you, sir. And good evening and welcome to the 10th meeting of the 24th City Council, which we'll call to order. For the record, all of our counselors are present this evening via Zoom video conference. And like we do with all of our meetings, we'll begin our meeting tonight with a moment of silence, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance in both English and Spanish. I'll leave the pledge this evening in English, and I'll ask maybe Councilor Pena to lead us in Spanish this evening. So if you'll join me in a moment of silence for those that you need to remember this week. Thank you. And then will you join us in the pledge? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Councillor Pena, would you be able to lead us in the pledge? Thank you, Mr. President. Let me just unmute my computer. So, okay. So, Thank you ma'am and I appreciate you doing that on the fly for us this evening. So folks, a few housekeeping matters this evening to get us started. As was noted in our press release from the office on Friday and was posted on our website and in our published council agenda, Tonight's meeting has special procedures given the governor's declaration of a public health emergency in New Mexico. It bans gatherings currently on more than five people and therefore our meeting tonight is held via Zoom conference. Members of the public, the city staff and the media all have the ability to view our meetings in a number of ways. On GovTV, on Comcast Channel 16, via the GovTV website and on YouTube. These live streams can be accessed from almost any smartphone, tablet or computer. And for those of you watching on live stream, we welcome you and thank you for joining us. A video recording of this meeting and all council meetings are also available for viewing at any time on the city council's website. Our staff are available via phone if members of the public need to assist finding these videos. You can simply call our office Monday through Friday, 8 to 5 at 768-3100 and our staff can assist you in doing that. As has been our practice for the past few months now under these public health orders, the council has accepted general public comment and comment through this council specific agenda items in written form via email and in the mail through 4 p.m. today. We received two comments today and those were distributed to counselors and we'll discuss those later. We also received one by mail that we'll address later in administration Q&A. In tonight's proclamations and presentations, we have a presentation from our planning director Brennan Williams regarding the vacant and abandoned substandard properties quarterly report. It's sponsored by Councilor Gibson. And so, Councilor, Madam Vice President, if you want to give us an introduction, I think you invited the planning department to give us an update on this program. Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I did. This is an ongoing quarterly report, continuation of the quarterly report set. We've charged this committee with a vast, we call it vast, vacant abandoned substandard housing. And one of the remarkable things about this committee is that it is very well appointed as far as membership goes. So they're able to draw from across different departments throughout the city. And I've been very pleased with that. they're in progress. So I will turn it over now to Director Williams. And thank you, Director, for being here and for presenting the report on progress. Thank you, Councilor Gibson. Mr. President, counselors, my name is Brennan Williams. I'm the planning director. I'm also the chairman of the VASP working group. Just for a little bit of background for the counselors and for the public, This began in May of 2019 when City Council passed R19-147. That was a resolution to create the Vacant Abandoned Substandard Properties or VASP, V-A-S-P, Working Group. This group was tasked with making progress on recommendations brought forth in a report by the Center for Community Progress to identify potential solutions for vacant, abandoned, and substandard residential properties. as well as including the possibility or the option of establishing a land bank here in Albuquerque. As required by the legislation, membership of the VASP, as Councillor Gibson mentioned, includes members of not only the city council and the administration, but other community partners. These representatives include those from the legal department, the planning department, the community development division within the family community services department, the ADAPT program, which is with the fire marshal's office, the Real Property Division, the Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency, the Office of Neighborhood Coordination, the Bernalillo County Treasurer's Office, the Greater Albuquerque Association of Realtors, and the Albuquerque Housing Authority. Our 19-147 also required that the VAS working group meet on a regular basis, no less than monthly, and that the group is obligated to provide quarterly progress reports, as we're doing here tonight, make recommendations to the mayor and to the council pertaining to vacant abandoned substandard properties here in town the vast working group began meeting in october of 2019 and this is the second quarterly report that we're making to to the council i'm told that you can find the report in your ipads under o20-7 if you'd like to reference it as i complete the report and we will post the report on the vast webpage which is on the city website at the conclusion of today's council meeting. So for the February to April 2020 time period, the VASP working group continues to engage in robust conversations, sharing of information on processes and analyzing data pertaining to residential vacant abandon and substandard properties and the impact that these properties have on the community. Additionally, the VASP working group has begun drafting brochures and informational handouts for use by Albuquerque residents These brochures and handouts include FAQs pertaining to these properties, and it's anticipated that the final brochure and handouts will be presented during the next quarterly report. The working group has also been tasked with identifying the top 100 vacant and substandard residential nuisance properties that most severely affect the surrounding communities. As you'll see on your screen, there is a map that has been produced that identifies these properties across town. VASP took to this complex task by working with key data sets, which the group narrowed down to create a rubric, which is used to identify these nuisance properties. The group determined that eight different criterion were important in analyzing these properties. Number one, the amount of time that the Code Enforcement Division has been working to resolve the noted violations on the property. Secondly, the total number of inspections that occur or have occurred on the property since the beginning or since initially determining the property to be substandard. Third, the total number of code violations at the site. Fourth, the number of existing or remaining code violations that are on the site. Fifth, the total number of months that the property has been in violation. Sixth, the number of emergency calls for service to the property. And criteria seven and eight, the number of years and the total amount of tax delinquency for the site. A preliminary list of these 100 properties has been created using these key elements. And this information will be used to develop recommendations for actions that may be taken to transform blighted, vacant, and other problematic properties backed into productive use to support neighborhood vitality without having to demolish these structures. Finally, a sample violation notice has been included in tonight's report. I want to bring this to your attention because VAST members helped to recommend and to craft language that has been added to these violation notices. that direct recipients to call 768-HELP. This is a manned telephone line managed by the Agora Crisis Center with the University of New Mexico. The advice that's given or the services that are provided seeks to provide options and assistance to property owners in an effort to prevent homelessness and to help determine if these owners qualify for certain types of assistance through any number of programs that are available, such as utility assistance, legal aid or legal advice, as well as programs to support our senior citizens. Again, this program, or excuse me, this phone number has been incorporated into all violation notices. We're seeing that it is being used. It's been implemented since late March of this year. And we have ongoing discussions with the Agora folks to train them and to advise them on the various forms of assistance and programs that are available. With that, Mr. President, that will conclude my presentation, but I'll certainly stand for questions. Thank you, Director. And I want to turn it back over to Vice President Gibson to get us started. Madam Vice President. