Old Town by returning the vendors to their ordained spaces and reinstituting the position of portal manager for the program. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you.

Jesse Ehrenberg, followed by Roger Valdez.

Again, if this is the same issue, please tread lightly, sir, please.

If I tread on something, please stop me.

And if it's helpful, Vice Chair, the issues with the ordinance and the manager, it's unrelated to the issue with the door and the window. So it's just anything related to what was in front of the Landmark Commission would be kind of off.

I think I'm good.

Awesome. Thank you.

The decision made, I'm sorry, Vice President, Council. The decision made to eliminate the highly trained position of old town portal manager, which left the portal vendors with no one to manage and enforce the rules without any and without any direct communication with the city itself. When the new, I PROBABLY CAN'T DO THAT. I'LL JUST HAVE TO LEAVE THAT. THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE IT. FOLKS, AGAIN, I REALLY WANT TO EMPHASIZE, I KNOW THERE'S SOME FRUSTRATIONS. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT this council can be effective when this comes in front of us, or if it comes in front of us, that we have all the abilities at hand to make a good sound decision. Okay, so we don't want to jeopardize any of that. So as frustrating as it is, this isn't the right venue. When this comes up in front, then perhaps that will be the time. Thank you.

Roger Valdez, followed by Janet Sayers on Zoom.

Vice President, members of the Council, I'm Roger Valdez with the Center for Housing Economics speaking on behalf of the cottages at 161 Chama, a 20-unit affordable cottage project in the International District. And I want to thank Councillor Rogers and Councillor Grout for introducing Resolution 51. This will be an allocation of capital outlay that will completely fund the project and will make the city a partner with 18 state legislators who funded the project through capital outlay, the governor who put in additional funding, and the county who is acting as the fiscal agent. So we're grateful to all of you for considering this and hopefully supporting it. And we hope to have you at the ribbon cutting in next May or June. That's our target. And we are looking forward to having you there. Thank you for the help and the support.

Thank you.

Janet Sayers, followed by Sarah Azebo. Janet Sayers, followed by Sarah Azebo.

Yes, good. Can you hear me OK?

We can hear you, Janet.

Thank you so much. Yes, good evening, Mr. Vice President, members of the council. And I'm Janet Sayers, a resident of District 9. But I also advocate for the Del Norte High School cluster of schools, which are in district four and district seven the first thing i'd like to say is just thank you again for the time and effort that you all put in serving your individual districts your the residents the neighbors the neighborhoods the businesses the churches it's a very big job that you have a very big and challenging job and i I do appreciate it. Lastly, I am also here tonight in my role as chairperson of the Unified City County Library Advisory Board. We are once again starting our education process regarding the highest priority, which is to replace the HVAC system at the main library. We did not reach the finish line last year, and we are hoping to meet it again, that we are hoping to meet it this year. Thank you very much.

Sarah Azibo, followed by Joaquin Montoya.

Thank you, Mr. Cornelius. Good evening, Council Vice President, City Councillors. In 1991, the front page of Albuquerque Street News read, New Mexico on track to begin abolishing homelessness. Yet today, the city continues to spend public money displacing people, citing them for resting anywhere in public, even on 100 degree days, creating a homeless court to manage citations, and circulating people through shelters. Nearly 35 years later in 2024, I don't know if that's 35, I'm sorry, 50 unhoused people and pets were displaced from Utah Chico into a city-funded hotel voucher program that offered no services. Three months later, they were sent back out to live on the streets. In 2025 the city pursued an expensive legal battle to remove 20 people and three dogs from quirky used books parking lot with the only option offered being up to 90 days in emergency shelter that didn't accommodate their needs. Meanwhile, hotel-based recovery centers are showing us what support can look like. People who have been displaced or cycled through the shelter system are experiencing healing and success with up to seven months in private rooms with private bathrooms, meals, recovery services, time to clear warrants, pursue their education, create art, find work, and move toward housing. One center has made it possible for a disabled mother and son to remain together while receiving support finding a job and shaping a path toward housing.

Thank you, ma'am. Your time is up.

Please support these centers. Thank you.

Joaquin Montoya, followed by Benjamin Bean.

My name is Joaquin Montoya, and I'm a resident of Albuquerque. I am speaking on behalf of DFLOC New Mexico. I'm here to raise concerns about APD's automatic license plate recognition system, specifically genetic APR APLR network integrated in APD's real-time crime center. APD operates over 100 APLR cameras that store every resident's plate location data for 365 days with no warrant, no suspicion, or no meaningful oversight. The governing policy that was last updated was in April 2016, over a decade ago, and was only itself a slight revision of the 2012 policy. The technology now has moved far beyond the rules of mental governance. The system doesn't just read plates. It tracks movement. It cross-references social media, commercial data brokers, federal databases. It builds the detailed pictures of where you go, when, and how often, often without your knowledge or consent. I also want to flag in 2025, a critical security vulnerability was publicly disclosed in Genentech Security Center. The exact platform APD uses with a severity score of 9.8 out of 10. APD has not publicly confirmed whether their system has been patched. When you're storing a year of location data of hundreds of thousands of residents, that question is not optional. Thank you, sir.

Your time is up.

Benjamin Bean.

Good evening, Vice President and Councillors. I'm actually talking about the same thing. So first, thank you, Councillor Torres, for looking into this. I'm glad we're not using flock. I wish we weren't using any system. These are reasons why you should and should not support automatic license plate readers. First, law enforcement can do more with less money. That's great, but I trust that our police officers who have been doing their job for so long without these can continue to do their job, especially when they're funded at three times the rate of the next most funded department. And again, like the previous person was saying, this data is not limited to local police. Anybody can access this data. And maybe that's not intentional. Maybe it's a security breach. There is no perfect security. Even if you have perfect security, you have people involved and that data is going to get out. Also, this is great. I'm in support of cameras for some things like speeding, but could we take care of the cars that don't have license plates? That would be fabulous. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President.

That concludes general public comment. Thank you, Mr. Cornelius. We will move on to approvals. EC 126, approval of the first FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO ADD FUNDS FOR OUTSIDE COUNCIL LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN MODERAL SPURLING AND THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. MOVE FOR APPROVAL. SECONDED BY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE GROUP. DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. COUNCILORS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS, CONCERNS? Perfect. All those in favor of EC 126, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Yes. Opposed? No. All right. That passes. Oh, I will. We'll move on to EC 210. Councilor Fiebelkorn.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. EC210 is approval of the development agreement for the Uptown Connect affordable housing project with Family Housing Development Corporation to utilize workforce housing trust funds and state capital outlay funding towards the new construction of a multi-family rental housing project. I move approval.

Second. I have a motion for approval and a second by Councillor Tejas. Opening remarks?

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. So I appreciate everybody's support in getting this through quickly tonight. This was introduced on the last letter of introduction, but was not heard at FGO. I don't think it made it to the list of the administration's priorities. Not sure why, because it really should be. This is needed to move forward this month so that we can continue closing on our RAISE grant for the Uptown Connect affordable housing project and make sure that we get that project completed as soon as possible because I need this affordable housing. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Councilors, any questions, comments? Mr. Cornelius, we believe we have one speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I'll bring in Benjamin Bean.

Good evening, Vice President and Councillors. Good to talk to you again. So I would ask that you please support this project. This is an excellent opportunity to provide more housing for people who can't afford it at the currently high housing prices. Everybody needs shelter. And amongst all the benefits that this is going to bring, it's going to be one small piece of reducing homelessness in Albuquerque by providing shelter at an affordable rate. This is going to be more housing generally, which is the number one contributor to unaffordable housing in an area is a lack of housing. And so the prices go up. This is going to be density in an appropriate location. It's going to be right next to transportation shops and services that are all within easy reach. And it's going to be significantly better use of a transportation hub than empty parking lots. uh making use uh increased use of existing transit uh is um it seems like the obvious thing to me thank you guys thank you mr president that concludes comment thank you administration have any comments chime in

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. This is an incredibly important project. It's been a partnership between Councillor Feeblecorn, the developer, and as we all know, the information that the Transit Department has put into this project is related to ensuring that we have a transit focused development for housing. It's a very exciting project that we have seen examples in other cities where when you build housing adjacent to transit, you can actually enable really productive household opportunities that both reduce the cost of living as well as put us in a position to maximize the use of other city assets to move people to jobs and other activities. This is, as Councilor Filippo Cord indicated, connected to the federal raise grant that we have received. And as you all know, HHH and Transit have been working together on this project to move it forward as a priority. So this allocation of funding is really critical for the final piece to put all of these together so the development agreement can be entered into.

Thank you, Madam CEO. Councilors, any questions for the sponsor? Councilor Lewis.

Mr. Vice President, just real quick. I'm just interested in why it wasn't heard in FGO. Is it?

Oh, thank you, Mr. Vice President. I don't know. It was on the letter of introduction and it wasn't on the FGO agenda. And so we asked and we were told that the administration had provided a list of things that needed to be heard at FGO and mine was not on there. I don't know. I don't know who makes that list or why my project would not be included, but obviously I think this is a very important project that I really want to move forward on the time frame that we've worked so hard with the developer to, you know, to get to this point.

Ms. Montoya.

Madam President, or Mr. President, Vice President, Councillor Peabocorn, that item was not on the FGO because when it was submitted by administration, they did not specify that that needed to be heard immediately, like multiple other items had to have that notation on there.