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Director. I appreciate this report. I also appreciate the fact that the planning has changed the format of the tags that are left on on houses that are problematic. And I think it's important to, you know, part of the fight against homelessness and eradicating homelessness is certainly not adding to the number of people who are living without shelter. So I'm hopeful that this will provide people with a place to go for to seek answers for specific questions that they have or problems that they have in living there in their homes and to help turn them around. So I don't really have any other questions. I just wanted to make that one comment if anyone else does have any questions. Okay. And Mr. Chair, one other thing though for you Since we've just heard this report, the accompanying resolution, I think with it, is at the very bottom of this agenda. Could we possibly just move it up while people still have it fresh in their mind? Of course. Do you want to take it off the top or just at the first of our approvals? Let's take it off the top. Okay. If there are no objections, we'll move that item up for current debate and discussion. Counselor, which one is that, if you have your agenda in front of you? I do. It is OC20-7. Thank you, ma'am. If it's okay with counselors and seeing no objection, why don't we go ahead and take that. Counselor Gibson, will you go ahead and introduce it? And for counselors following along in your paperwork, this will be at the very end of page nine in your script that you think Right, so I'm going to move the, I guess, acceptance. I guess we're moving for the acceptance of this other communication, OC20-7, vacant abandoned substandards property, working group quarterly progress report. And this refers specifically to the presentation that we just heard. So I'll move acceptance. Thank you, counselor. And as a reminder, counselors, to get us started this evening, we're gonna ask you to use your raise the hand button as a second and to get our attention. It's a good way to practice. And so I'll take counselor Jones as the second for that item. Thank you, ma'am. Counselors, are there any discussion? Any questions or discussion on item OC7? Seeing none, counselor Gibson to close. I urge your support. Thank you. And to get us started this evening as a reminder, As a part of our virtual meeting rules, we're required to take a roll call vote for all counselors on all votes. And so we'll ask our clerk, Ms. Crystal Ortega to take the roll call. Ms. Ortega. Councillor Sanna. Yes. Councillor Benton. Yes. Councillor Pena. Yes. Councillor Bassan. Yes. Councillor Borrego. Yes. Councillor Davis. Yes. Councillor Gibson. Yes. Councillor Jones. Yes. Councillor Harris. Yes. Thank you. It's unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Ortega. Congratulations, Councilor Gibson. And thank you, Director, for giving us that information. This has been a great program. And it's one that I know we can see in my neighborhoods and neighborhoods are really proud to see those tags going up and folks following up. So thank you. And thanks, Director, to your staff for having them continue to do those inspections. I know they stayed on top of them and we've called them out and appreciated that before. Thank you. Councilors, that's our last presentation for the evening. There are no economic development discussions scheduled now. And we'll move to administration Q&A. As a reminder, we ask counselors to submit questions ahead of time where possible so that the administration can have the right staff available to answer them. Tonight's counselors that we have on deck are Councilor Borrego, Councilor Bassan, and myself. If counselors, if you have additional questions and want to jump in during a discussion, please use the raise your hand tool. Otherwise, we'll take those three counselors and then call for any last minute open questions. With that, Councillor Borrego, I think you have a question for code enforcement. I do, President Davis and counselors. And I also wanted to mention that I do not see my little raise your hand button in my screen. I have the clap your hands and the little So it's hard for me to ask questions, but I guess I can work on that later on with the staff. My question is, I had asked code enforcement some time back to look at property at 6839 La Roca Road Northwest. And they did give me a report and I would like to request a resolution to condemn this property. And so that is my comment at this point. So, Councillor Davis, I'm going to hit my little thumbs up button when I need to ask a question because my other, my raise your hand doesn't appear to be working. That's great. And Councillor Borrego at the bottom of your screen, you should have a button that says participants. I think if you'll click that, you'll have the other options available. level for you. But in the meantime, Director Williams, would you like to comment or can you give us an update on that property for Councilor Borrego? Mr. President, Councilor Borrego, thank you. Yes, ma'am. This property is one of those properties that I just mentioned that the vacant abandoned substandard properties task force is looking at. Based on the information or the criteria that we're using to look at these properties, it's been substandard. meaning it's uninhabitable or doesn't meet minimum code requirements since January of 2019. Code enforcement has been out a couple times and continues to work to try and encourage the property owner to bring the site into compliance. There are approximately $1,000 worth of liens that are filed against this property, but this is one of about 300 different sites in Albuquerque that we're working on. So I commit to you that the working group will prioritize this and categorize this based on the criteria that we've come up with and we will work to bring it forward as quickly as possible. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Anything else for Councilor Brigham? Okay, great. Councilor Bassan, you had a question about summer rec. I do. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a question for administration regarding In the past, I know that there were other summer recreation programs for children in Albuquerque to participate in like extreme something or other. It was like Camp Extreme and there's a tennis one. There's a few other ones that were available that are a little bit more specific for different age groups. Is that still going to happen? I wasn't able to find anything of that nature on the website unless it was regarding previous years or are we kind of simplifying due to all of the circumstances? that are currently happening and if it is going to happen, do we know when it'll get posted and if it's gonna be the same lottery situation? I'm looking for someone there. Thanks, Ms. Neyer. Yes, council president Davis, councilor Vassan, thanks for your question. So those camps that you mentioned were not included in the first round of openings because they do involve a little more physical contact. We're looking at tennis lessons could be offered in July and August. They would be reduced to two locations and limited to four participants and one instructor. That's sort of our idea for whenever those distancing criteria allow tennis to reopen. The outdoor adventure programs, we could also open sort of in later in the summer, but would again need to be restricted to whatever student teacher ratio is available at that time. the state guidelines allow. So bottom line is some of those more intense contact items were sort of ready to open when the state guidelines were open. So we're going to have a lot of people that are going to be open. Same with the portable rock wall. We're thinking July, but again, limited people and there'd have to be a lot of cleaning on there. The recreation division is staffed to resume climbing wall program, but again, just depends on how close people can be. We're anticipating that the BMX facilities can open in mid June if the state guidelines allow. the social distancing guidelines allow and they would be either available through rec track, which is the general opening a general sign up or through the parks website. Thank you so it's jumping the gun with summer programs over here, but I appreciate it and that's I'm glad to hear that we're still considering doing them as long as all of the safety allows. Thank you. Thank you ma'am. And I'm going to go I I believe to Mr. Real, I recognize myself next just for a minute. Mr. Real, I'm sorry, Councilor Gibson, go ahead. Councilor Gibson, go ahead. Well, I had a question about, and all of a sudden I have an echo here. So I'll go ahead and give my question. We've been getting letters from constituents and I have noticed myself as well as my policy analyst has noticed that playgrounds appear to be open. I'm not seeing signage. We had some temporary signage up on a few parks that I drive by more often than others. But those temporary paper signs have gone. I haven't seen them in quite some time. And they don't really convey a message that, or they didn't very clearly when they were up that the playground equipment was closed. So if the playground equipment is still closed, and I believe it is, I wonder if parks could possibly use some of the yellow caution tape which is sort of a universal message to all of us that there's something special happening with that area. And otherwise to, maybe if you can't do that, maybe other signs could be put up that might last a little bit longer and might be viewable from all different approaches into the park. Councilor Gibson, we will take your recommendation to maybe do better signage, et cetera, to ensure that the public knows that they should not be using the playground