Councillor Lewis.

I just want to make sure for the record I didn't keep it from going to FDR.

Mr. Vice President, I did not mean to imply that that was from you. I truly believe that there was a list from the administration, and for some reason this did not make it onto that list. And I don't, for the record, like that list or think it should exist. I think everything should get moved forward at the same pace.

Just say for the record it's the administration's fault. All right, thank you. Just duly noted. Just kidding. I'm joking.

I'm not going to give you a chance to comment on that one. I'm kidding. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President and counselors. When we send down, I mean, this is a procedural process. When we send down, if we have something that has to be executed by a specific time frame, we do ask for either holdover, immediate action, other items. It does not mean that the items that don't have that are not important to us. It's simply that we try to make sure we give notation if there is an urgency that it has to be executed by a specific date. And I think in this case we felt that the regular schedule would meet our requirements and appreciate that the counselor has prioritized it. By no means are we going to ever argue when something can get done quickly and especially something of this great magnitude.

Councilor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. So that is the council president's decision, though, correct? I mean, the council president gets requests from the administration, and the council president could decide whether it's held over. So it really would come from a request by the administration to the president, correct? And the president has discretion in that regard. So would that be, am I correct on that?

Mister vice president, Councillor Lewis. It is under the rules to discretion of the president, but I think every since I've been in this job. All the Council presidents have kind of followed the lead of the administration and allowed you yourself. You allowed stuff for holdover, stuff like that. So although it is the discretion of the Council for the most part, I mean the Council president for the most part they do follow it. I will also point out that I believe this letter of introduction probably had about. 50 different pieces of legislation. So the administration did have a lot of stuff coming in. So just wanted to point that out as well.

Yeah, I'm surprised. Yeah, nobody did anything wrong. It's fine. I mean, it's just the president's decision on whether it goes to FGO or whether it's held over or anything like that. Nothing wrong with making that request either. So anyway, thank you, Mr. West.

Perfect. Councilors, we do have a motion for approval and a second. Any further questions, comments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the approval, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Opposed? And that passes. On to final actions. Baca, Grout, and Rogers. Who wants to go? Councillor Baca.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. 050, amending the public purchases ordinance related to the definition of social services and department references and directing the city to update information accordingly. I move to pass. Second.

We have a motion for a due pass by Council Baca and a second by Council Rogers. Mr. Baca or one of you to open?

Thank you, Mr. VP. Yeah, this is allowing the city to contract. Currently, the city only contracts with nonprofits on social services. This would allow them to contract with for-profits. I think what we've found, at least in my time here, is while some of the nonprofits do good work, some of them have a lot to be lacking. this will allow a allow a larger pool to pull for for RFPs but be also provide a little incentive for some of the existing nonprofits to step it up yeah thank you we have one public commenter Thank You mr. vice president we have Ted Uminski to come

which gave me overhead again.

Okay, my name Ted Niemiecki.

This ordinance is about corrupted non-profits. Here is what they change in council that nothing, not something, because something, nothing for nothing. In other words, they're not doing anything. Corruption exists, and all of this will be with these non-profits, because they want nobody oversee them. I allow the public to know, read it, more agendas. Now, what I was talking about, one neighborhood and another, why downtown is so nasty as always been. Because it's neighborhood, I mean leadership. City leadership above all, and city control this real state.

Thank you, Mr. Cornelius. We're back on the bill. Councilors, questions? COUNCIL. COUNCIL.

COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL.

COUNCIL.

COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL.

COUNCIL.

COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL. COUNCIL with Councilor Baca for a while to streamline some of the ordinances in the city and some of the processes of the city surrounding affordable housing and in conjunction with the department. And so one of the things that we looked at was broadening the definition of social services in the purchasing ordinance to make sure there's a bigger pool of people to respond to RFPs. And this was one piece of a big picture of a lot of streamlining efforts. So part of this bill is also for us to work with the department to look at other regulations, administrative instructions, policies, other ordinances in the city, and further streamline based on this broadened definition.

Thank you. Thank you very much miss Bradley. I think this is a great update to this ordinance. This current ordinance is well-intentioned. It was meant to expand the capacity of our nonprofits and it did that but I think that they are maxed out and there's a lot of good for-profit social services providers who are doing excellent work. and treating addiction and mental illness. And these companies know how to manage their resources. And I'd like to partner with them so that the city can provide services, provide these services for people who couldn't afford otherwise. So I think we need to expand our capacity to help people, not limit it. And that's why I think this is a great change. And I hope that you all will support it.

Perfect. Councilors, any further questions? Councillor Bogg, or Councillor Rogers?

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. My colleagues did it well, and I thank you, Bradley, for the additional information. I will just say that this limits, our death current ordinance limits a social service contract between the city and a nonprofit or a public agency. And what that means is only nonprofits and government is eligible to contract with the city, whether by means of an award through a competitive solicitation or standard contract issued under another procurement method. This just allows us to be more nimble and not shrink who's able to help us with some of the issues facing our city and not saying we have anything against non-profits they have been carrying this work in our city and for a long time our economic development department didn't even offer services to the non-profits which now they are which I'm grateful for because that is we have to help strengthen their capacity but we also have some very very big needs that for-profit businesses could also help us with so doesn't take nonprofits out of it. It just allows us to expand who can help us with some of these hard issues facing our city. So I urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers. All those in favor of 050? Raise your hand, say yes.

Yes. Yes.

Those opposed? All right, passes. All right, Councillor Brisson, 051.

Mr. Vice President, O51, adopting a zoning map amendment from NRSU to NRLM for approximately 165 acres, legally described as all or a portion of tract A, plat of tract A, city of Albuquerque water treatment facility located at 6000 Alexander Northeast and owned by the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority. I move a due pass.

I have a motion for a due pass and a second on O51. Now, O2651 is a quasi-judicial request which requires special procedures to allow the applicant, staff, and the public the opportunity to speak. This agenda item will proceed as followed. Council planning staff will present for five minutes. The applicants will present for ten minutes. Testimony by public speakers, two minutes each. Rebuttal by the applicant will be five minutes. Cross-examination by anyone who spoke during public comment will be limited to two minutes each. Comments by the planning department, if any, for another five, and the council planning staff closing comments, if any, for five minutes. The city staff and the applicant must be sworn in. So if you are speaking to this matter as a staff member or an applicant, please raise your right hand. I see one, two, three, four. All right, all four of you, do you affirm under penalty of perjury that your testimony today will be true? I see all of you shaking your heads, okay. Public speakers will be sworn in on an individual basis when we get to the portion of the hearing. Ms. Delgado, please begin with your introduction. I think there should be like a timer, like a Dane or something.

Vice President, Council, thank you very much. So this item 02651 is adopting a zoning map amendment city council per our integrated development ordinance. It is requesting a zone change from non-residential special use to non-residential light manufacturing for approximately 165 acres located at 6000 Alexander Street. Boulevard Northeast. This site is owned by the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority. Garrett, next slide, please. So as you see projected, the site is delineated in the turquoise boundary. And as you stated, this is a quasi-judicial item. The council has purview over certain ZMAs or zoning map amendments that pertain to certain criteria. So in this case, any or 10 gross acres or more that are located in an area of consistency require council approval. And as you can see projected on the screen, the entirety of the site is located in an area of consistency. Next slide, please, Garrett. For just current context, land use and zoning, The current zoning is non-residential special use. There is currently a water treatment or treatment facility on site. However, our IDO considers that as a non-conforming primary use as that was post-affected the IDO in 2018 with the conversion of the zoning. So if the current zoning were to change to non-residential light manufacturing, that zone actually allows for major utility as a primary use onsite. And as you can see projected, the surrounding zoning consists of non-residential business park, non-residential, also more non-residential light manufacturing, which is the purple. Next slide, Garrett, please. In terms of the notification requirements. Um, so in accordance with our ideal procedures, all neighborhood associations within 660 feet and all property owners within 100 feet of the subject property were notified as required. And that included the district board coalition of neighborhood associations and the North Valley coalition, uh, notification to Indian nations, tribes, and Pueblos was not required for this request. as well as the staff or the applicant received any public comment. This item did go to the Environmental Planning Commission on May 21st, which they forwarded a recommendation of approval to the council. This has gone historically to the UPC for several requests. So November 8th of 2018, the EPC approved a condition, um, approved, made an approval, but it also imposed a condition of approval requiring the applicant to pursue a zoning map amendment to where the district could add major utility as an allowed primary use. The applicant then went back to the EPC for a site plan in April of 2026, and they also just reminded the applicant that they had this outstanding condition of approval, which is why we're seeing them here today at the council. And with that, that concludes my presentation, and if there are any questions.

I don't think we go to questions just yet. We do the applicant's presentation now. And I apologize, ma'am. There isn't a name associated with the applicant other than the applicant, so.

It's OK. OK. All right, Mr. Vice President and counselors, my name is Jackie Fishman, and I'm here on behalf of the Water Authority for this zone change request. And were you going to swear me in?

I believe we did that at the beginning.

Okay, sounds good.

Thank you.