equipment. Although I will say that it's been a real challenge to monitor those as you can imagine. Everyone goes and does their thing and what we've been instructing folks as of late because the parks are now open in a different way, that they actually take more personal responsibility for ensuring that they bring their own, you know, some wipes or something to wipe the equipment down, et cetera. But we will look at putting up more signs and ensuring that we get a little better and stronger direction. Thank you. And just a little tiny follow up here. APD is not doing enforcement on this. I understand that, but it's, you know, the neighbors around these city parks are in full view of the park, of any activities that are going on in the park, as well as the play equipment, if that particular park has play equipment. And so those are the people who are contacting us, you know. We've called, you know, 242 cops, and they've told us to email the state police department, which I think we could do better messaging on that. But really my concern is that if a parent or a grandparent is driving over the park with the kids, if they see something that's large and very visible, like caution tape, for example, that will send a message right away and you know, help them determine whether or not they want to stop at that park and then not let their kids play on the playground equipment. But thank you. Thanks for whatever you do. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for that. And I see Councillor Pena has a follow-up question before we go to DMD. Councillor? It's actually not a follow-up. It's a separate question. Go ahead. Okay. This... This is for Director Holcomb. I think I see him or is he there somewhere from Sahai? So just a quick question. I think a couple of meetings passed I had asked about because the vulnerable population, lots of those folks are the ones that ride the sun van and we have to look at different ways to make sure that we keep them safe. And so I had asked a couple of meetings ago about looking at the ticket price So, you know the other question was, is that, is there a way to kind of expedite the appeal process when someone gets suspended from the sun van? Because, you know, right now, you know, people who are kind of home are just really going to have a challenge trying to make sure that they get to where they need to. And there's a lot of hiccups in, not with Sunban, but with how people of those populations have challenges getting to and from the bus and this and that. But anyway, so that's just my question. Is there a way to kind of expedite the appeal process so that if there's somebody who's really kind of just taking advantage of it, then you can find out your answer. But if there's someone who for some reason was sick and just couldn't get on the van, sun van that day, and it happens maybe three times in a row that they can actually go through the appeal process, there could be some kind of alleviate that issue. Thank you. Sorry. Council President Davis, Councilor Pena, regarding the ticket purchasing process, we're looking at some apps that may be an option. They're still in development stage. We're looking at different vendors to see what our options are. Right now, we don't have anything in place other than buying at Albertsons or coming down to the El Salvador Transportation Center. But we are looking at some options to try and make that a little bit easier, a little bit better for our passengers to use sunban. And regarding the appeal process, one of the unfortunate things right now is during COVID, our paratransit advisory board who listens to those appeals, they haven't met. But passengers can still ride sunban if they've been given a letter saying they're going to be suspended for whatever reason. That suspension doesn't go into effect until the paratransit advisory board has had an opportunity to hear the case. So passengers can continue to ride until that process has come along. So if it's... in June or July or whenever they meet again, fasteners can still continue to rise on that. Okay, well, I appreciate that. That's good to know. So thank you. But in the future, if we could look at that, because there's just a lot of, like I said, just different issues with that. And the one example that, that, um, I think some of you are aware of is that sometimes when you have a medical appointment, you can actually call for some van to pick you up within a two hour window. But if you go to, let's say, get your wheelchair fixed and you have to actually give some van a time for pickup. And if it just so happens that it's taking longer than two hours for your wheelchair to get fixed and you have no other alternative, but to not take the sun van, then it really puts a ding on the one, two, three, you know, you're out kind of process. So, you know, if we could just look into those little, it just makes, you know, a better system, I think. So thank you. And I appreciate all you do. And I think some van is a terrific service that we have in our community. Thank you very much. And also, this is a side note. Thank you for what you guys did for our drivers on Thursday. We really appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you, Director. I see two more questions, one from Councilor Borrego and one from Councilor Gibson, and then we'll close with mine with Mr. Royale and DMD. So, Councilor Borrego, I see first, and then we'll come to Councilor Gibson. Thank you, Mr. President and Councilors. I just wanted to recognize the administration and Matthew Whalen and also Lawrence Royale. And I had asked at our last meeting for them to look at some of their procedures and policies for the Eagle Ranch Center for solid waste and also the one on 118th Street. And Mr. Real, if you want to respond or if Director Whalen's there, I don't see him. I just want to give you a chance. Mr. President and Councilor Borrego, thank you so much. I will say that Matthew, our director of Solid Wage, takes all the credit. I did spur him a bit, but he and his staff did a nice job. And because of your comments, I actually did take a load of trash to the Eagle Rock Community Center. And I noticed all the improvements that you were asking for. So thanks for that very much, Ben. Mr. President, are you speaking? There you go. We're having some connectivity issues up here, but we're going to let you, you have a question anyway, Madam Vice President, and if I don't come back to you, would you just take us just for a minute and I'll be right back. I'm going to get on a different network here. Sure. Thanks. Okay. My question is hopefully an easy one. I was wondering if it might be possible for, I don't know, emergency management. Appropriate. Yeah. Mr. President, you want to maybe can you mute? There you go. Thank you. I was wondering if it might be possible to put up on the website a graph showing our hopefully our decline of new cases in Bernalillo County. I haven't seen one. except for maybe a news stories or, you know, over time, like perhaps even using a rolling average, would that be possible to do? Council President Davis, Councillor Gibson, you keep jumping around on the screen now I see. Sure, there are a couple of charts that are out there that are coming out primarily through the state Emergency Operations Center, but we can certainly post them to our COVID website. Great, thank you. And that's for new cases? Yes, so it'll show new cases and it's just a line graph. It's not too complicated, but it shows new cases, deaths and recovery, I believe. Okay. All right. Thank you. Let's try this and see if I'm back. Okay. I'm sorry, Councilor Gibson. Is that all? I know you finished that question. Yes, we're finished. Thank you. Thanks. And Mr. Real, I just had one quick follow up. It's related to public comment that we received actually from Ms. Geraldine Amato, who we haven't had a chance to listen to or hear from in a while. But she sent us a letter by mail with some questions that included some questions about ART improvements in the UNM and Knob Hill area. where she's a frequent pedestrian and wanted to know if there were any changes coming there, maybe some signal timings that might make it more pedestrian friendly. And I know you've been looking with us in DMD at some of the other improvements. And so I wonder if you could just give us a very quick update on the status of the pin curves on the east and west central, and then anything that's coming in that middle section that we know might be coming in the next few weeks before business is fully reopened. Mr. President, members of the council, As you all have noticed, if you've gone up and down central, we decided that while we weren't running any service that we would make some additional safety improvements to the corridor. And we've added pin curves on both west central and east central, if you will, to really help deter the left-hand turns that were occurring on major, if you will, distances between the stations. So a lot of the problematic areas were addressed first. And so those pin curves are now up and painted, et cetera. And I think will help a lot in those particular areas where we knew that there was a lot of folks cutting across the lanes. There are a couple of additional pin curves that will be added mostly on the east side, east of Carlisle, if you will, because there's a couple of stretches there as well, where folks are going to the end of