And I have a brief, very brief presentation as well, if somebody could pull that up, if you don't mind. Okay, that's not, that's... Oh, it's the slide before that? Okay, there we go. Okay, thank you very much. So again, I'm Jackie Fishman. With me today is Rochelle Larson. She's a principal engineer at the Water Authority, also Char Johnson from Consensus Planning. As Ms. Delgado mentioned, the subject property is about 165 acres in size. It's zoned NRSU, which is non-residential sensitive use. The property was previously used for gravel extraction, which stopped many years ago, and the use transferred to major utility, which, as Ms. Delgado pointed out, is not a primary permissive use in the NRSU zone. In fact, NRSU is one of the only zones where major utility is not allowed. So we are left with a nonconforming use. on the property, which means the San Juan Chama drinking water treatment plant project cannot be expanded until the zone change is approved, hopefully this evening. This is a critical infrastructure project for the Water Authority, and so we're very pleased to be here tonight. In approving our initial site plan major amendment in April, the EPC conditioned the site plan on securing a zone map amendment. We followed up with that the next month in May with a zone change request. The EPC found that the zone change furthered the comprehensive plan goals and objectives and met all the criteria for zone changes. Next slide, please. So I'm sure you're aware that the San Juan Chama drinking water treatment plant large-scale recharge expansion project is a very critical project to the Albuquerque Metro. It is a project to enhance long-term water supply reliability and resiliency. through expanded aquifer storage and recovery infrastructure. We call that the ASR. The zone change will allow two ASR well sites to store treated San Juan Chama surface water in the regional aquifer for later recovery during peak demand periods and drought conditions. And we also had a warehouse complexes as part of that zone change or part of the site plan request. So all of that would be now allowed with this zone change. The project is a key component of the Water Authority's water, long range water planning efforts. I think again, this is I see this as more of a housekeeping zone map amendment It's it's again. I think we all are in support of the Water Authority doing its business and I'm pleased to be here and Ready for any questions you may have for us Thank You miss fisherman

Appreciate it. We'll go on to public speakers. I believe we have one.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm bringing in James Shanley right now. Mr. Vice President, I have James Shanley on. Mr. Shanley, are you there?

Yes, I am. Ah, perfect. Mr. Shanley, will you raise your right hand, please? Appreciate it. Do you affirm under penalty of perjury that your testimony today will be true? I do. Thank you for that. Please proceed with your comment. You have two minutes, sir.

My comment was on the project at 161 Chama. I'm not sure whether I checked an O instead of an R. Well, I'm glad you affirmed that you would be truthful with that tonight.

I apologize. Way to come forward. That's perfect. No, we will move on to that. If that's what your comment is for, then we'll wait until later tonight.

Okay, thank you.

Perfect, Mr. Shanley. Thank you. The applicant, do we have a five-minute rebuttal from the applicant?

Mr. Chairman, or I'm sorry, Mr. Vice President, only to urge your support.

Okay, thank you. No public speakers, so Planning Department. Any comments from the Planning Department? There she comes. You don't have to hurry, we'll wait. Promise.

Planning Department supports the Environmental Planning Commission's recommendation. Thank you.

Perfect. Council staff? Comments?

Vice President, no comments from staff.

Perfect. Councillors? Questions? Concerns? All right. There was one question, but I'll ask Councillor Baca later. static curiosity so um so we do have a motion for a due pass and it has been seconded no questions comments um all those in favor for a due pass raise your hand say yes yes opposed no passes we will move on to item c 054 council feeble corner

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. O54 is amending ROA 1994 Chapter 2, Article 7, Part 2, related to the city attorney and the city legal department in repealing Section 325 of the Code of Resolutions. I move a due pass.

We have a due pass and a second from Committee of the Whole Grouch. And we have one person signed up to speak. Actually, two.

Thank you, Mr. President. We have Brick Jonasy followed by Tad Niemiecki. I think Brick is gone. Tad Niemiecki.

Thank you. My name is Tad Niemiecki.

authority and duty of the city attorney.

1971-72, being a young contractor and having issue with theft by employee, I walk to city attorney. They used to be here in this basement. And because somebody suggested to go to city attorney, I said fine. That time city attorney right away typed and says go to any judge. From judge, I went to the judge. during the hearing. So anyway, that was now where we are. I have filed a lawsuit against all of you. Well, who's gonna defend that? They or outside?

Thank you, Mr. Nowitzki. We appreciate that. We have a motion on the floor for a due pass. Councilors, any questions, comments? Did you open. You want to open since there's no questions.

I can open and close. Thank you Mr. Vice President. You know we've had a lot of conversations around accountability tonight on a lot of things and really all that this bill does is create some accountability with the city attorney and us this body. We have numerous examples of accountability going towards the administration which is very right and should happen but we should also have some accountability if we ask for things like you know we want to be kept up to date on a case that involves this body we should be kept up to date if we want our staff to be involved in a case that moves forward because it matters to us we should be able to do that and that's all that this bill does so i urge your support

I don't see an amendment. Actually, I do see an amendment. It says it's in your iPad.

Mr. Vice President, it's not from me, and I don't believe it's from you, and there's nothing in the iPad, so I think it might have just been a mistake.

What's that? It's an error? Mr. Vice President, that was a typo. Oh, we talked about this. Yes, no, that's correct. No, we talked about this. It's supposed to be for R-54, not O-58, so there's not an amendment. Councilor Bassano.

Mr. Vice President, I have concerns, and I was talking to Ms. Coulidon earlier today in regards to this bill. We just found out that we're having an EC come down for a new city attorney. Given the history of everything that just happened this last year, I have concerns because some of what I see in this ordinance, I think it makes sense. I think that it's okay. I think some of it doesn't necessarily... to me seem like we need to legislate it and so i my concern is that we are sitting here are we reacting to something that happened or are we legislating something that we actually need to legislate one question that was asked of me was but we could be correcting something in the new city attorney from not doing something wrong and Is that what we need to do if we've never really seemingly had a problem before? I don't think that this is on the right track for us to not be looking as a reaction to something that happened i made a commitment in the investigation that happened saying that hey if we find out that what we suspected was incorrect that i would accept that i i mean it still is something that was a surprise to me but i accept it and i'm worried that some of the things in here creating a larger problem that we're going to have some massive unintended consequences for coming up I would love to hear from the administration on their concerns I know that I have had my conversations with them I've contacted our staff I've tried to do some of my research I just don't want us to end up doing something that will be a lot it's always harder to undo it than it is to do it and I think that we should see what this new city attorney is gonna be like if we ever appoint that person or whoever we end up appointing. And there should be things that we do that are not just reactionary and emotional, which I am concerned that some of this is.

Madam CAO.

Thank you Mr Vice President. I have shared some. I've had a few counselors ask me questions related to this and I've shared some of the issues that I think that the current as a written language raise. I did ask Mr Roland for his review so that I made sure I wasn't reacting in emotionally and I he think I think he can speak to some of the very specific issues that are related to. Potential direct conflict with the Charter as it's written today but also in you know some of the other issues that it raises in terms of Meeting structure and requirements and I just want to make sure I say on the record publicly that I have spoken with both council services director and other counselors about sitting down and working together around work what are the standard operating procedures um what is the general expectations of the city attorney in terms of communication reporting structures and others that we can do that work i think together and then think about revisions to this ordinance that reflect in ways that are not in conflict with the Charter, but also aren't prescriptive in a way that potentially binds future councils through ordinance. Typically, future departmental matters like this would be by resolution. But I don't want to get into the specific legal interpretation. If I can ask Mr. Rowland to speak to those issues that we've raised. And again, would just ask that if we work together on some amendments, I think that the city attorney ordinance would be more reflective of kind of how we can move forward together. If I may ask Mr. Rowland to speak to those items.