the platform, if you will, and making a a U-turn in the middle of the art lane. So that is really to protect obviously everyone from getting hit by a bus or particularly your pedestrians. In the university area specifically, we are going to be getting in some new colored, if you will, spray to spray the corridor that's right there in front of the University of New Mexico. It is a you know, with all these improvements, you have to consult with the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transportation Safety Board, et cetera, all the folks that regulate what we can do with our streets. The color red apparently has now been approved by the Federal Transportation Department as a color that will be utilized to designate the bidirectional lane that is right in front of the University of New Mexico and that goes all the way up to Girard. On that bidirectional lane, we will paint that red and we will have signage on the actual asphalt that will give folks information that that's a lane that has traffic going in either direction so that as people are trying to jaywalk, which we are trying to not have, that they will at least when they get to that median, that they at least know that they have to look both ways. There will be additional information signage if we will put in along that corridor so that we can discourage the jaywalking and try and guide folks to the proper areas of the lives for crossings. In the Knob Hill area we're looking at the entire stretch looking to see what we can do as it relates to a plan that we had some time ago to potentially put a median of sorts through there so that even though we're trying to discourage people from crossing in the middle of the street that if they end up doing that, that there's at least some level of safety zone in case they get caught in between buses, et cetera. We're still evaluating that and having to consult with the, you know, with the proper folks in the FTA, but there will be some other improvements in that corridor. But all in all, a lot of the major areas where we had some issues associated with safety, we've managed to make some of those improvements during the time here that we've not been running the system. And the last piece I will leave for all of you is that this is gonna be a continuous work in progress. We know the area, Councilor Benton on West Central needs additional attention. We're looking at whether or not there might be some opportunities there to deal with the concerns that some of your business folks have in that area. The same with yours, Councilor Davis, as it relates to a crossing of sorts in the Knob Hill. But we also are looking at the actual stop bars, if you will, at intersections, where we can basically stagger the way the cars and the buses are set up so they can see each other a little better at the intersections, so that people can see the buses and that they're staggered in such a way that if you're making a turn to do a U-turn in front of a bus, the bus driver actually can see the cars and vice versa. So some of those adjustments will take some time. as well as looking at the actual masks that hold the lights that actually give information about which lane you're supposed to be in. We've been doing a thorough study with DMD and some consultants that we've asked to look at the whole corridor. And so we'll be making some adjustments to that. But as we said a long time ago, this is gonna be a work in progress and all with an eye of making sure that we make art as safe as possible as we continue to to make improve it and make it better for the community. Mr. Rao, thanks so much for that. I know there's a lot going on and it's a big deal to get all that stuff moving so quickly and get the feds to actually do things relatively quickly on their schedule too. Councilor Pena with a follow-up. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a quick question. I'm getting a lot of calls and then this weekend, and this wasn't this administration, it was a past administration, but we were told that the reason that didn't have any barriers or medians was because of the emergency vehicles so how are these little pin curves going to affect emergency vehicles or response time and you know because this weekend we seen a fire truck having a real hard time trying to turn around on on central so just what are we doing there mr president and commissioner pena we've taken that into consideration as well we are going to be putting in some breaks in the in the pin curves. In fact, there are some there already that are going to be marked and are going to be marked for emergency access only. And they'll have what are called some rumble strips on them that will discourage a vehicle. I mean, it won't stop a sedan or a truck from going through, but it'll be clearly marked as an emergency access point. And as we refine the corridor, we'll be putting those in. There are already some on a couple of the areas on West Central that we've put in where the fire department and the police department are now learning where they are, how to use them so that we can ensure that the response times are good, but also that they don't damage equipment while they're trying to get through the responding to an incident. So we'll keep you posted on those and clearly label those as we move forward. Thank you, Mr. Reale, and thank you to the administration for being available for those questions. One final shout out before we go to the journal. I just want to acknowledge and say thank you to everybody. I took note from the EOC today, 113,000 senior meals delivered by city staff, coordinated through senior affairs with help from all over the city. That is no small accomplishment. since March to do. And so having peaked that hundred and some odd thousand number, we just want to acknowledge and say thank you to all the team, if Anna's team and the folks at Senior Affairs. And of course, last week, a number of counselors, including Councilor Borrego and Councilor Pena and Councilor Bassan, and myself went out to transit and teamed up with Garcia's to deliver food for our transit workers who are back in the ART buses doing training, keeping those transit routes running and answering questions about and listening to some of their concerns about operating and being essential employees. And so just want to give a real shout out to Garcia's for helping us make that possible, Dan and his team, and Maya and others, and of course, Ms. Baca from our office who really helped us get that going. So thank you to everybody for chipping in and taking care of our city workers. With that, we're moving on to the journal and unless there are any motions to amend it, I'll turn it over to Councilor Gibson. Councilor, I'm sure that you made a motion to approve the May 4th journal, but we couldn't hear you. But. Very sorry. My motion is for the approval of the May 4th journal. Thank you, ma'am. And I take Councillor Borrego as a second. Councilors, any other discussion hearing none? Ms. Ortega, will you call the roll? Councillor Senna? Yes. Councillor Benton? Yes. Councillor Pena? Yes. Councillor Basan? Yes. Councillor Borrego? Yes. Councillor Davis? Yes. Councillor Gibson. Yes. Councillor Jones. Yes. Councillor Harris. Yes. Thank you. That's unanimous. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, councilors. This time we'll move to communications introductions. Councilors, are there any changes to the letter of introduction? I have Councillor Pena, I believe you're up first for our 50. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Yes. I move that the rules be suspended for the purpose of placing R50 on tonight's agenda for final action. R50 is calling on the mayor to establish a pool of contractors to provide ground writing services for the procurement of available coronavirus support and relief funding, adjusting fiscal year 2020 and 2021 appropriations and calling for a feasibility study for the creation of a dedicated city grant management unit. I move approval. And I see a second from council Brego, who's also a co-sponsor. Council, any discussion on the motion for suspending the rules and placing it on tonight's agenda? Yes. And I didn't mean to say approval. We'll do that in a minute. I think any comment from the administration? Seeing none, all those in favor vote yes. We need two thirds of councilors present in order to suspend the rules. Ms. Ortega. Councilor Senna. Yes. Councilor Benton. Yes. Councillor Pena. Yes. Councillor Bassan. Yes. Councillor Borrego. Councillor Davis. Sure. Councillor Gibson. Yes. Councillor Jones. Yes. Councillor Harris. Yes. It's unanimous. Thank you. And we'll be back to that item later on the agenda. Councillor Gibson, back to you. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the approval of the letter of introduction. Thank you, Councilors. And a motion to second from Councilor Senna and Ms. Ortega. Councilor Senna. Yes. Councilor Benton. Yes. Councilor Pena. Yes. Councilor Bassan. Yes. Councilor Borrego. Yes. Councilor Davis. Yes. Councilor Gibson. Yes. Councilor Jones. Yes. Councilor Harris. Yes. Thank you. That's nine zero for approval of the letter of introduction. Thank you, Ms. Ortega. Next up is, and thank you, Councilor Gibson. Next up is usually reports of committees. There are none as our committees haven't met this month. A procedural reminder, we're starting to get ready for committees in the coming months. And so we ask and remind counselors that if you have items that you specifically want to be heard in a committee, we encourage you to reach out to your committee chairs as they start to put those schedules together. for urgent legislation in June. Next up will be deferrals and withdrawals. I believe, Councillor Harris, you are up first, 072. Yes, I'd like to withdraw the resolution regarding our bill, Mr. President, the legislative building ordinance. What's the number? It's 072 if you're referring to the dilapidated building ordinance. Yes, that's a deferral, right? So I moved to defer that. Yes, that's a deferral on the script. And I believe it's 60 days. I'm sorry, let me just clarify, Councilor Harris, I believe we heard you say withdrawal, but I think you meant a deferral until June 15th. Is that what I understand? Yep, deferral until June 15th. And I'll second that matter. It's a motion for deferral on 072 until the June 15th city council meeting. Ms. Orte. Councillor Senna. Yes. Councillor Benton. Yes. Councillor Pena. Yes. Councillor Bassan. Yes. Councillor Borrego. Yes. Councillor Davis. Yes. Councillor Gibson. Yes. Councillor Jones. Yes. Councillor Harris. Yes. That's deferred to June 15th. Thank you. Councilor Gibson, I believe you have a motion for deferral on 013, which is an item that will require two hearings. And this one I believe would come to the first for the first hearing. Is that right? Right. So thank you, Mr. President. 013 is amending 12-13-1 of the city charter. Article 13, sections four, five, nine and 10 of the city charter and various other articles of ROA 1994. I move deferral until June 1st. Thank you, councilors. I'll be the second for the record and Ms. Ortega for the vote. Councillor Sanna. Yes. Councillor Benton. Yes. Councillor Pena. Yes. Councillor Bassan. Yes. Councillor Borrego. Yes. Councillor Davis. Yes. Councillor Gibson. Yes. Councillor Jones. Yes. Councillor Harris. Yes. That item is deferred to June 1st. Councillor Benton, R47. Thank you, Mr. President. In the matter of R47 appropriating funds to implement the third phase of the transportation infrastructure tax and amending the capital implementation program of the city by approving new projects, I move deferral until June 15th. Councilor Borrego is the second. Councilor's in your discussion, Ms. Ortega. Councilor Senna. Yes. Councilor Benton. Yes. Councilor Pena. Yes. Councilor Basan. Yes. Councilor Borrego. Yes. Councilor Davis. Yes. Councilor Gibson. Yes. Councilor Jones. Yes. Councilor Harris. Yes. That matter is deferred to June 15th. Thank you, Councillor Pena R178. Thank you, Mr. President. I move a deferral until the June 15th meeting of R178 amending the adopted capital implementation program of the city of Albuquerque by supplementing current appropriations for the Arenal Crestview Bluff open space land acquisition. And a second for Councillor Borrego. Any discussion? Hearing none, Ms. Ortega? Councillor Senna. Yes. Councillor Benton. Yes. Councillor Pena. Yes. Councillor Bassan. Yes. Councillor Borrego. Yes. Councillor Davis. Yes. Councillor Gibson. Yes. Councillor Jones. Yes. Councillor Harris. Yes. That matters deferred to June 15th. And Councillor Pena, while you have the mic on, I'll give you R189. Thank you, Mr. President. So in the matter of committee sub R189 amending the composition of the board of housing commissioners for the Albuquerque housing authority, I move deferral until June 15th. And a second for Councillor Senna, Ms. Ortega. Councillor Senna. Yes. Councillor Benton. Yes. Councillor Pena. Yes. Councillor Bassan. Yes. Councillor Borrego. Councillor Davis. Yes. Councillor Gibson. Yes. Councillor Jones. Yes. Councillor Harris. Yes. That matter is deferred to June 15th. Thank you, councilors. Any other deferrals or withdrawals? Seeing none. Okay, Councillor Gibson, did you have something? Yes, Mr. President, there is an EC that I'd like to defer that appears on the consent And this is EC 20-74 and I'd like to move deferral until June 1st. Second. Okay. And so I'm told that Ms. Ortega and Ms. Yarr told me that they already had pulled it from consent at your request or anticipating your request tonight. And so it's on the agenda under approvals. Would you like to make a motion for a deferral on that one as well? Is that right? Yes. Great. And I'll take a Councillor Bassan as the second. And so Ms. Ortega, motion on the deferral till June 1st. Councillor Senna? Yes. Councillor Benton? Yes. Councillor Pena? Yes. Councillor Bassan? Yes. Councillor Borrego? Yes. Councillor Davis? Yes. Councillor Gibson? Yes. Councilor Jones. Yes. Councilor Harris. Yes. That matters deferred to June 1st. Great. Councilors, any other deferrals or withdrawals? Well. Councilor Bassan, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. I guess I'm having some hard time over here with the tech difficulties that I just want to clarify it because I see that I might, you see that I want to move for deferral is indeed later on this agenda. I don't want to miss the opportunity. If that's the case, I just since Councillor Gibson wasn't sure I want to clarify as well. Mr. Tigger, would you clarify the agenda for us on council of science question? Sure, no problem. Mr. President, Councilor Bassan, those two items, the prior as well as the one you're inquiring about were pulled off of the consent agenda prior to the publication of the final agenda on Friday. So those matters are coming up under approvals. It was my understanding that you wanted to ask some questions first and then defer subsequently. Therefore, I have those under approvals, but certainly if you'd like to make that motion now, that's up to you. I can't hear you. Councilor Bassan, can you try to play with your magic mic button again one more time? I think Councillor, Ms. Ortega has a few questions for you. I'm working on it. Can you hear me now? So yes, I am fine with it being on approvals. I just didn't again, want to miss that opportunity by approving it with the communication. So thank you. Great, good catch. Thank you. Councilors, any other questions about the agenda or deferrals or withdrawals? Seeing none, we'll move to our consent agenda for the evening. Are there any other changes to the consent agenda? Going once, going twice, seeing none. We want to say thank you to the individuals on tonight's agenda who are being appointed to serve on boards and commissions. I know a couple of them. I know a councilor's know all of them and others. One of these days we'll get to shake your hand and say congratulations in person. But in the meantime, we just want to say thank you for your willingness to serve and we hope you get to watch. And with that, I'll turn it over to Madam Vice President, Councilor Gibson. Thank you, Mr. President. I move approval of the consent agenda. And I'll take a second from Councilor Jones. Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Ortega. Councilor Sanna. Yes. Councilor Benton. Yes. Councilor Pena. Yes. Councillor Bassan. Yes. Councillor Borrego. Yes. Councillor Davis. Yes. Councillor Gibson. Yes. Councillor Jones. Yes. Councillor Harris. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, councilors. And congratulations to those who are appointed and thank you for approving the consent agenda. As we stated earlier, in-person general public comment would normally be next in our agenda. However, it's not available. the provisions of the governor's public health order. But we have allowed folks to provide their comments in advance to counselors through web form, through email, and even by mail. As we mentioned earlier, Ms. Geraldine Amato provided a mail, some comments by mail that were distributed earlier, and we received two other comments from constituents asking in support of a sick leave ordinance. And so those are available to the council, and we're going to work thanks to Councilor Benton's suggestion and others to be sure that we can make those available to the public for review as well at some point in the future as we figure this out. and we'll work through that process. Councilors, we're gonna move on to announcements. First, I wanna make an announcement that there will be a city council study session on Wednesday, May 20th at 2 p.m. via Zoom video conference. For those interested, the study session is being held to discuss the Aviation Department CARES Act funding. The meeting will be viewable through GovTV, Comcast 16 and YouTube Live. Are there any other announcements? Y'all are easy. public hearings, this will not be easy. This is our first time doing a public hearing by Zoom. So we're gonna have to work through this a little bit slower. But first on AC 22, I wanna recognize Councilor Bassan for an announcement. Thank you, Mr. President. Due to my working with neighbors prior to even running for city council and my involvement with this appeal, I will be recusing myself. Thank you, Councilor Bassan. and we'll move you out to the waiting room there. Mr. Melendrez, can I turn this matter over to you? And for the record, just to get us started, well, why don't you introduce the matter, Mr. Melendrez, and then we'll take motions after. Sure, thank you, Mr. President. The issue in this appeal is whether a site plan for an apartment complex should be approved at the southeast corner of Barstow and Alameda Boulevard in northeast Albuquerque. The Development Review Board approved that site plan, determining