Mr. Rowland. Thank you, Vice President and Vice President and Council. In reviewing this, some of the issues that kind of popped out of me, especially as deputy city attorney that manages individuals or manages attorneys and departments or divisions within city legal, is kind of this decentralization of power that potentially could be the aftermath or the unintended consequence of removing some language and putting additional language in. One of them being, I think, in 2-7-2-1, there's the removal of executive and administrative head of the legal department and just leaves as the head of the legal department. Not exactly sure what that would entail, but when read with some of the other changes in the ordinance, what it potentially suggests and could be argued down the road and could create conflict and confusion is does that mean that the city attorney then does not is not the final uh legal interpreter um when it comes to specific legislation or legal issues that might come up specifically if it's in this case a lot of the language is around of course city council the city attorney being the city council's attorney. One of the examples is there's language in here that specifically directs, I guess maybe direct is not the right term, but it provides for that the city attorney or that council, individual councils, council services, or what's determined to be the general council of council services can at the discretion just seek legal advice from anybody within the legal department from a managerial perspective that could be a nightmare but just from a legal perspective one of the the way that the charter is drafted is the city attorney is the top legal interpreter of laws for the city of Albuquerque. This essentially removes the city attorney from that process, rightly or wrongly, but it does remove the city attorney from that process. So if, let's say, one city councilor is going to one attorney, and then another city councilor is going to another attorney, and then another attorney is talking with Julia or Victor or Isaac, they can all potentially get different versions of legal advice. And I know, as has been told to me sitting here in a couple of times I've been here at Council, there can be frustration. You get 10 attorneys in a room, you can get 10 different advice on any one particular subject. And that's just the nature of the law. But it can create a lot of confusion and conflict in the legal department when that happens. And I see it often from just representing the administration issues or representing city council on land use issues that are appealed without a singular person kind of reviewing and making those legal decisions. it can be really disruptive to the process and that's not how any legal firm would ever operate or could operate. uh... and so that that's the primary level of concern from this is the unintended consequence being a decentralized legal department with potentially multiple individuals and you know we've got thirty plus attorneys sitting in city legal any one of those potentially uh... at uh... any counselor's discretion could be decided okay you're gonna answer my legal question today that legal removing the city attorney from that capability is could be very disruptive The other additional issue, and I have a lot of respect for Julia, a lot of respect for Victor and what they do and they're highly competent attorneys, but the city charter specifically allocates the power of city attorney or legal, the attorney for the city with the city attorney. And what this language does in here is it requires the city attorney to essentially get approval of legal advice from other attorneys in other departments. And it may not operate that, may not happen that way in operation, but it could happen that way based on just the language that's written in there. So those are just some of the concerns I found. Councillor Tejas.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I guess I'm just, does this in any way preempt or require us to consider the resolution and the proposition that was vetoed? And I think my bigger concern here is like, I think we're trying to operationalize good faith in the process. which is really critical to do. But I don't know, you know, I agree with Councillor Besson. I don't know if this necessarily does what we're trying to accomplish here, right? And... I wasn't here last year, so I'm really removed from sort of the personal and, you know, kind of the Taylor Swift bad blood. things that went on and so I really am truly looking at this from a a governance and a control perspective and how we best achieve that and quite frankly I think before we can do an ordinance like this we need to have a full charter review And we need to have a full, you know, our charter needs to be modernized in a lot of ways. It hasn't, we haven't had a charter review since 2015, I believe. So now is a really good time to do that. You know, I think because of that, we need to hold off on, you know, an ordinance like this because we have to combine sort of the technical compliance with the public trust in this type of scenario. And I, you know, just because a process is legal, or legally adequate, it could still be ethically hollow. And I want to make sure if we're going to do this, we're doing it right. So thank you.

Counselors, any other questions, comments? Council feeble corn to close.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Well, I want to ask Ms. Coulodon two questions, and then I'll close. Ms. Coulodon, I know I have real strong feelings on whether this is a decentralization of power I already go. I have many times in the last four and a half years gone to people in the city attorney's office for assistance, and I did not always go to the city attorney because I did not know that that was the person I wanted to ask about something. And so I know I've already been doing this, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

Mr. Vice President and Councillor Feeblecorn, I would say that I agree that that has been a pretty standard practice for counselors to reach out to folks that they're working with for legal questions, whether that's in the city legal department or within council services. So I'd say that for the most part is consistent with our practices.

Thank you. And so I'll just give one example of when I went to the non-city attorney. I went to someone else in the department because I knew that the city attorney works for the mayor and the mayor has a different opinion than I do on For example, cannabis. And so I worked with someone else in the city attorney's office because I needed some independent analysis. And so I don't see a problem with that, especially given that we all now have confirmed that the city attorney works for the mayor. So second one was this, the, you know, that you would be required to get approval from, I guess, from you, Ms. Coulidon. Is there anything in this bill that would require the city attorney to get approval on anything from anyone?

Mr. Vice President, Councillor Feeblecorn, the bill would not require approval prior to the city attorney acting within the scope of their authority. The section that I think is what's raising some concern is subsection G, which is meant to loop in council's attorneys when there is a legal matter ongoing that involves an act of the council. So something like a land use appeal or a legal challenge to an ordinance that the council adopted that the council would essentially like their attorneys to be looped in on that process to keep them up to date. potentially contribute to discussions on how to handle that case. But that section does explicitly say that nothing in that section should be construed to require the city council's general counsel to enter appearance in the litigation or direct control or manage that litigation because that is the authority of the city attorney.

Thank you, Ms. Coulodon. So, Mr. Vice President, I guess there was a couple of questions that came up that I just want to say. First of all, I just kind of find it interesting that we are negotiating with the administration on a bill that sets how we, as the council, get to interact with the city attorney. I think that says a lot about who the attorney works for and how this is going to play out. I think that this is completely outside of the investigation that was referenced. My concerns have been varied and wide. There have been many cases where we have asked for an outside counsel and not gotten it. There have been cases where we've asked to keep our staff up to date so that they could then keep us up to date on land use cases that are really important to us. And that didn't happen. And so I want to be clear that this is not a knee jerk reaction to one thing. This is a pattern of problem that may or may not change with a new city attorney. But I think it's it's important for us to set these guardrails right now for how we interact in the future so that these things don't happen again because the land use matters that involve this body are vital to the future of our city. And if we are not getting any input into the way those cases are run, that means that we are not being effective as a city council. And I truly believe that that is a very big problem for us. I will just also say that I heard from the CEO last two weeks ago when this was introduced that she may have some concerns. I said, great, let's meet. Never heard from her. Heard from her today about 315. This is the kind of thing that happens with this administration all the time. They don't have time at 315. The email came in at 235, and the phone call came in around 315. and this is not how these bills should work right if you have concerns you should immediately meet with the person that's saying sure i'm happy to meet with you but they don't do that they wait until they get here and then they think that they can just kill these bills because they have no accountability and we are weak and i don't think that those things are true All I am trying to do here is set up a somewhat level playing field where we have some input into how the city attorney behaves on cases that directly involve city council. So I urge your support.

Thanks, your counsel. The motion is for a due pass. All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes. Why does there have to be a roll call? She's back on. I wasn't informed. OK. I just want to make sure I wasn't missing something. So I apologize. All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes. Yes. Opposed? No. And passes on a 7 to 2. 6 to 2. My math is bad. We'll move on to D058, Councillor Grout.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. 058 is amending Chapter 2, Article 11 of the City of Albuquerque Code of Ordinances to improve the city's budget proposal processes and strengthen oversight and accountability measures. I move a due pass.

Motion is due pass. Do we have a second? Second. I second by Council Besson.

Thank you.

Council Brown?

Mr. Vice President, I have a floor amendment. It is in your iPads, also on our dais. This floor amendment, this is from Councillor Pena. Beginning on page 9, line 32, and page 10, lines 1 through 19. Strike through sections 2-11-5H in its entirety. The explanation is because this section remained in the final proposal inadvertently, this amendment removes the provision to reflect the outcome and intent of the working group discussion. I move a due pass.

Second.

Motion and a second from Councilor Bassan for a due pass on amendment labeled A, but we'll move it as Amendment 1.

Thank you. So I want to, Councilor, President Pena got, brought a committee together, a small working group, I should say, together. Councilors Bassan, Councilor Feeblecorn, myself, and Councilor Pena. Then we worked with the administration over the last couple, over the break, actually. And our current ordinance, This is, yeah, no, no, no. It's really important for this counselor's budget chair and the administration to work together through the budget process. And so this bill provides guidelines to do that. And I do appreciate Councilor Pena bringing this committee together, this working group. There were compromises on both sides, and the bill in front of us reflects that. This is a good working document, and we can always reopen this ordinance and refine it later if we need to. But our current ordinance hasn't been updated since 2001, so there are some really big changes in here. And I think it will be important to work through one budget cycle before we start amending it again. But I'd like to ask our budget staff to briefly go over some changes. Oh, this is on the amendment. Oh, I'm sorry. It's on the amendment. Sorry.

So we have a motion and a second for amendment number 1 to 058. Councilor, is there any conversation with the amendment? Councilor Rogers.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. And reading the explanation of this amendment, it said that we're just, the final proposal included this inadvertently, but this is all of the amendments I put forward in the original, like before. So thank you to the universe for keeping it in there, even if it was inadvertently, because I would like it to stay in there. And I'll explain why, and I would urge you to vote no on this amendment, because we have continuously, during budget cycle, talked about not having metrics to go with the objectives so that we can see if the department is actually making progress towards those goals it should be tied to the budget so at some point we can actually get to a point where we can say to a department you didn't meet your goals you don't get an increase in your budget And now we can't do that. I've been screaming about this for three years. Keeping this in the budget ordinance, I know the administration wanted me to work with the Indicator Progress Committee. I met with them, heard them out, happy to sponsor some of their changes to their ordinance and put it in both places. But what I know of this group if working with them in equity and inclusion is they don't get the resources or they're really the respect that they deserve to be driving progress and outcomes is a better way to say an impact and they don't get the resources that they need. So I don't think we can just rely on this board and commission to do that for the city of Albuquerque because they didn't meet for like two years. And so I do not, without having this in the budget ordinance, have the faith that we're going to do this without it being tied to the budget. So I would please urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, to keep that in, because we worked really hard to make sure, after three years of yelling about it, that we can actually have some action. And so I would ask for you to not support this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you Councillor Rogers. Any other comments from the council administration would you like to weigh in on this.

Mr. Vice President, I think the intent of the working group was to work together and come up with consensus in terms of how we make the budget bill better. I think I could refer to the CFO in relation to this specific portion in terms of whether it's not against councilors' goals around thinking through how we get objectives and do that in a way that is measurable, not just statements. So I want to speak to the process that I think our budget director and others as to why this was considered. We didn't have consensus on this.

Mr. Vice President, not that I want to punt it to anybody else, but I wasn't involved in these meetings. So if I may, I would ask Josh Anderson or our budget officer, Kevin Noel, who were in those meetings with city councilors.