that the use would meet the requirements of the IDO, that there was adequate infrastructure, and that the site plan adequately mitigated any impacts to the area. The Land Use Hearing Officer reviewed that approval by the DRB and recommends that the DRB be affirmed and that the site plan be approved. This particular subject site is 3.38 acres in size. A 75,000 square foot approximate multifamily apartment complex is proposed there with a total of 93 units. The DRB, this site plan application has a little bit of a history, so I'm gonna go through it because it's relevant. The DRB initially considered the site plan in September of 2019, which resulted in a first appeal, which went to the land use hearing officer. However, that approval by the DRB was remanded back to the DRB so that the DRB could address some procedural issues in its hearing. After the DRB re-heard that and addressed those procedural issues, it reaffirmed its initial approval of this site plan, determining that It met the IDO requirements that there are a full range of urban services to serve the site and that the site plan adequately mitigates impacts through a 90-foot approximate building setback from single-family residential residences to the south, where only a 15-foot setback would otherwise be required, and also by significantly exceeding the landscape and open space requirements applicable to the site. Based on those findings, the DRB did approve the site plan. However, that decision was appealed. to the City Council through the land use hearing officer. The appellants raised several issues in this appeal. I think they can be categorized as procedural issues and substantive issues. With respect to the procedural issues, the appellants are still alleging that the DRB did not give appropriate process because of those errors identified by the LUJO at the DRB's initial hearing. They are also alleging some substantive claims with respect to the site plan including that the proposal is simply too dense for the site, that a traffic study should have been required, and that the site plan does not in fact conform adequately to the IDO. One of the bigger picture arguments that's packaged here is whether or not the site plan should have to conform to what are known within the IDO as neighborhood edge requirements. The application for this site plan preceded some zone conversions that occurred on adjacent lots. And therefore the site plan was treated in accordance with the rules under the IDO on the day that the application came in. And so the neighborhood edge provisions were not applied to the site plan because the trigger for those did not occur until after the site plan application was complete and submitted to the city. The land use hearing officer reviewed the DRB second hearing on this matter and determined that the DRB adequately addressed the procedural issues. It swore in witnesses and allowed cross-examination and it provided for an opportunity for what are known as ex parte contacts to have brought into the record so that those could be handled appropriately. In addition, with respect to the substantive issues, the Land Use Hearing Officer determined the density and traffic issues were within the thresholds allowed by the IDO and the Development Process Manual. And specifically with respect to the neighborhood edge issue, the land use hearing officer cited directly to the IDO section 110B, which states that any application that has been accepted as complete prior to any amendment of the IDO shall be reviewed and a decision made based on the standards and criteria in effect at the time of the application, the time that the application was accepted. So that was the criteria that the DRB used. to determine that that neighborhood edge issue does not apply to the site plan. And that is the decision and it was affirmed by the land use hearing officer. Accordingly, the land use hearing officer determined that the DRB did not err in approving this multifamily site plan and is recommending that the city council affirm the DRB approve the site plan. You will not hear from the parties tonight. I will do my best to answer any questions that you may have based only on the material and the record. If you have additional questions or would like to hear more after this evening, then you may reject the ladies hearing officer's recommendation and hold a full hearing at a later time. In addition, if you decide to accept the land use hearing officer recommendation. You may accept all, none or some of that recommendation or into findings of your own. There may be a need here to cut out some of the language in the land use hearing officer recommendation relating to a resolution that the council previously approved. However, I'll leave that to the discretion of the city council as to whether or not you wish to do that. I'm available for questions. Melendrez thank you for that explanation. As you mentioned the parties don't have an opportunity to speak to the council tonight but the councilors do have an opportunity to make motions and or raise questions and so at this point I'm going to ask councilors to use the raise your hand function or flag this down very vigorously so that we can put you in the queue. First I see is Councillor Jones. Thank you Mr. President. Mr. Melendrez I understand that there are a few minor issues in this that that be amended that would relate to how this works along with prior legislation and current legislation. Could I read those or should that be put into a motion? Mr. President, Councillor Jones, that would be appropriate within a motion to reflect that what the intent of of the council is with respect to those. I think that what you're referring to, there were a few sections within the land use hearing officer's recommendation that opined and interpreted a resolution of the city council R-19150. And if I understand what you're speaking about, it would be to eliminate some of those references and interpretations that may not be necessary for the council's action tonight. And if so, that would be appropriate as part of a motion. I do Mr. President. Thank you. I would like to in the matter of AC 20-2 I move to accept the recommendation and findings with the following exceptions. That means from the period this would be deleting these portions as explained by Mr. Melendrius. From the period on page 1 line 10 through page 2 line 15 delete Page 8, line 138 through the period on page 8, line 143, delete. Page 9, line 176 through the word A on page 10, line 182, delete. And from the period on page 10, line 191 through page 10, line 195, delete. So I would move to accept the limbo with those corrections. Thank you, Councillor Jones. And I believe Councillor Benton, is that you as a second? Okay, and Councillor Benton is the second on the motion as offered by Councillor Jones. Councilors, any discussions on the motion as offered by Councillor Jones? Councillor Benton, you have a question and then I have one as well. Go ahead, sir. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. Councillor Jones, if you could, Could you actually read the text of each of those? I know it's kind of tedious, but just so we can follow along. Actually, Councillor, I cannot. Or perhaps Mr. Melendris could do that. I think that would be a far better request. Thank you. Sure, Mr. President. I have the land use hearing officer recommendation before me, and I have the motion that Councillor Jones just made. And so the excerpts that would be removed with respect to the first one from page from the period on page one line 10 through page two line 15 that states that while the drb meeting format is at odds with new mexico law and even with the ido is how to quasi-judicial Hearings are to be conducted. The legislative intent of the city council as memorialized in resolution 2019-35 carved out an exception for the DRB meetings that exempts the DRB from performing its decision-making duties as a quasi-judicial board. Whether our 2019-035 is consistent with New Mexico case law is an issue I will leave to someone else to decide. That is the first removal from the Lujo recommendation. flipping through the pages to get to the second. This one is on page 8 line 138 through page 8 line 143 and this states as I stated in AC 1916 appellants appeal implicates City Council resolution 2019-35. Moreover as I previously found in AC 1916 ex parte contacts are legislatively intended consequence of R-2019-35 and are expressly permissible therein. In reviewing the record of the January 8th, 2020 hearing, I find that the DRB substantially complied with that instruction. That is the second removal. The third is on page nine, line 176, and that says that the stated intent of R-2019-35 is to permit the DRB members to meet with developers because it is not practical or technical for city staff members to operate in such a manner that prohibits them from communicating with members of the public outside of a public hearing. Thus, as exhibited by the plain language of R2019-35, it is the clear intent of the city council to not confine DRB members to merely reading the record or hearing presentations at public meetings, apparently to exempt it or insulate it from acting, as a quasi-judicial administrative board. And finally, the last one is on page 10, line 191. And that removes, however, despite R-29, 2019-35, the larger question that this appeal raises beyond my authority is whether that resolution is lawful and whether the DRB can operate outside of the quasi-judicial context and requirements under New Mexico case law. My authority concerns whether the DRB satisfied R-2019-35." And I think to kind of give some context there, all those deal with interpretations of the R-19-35 resolution that are likely not necessarily necessary to dispose of this appeal and and and that that may not accurately reflect what the City Council's intent of that resolution was and that that intent may be articulated in other ways or at a different time but the City Council need not make that determination right now. The only determination that needs to be made is whether or not due process process was afforded to the parties which Lujo determined that it was and whether or not not the site plan otherwise meets the requirements of the IDL. Thank you Chris. Thank you Mr. President. Thank you Mr. Lindres well done and I see a number of hands coming up. Councillor Benton I think you're concluded there is that right you were next in my queue but you're done so we'll go to Councillor Gibson then Councillor Pena and then myself if no one else jumps in. Councillor Gibson first for the question. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to acknowledge that this was a very difficult and painful situation that I think certainly could have been handled much more expediently quicker. And I think the city really kind of fell down on this one. Although I am going to support this motion to accept LUJO and recommendations from the LUJO, I have to, you know, certainly someone, and it'll be me, has to say to the folks who brought this appeal that this could have been done much, much better. And hopefully that we've learned something from this. It was a matter of timing and, but it was also a matter of, you know, not staying on it and getting things done the way they should be done. This is what people count on us to do. So that's it. That's all I wanna say. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you, Councillor Gibson, Councillor Pena, then Councillor Harris, then myself, Councillor Pena. Did you say Pena or Benton? Pena, go ahead, ma'am. I'm sorry, my internet is kind of wigging out on me. So I just wanted to just clarify. So accepting the new whole recommendations with these added stipulations, amendments, whatever they are, means that they will not be approved? Mr. President, Councillor Pena, no, it would be the inverse outcome. If you accept the LUJO recommendation, then the site plan would be approved based on the DRB's determination that it meets the requirements of the IDO and the LUJO's affirmative, recommended affirmative, of that determination. So voting in favor of this motion, to accept the LUHA recommendation and findings with the exception of those pages and lines that would be severed out would result in an approval of the site plan. Okay, I just wanted clarity. I just got confused with all the comments. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Councilor Harris, Councilor Bragg, then myself. Councilor Harris. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to comment on this. in that from talking to our attorneys, what I learned is that the really under the old zoning practice we could have done or the developers of this project could have done the exact same thing or something very similar. So really the neighbors are not harmed in any way by the zone change or by the change of procedures. And so really this landowner has had the right to do this for a long time. Even though it's disappointing to the neighbors, I don't think it's appropriate to prevent this landowner from building this property in a way that's been lawful for a long time. Thank you, Councilor Harris. Councilor Barreto. Thank you, Mr. President. So I had a question very quickly for Chris regarding R1935. So does this, in your explanation, does it set sort of precedence for future cases in the way that R1935 would be interpreted? Mr. President, and Councillor Borrego, if you accepted the Lujar recommendation in full, then you would be accepting those interpretations that the Land Use Hearing Officer made. Again, you need not make those interpretations today. And in fact, a more long-term fix is likely to be coming down the pike with respect to the IDO annual update, which is anticipated later this year. And so by accepting, removing those from the recommendation, if you choose to accept it without those, then you would not be setting that precedent as to how you interpreted what your intent was for the DRB with respect to doing that legislation. The LUJO makes statements later in the recommendation. It appeared to be more accurate with the intention of that bill, which was to limit the scope and authority in many cases of the DRB to help it comply with due process requirements. But the excerpts that will be removed are ones that suggest that the resolution was intended in some way shield the DRB from meeting due process requirements, which I do not believe that was the intent of that resolution, but it's up to the council to make that determination. And again, you need not make that determination about that in order to decide the merits of this appeal. So just one additional follow-up question, Mr. Chair or Mr. President. So in terms of the record, there was a DRB hearing and there was some communication, but then it was remanded back to the DRB, correct? And then at that point, there was some, I guess, conflicting information that was corrected. Is that correct? Mr. President and Councillor Borrego, that is generally correct. I don't think I'd categorize it as conflicting information. And just to kind of spell out what initially happened, process in these types of matters, among other things, requires that when parties present before a fact-finding and decision-making ward like the DRB who is considering a quasi-judicial matter, that parties be sworn in, just like you would in court, that you're going to swear to tell the truth, that your testimony that you're submitting be subject to cross-examination by the other parties, and also that members of the decision-making board refrain from what are known as ex parte contacts related to the decision. And by ex parte contacts, that simply means that the information that you receive and deliberate over has to come in through the formal record with a public meeting so that other parties to the matter have the opportunity to address those comments or rebut them if appropriate. All this for the purpose of trying to find the best path toward the truth to evaluating facts and putting them in an environment where they can be rebutted and probed so that the decision maker can make sure they have access to the best information. When the DRB first heard this matter, they neglected as a board to swear in witnesses and it did not allow cross-examination and certain of its members did have contact with the agent for the apartment complex. The decision, the DRB made a decision at that time to approve the site plan. was appealed to the Laney Shearing Officer and as a preliminary matter before other matters, the Laney Shearing Officer remanded directly to the DRB for it to correct those issues, which at its January meeting, the DRB swore witnesses, allowed cross-examination and through that process, the nature and content of the ex parte communications were flushed out and made part of the record. DRB again, after that process approved the site plan. Okay, so that's good to know. And I think as we move forward with other cases, that's probably a trendsetter in a sense. So thank you for that. I appreciate that. I see Councillor Senna and then myself, if there are no other questions, Councillor Senna. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to clarify with Mr. Melendrez, because I know that he just brought this up when speaking to Councillor Borrego, that the issues with this case in terms of how the DRB handled it, and just for future references, that they'll be given a guide to handle cases better so that it doesn't have to go back and more witnesses have to be sworn in to do the proper case and have due process. in future cases. Was that fixed and mitigated just for the future? I know in particular it doesn't exactly apply because this case did handle that once it went back, but can I just get some clarity on that for the record? So Mr. President, Councillor Senna, I think the best way to deliver that clarity into the future will be through some tweaking to the IDEO with respect to the processes and and discretion and procedures for the DRB. The interim resolution, it was actually our 19-150 and the number I was reading earlier, 2019-35 is the enactment number. So it's appropriate to reference both. When the council saw it, it was 19-150. That resolution attempted to address some of those issues. And I think with respect to this appeal tonight and the remand from the land use hearing officer, I think the message will at least be clear that the Dr. David B. Is not permitted to waive due process requirements, at least not on purpose. I mean, you know, as a decision making board and any human function and Eric can occur, but I think the best way to fix that long term would be through amendments to the idea and that's something that you'll have an opportunity to look at later this year as part of the annual update. Thanks. I see Council Bray go and then I'll recognize myself and we don't have any other Council Brego, do you still have a question or is that from last time? Something. So my question is with regard to the first DRB hearing and the second DRB hearing. Did any of the findings change? Mr. President, Councilor Borrego, not in the sense that the The basis of the findings were the same. So the DRB was considering three substantive criteria, whether or not the site plan meets the requirements of the IDO, whether or not there's adequate infrastructure to service the site plan, and whether or not the site plan adequately mitigates impacts. The DRB's first go at this was an approval in considering those criteria, as was the DRB's second go at this after the remit. Thank you. Counselors, any other questions? Seeing none, Mr. Melendris, let me recognize myself for just a minute and I'd ask you to help me clarify a timeline issue. In reviewing this earlier and looking at the record, I just want to be sure I understand the timeline here before we conclude. So as I recall the timeline, the IDEO was passed and then this proposed development or developer submitted their application to the planning department or to the city. But as part of the IDEO passing, it was clear that there would be an opportunity for conversions and a timeline, a relatively short timeline in order for those conversions to be introduced and potentially passed. Is that right? This was introduced sort of in between those two times? Mr. President, that is correct. And so I appreciate it and I don't dispute at all, like Councillor Harris's position and quite frankly, I realized that the owners perhaps could have moved this project forward more quickly earlier under the old rules that perhaps if they had the resources or the wherewithal to do so. But when I look at the timeline, it seems to me that perhaps the developers recognized that the rules might be different and might prohibit this process down the road. And they perhaps took advantage of being sure that they had filed during that time. Now that said, Quite frankly, they had the right to do that, I think. And I think it's important that we follow the rules as they are. But, and you mentioned, but I think there are also some, there have been enough procedural, how do we do this and hiccups in this process that it gives me pause, especially when you're a neighborhood fighting a professional process like this, just to be sure that we get everything right. And I'm not certain that this project would have been approved had it waited a month or two later. And so this seems like a unique opportunity taking advantage of the rules as they were that day, anticipating that maybe they would change. But that said, we have to judge this sort of by the rules in place when they made the application. But is that right, Mr. Melendrez, that we don't have the opportunity and really this is about what rules were in place when the application was presented and not what might have changed since. Is that right? Mr. President, I think to answer that question, I'll go ahead and just, if you'll indulge me, reread the IDO section that the DRB and the LUJO interpreted. And that says that any application that has been accepted as complete prior to any amendment to this IDO shall be reviewed and a decision made based on the standards and criteria in effect when the application was accepted. So the LUJO determined that by operation of that language that standards in place when the application came in would be applied. And I think to your point, those standards changed based on changed facts after the application came in. And so there was this twilight period where the application, the standards were X on day one. And then before finality, there was the standards became Y. And so the question was whether or not you apply the standards at the time of application or not. And so, to your point, the IDO addresses that and the LUJO determined that that language applies here as the DRB. Thank you, sir. And I do think this, the motion to accept the LUJO recommendations will pass. I just, I understand the concern from the neighborhood and I am concerned that quite frankly, that just the way the process moved forward and the time it took to get those conversions approved through the administrative process may have facilitated this, which is sort of unfortunate because I don't think this project will be approved under the rules that were in place today. But I see Councillor Jones, Councillor Pena, then Councillor Benton, and then we'll try to take a vote on the motion on the floor and move forward. Councillor Jones. Thank you, Mr. President. And I appreciate your comments about the change in rules and the timing, but I don't believe that we can punish someone who is following the rules when they apply for a permit and go through the process, especially when the length of time taken with this process is in fact due to the city itself. So to say that a developer might have taken advantage, obviously none of us knew what was going to pass the IDO. But the city certainly knows that every step of the city process knows that time is of the essence for any kind of development. And yet some of this holdup on this particular project was months where it shouldn't have held up. So here we are a year later voting on appeal that probably could have been handled four or five months ago and been on its way and everyone would have been in better shape but I agree it's unfortunate it's uncomfortable for neighborhoods when these things happen but they have entitlements that are in their land and other people who buy property have the entitlements that are with their land and we have to follow the rules set by the calendar that's there and that's that's our job so I thank you for listening to this thank you for paying attention to it it's a It's an interesting case and I believe that the people involved are very sincere and both sides are very passionate about it, but we must follow the rules that are in our rules as a city in order to make these things happen. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, ma'am. And you're right, that's what makes it so hard. Councilor Pena and then Councilor Benton and then now Councilor Harris and then we'll try to move to close on the motion. Councilor Benton. You said Pena, right? We'll take Councillor Pena off the top and then Councillor Benton, I'm sorry. Okay, so my question is to Mr. Melendez. So the DRB, the Development Review Board, now under the new IDEO, has really kind of the shift in approvals has really went from the EPC to the DRB. And the DRB consists of, what are the members? Who are the members? Not names, but. Sure, Mr. President, Councilor Pena, the members of the DRB are city staff members. So that makes them unique as compared to the EPC. And they are the technical experts with respect to various fields that the city needs to review in order to determine the sufficiency of development projects. There's a representative from the planning department, city engineering, and the like. So this board is composed of those type of staff members who are performing a technical function. And to the extent that those technical standards that they're reviewing for under the IDO are met, then that would be the circumstance where they would vote to approve something. And so the IDO did shift around some approvals. The DRB is now in charge. site plans such as this one where the floor area of the proposed project exceeds 60,000 square feet. There's a threshold at the top of that where I think it's 150. If you go above that, then you're back in front of the EPC. So it's sort of the middle tier site plans that the DRB is reviewing just based on their size. Councilor Payne, any follow-up? Thank you, Mr. Melendez. that's really just all I wanted to ask you know I just think that the environmental planning commission is really the place that it should us should lie I think that when we're accepting applications from our our city planners and we're really involved in all that process and then we're actually approving some of these things I think it limits the ability to really have kind of that outside expertise come in and lend a year that we don't necessarily maybe not necessarily here on a regular basis. So just my concern with that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I'm sorry, Councillor Benton, I think we called on you and Councillor Pena together a minute ago. So Councillor Benton is next and Harris then Borrego and then we'll try to take this motion to a close. Councillor Benton. Yeah, just to clarify and to reiterate to a certain extent, whether it's the IDEO or whether the city council or in the city is, is making any sort of change to existing regulations. This is the nature of the beast, right? At some point, a timeline is set. And, and from that point on the new legislation is, is in effect. And as was stated, the, developer got in under the wire with with to a certain extent and the concerns of the neighborhood were were not paramount because of the timing and I think that's the nature of the nature of the business the nature of amendment to this or any other zoning code that we might have that when a change is made and deadline looms, the developer has the right to get in under the wire. And I think to a certain extent that happened here. I know that's disappointing to some people in the neighborhoods, but I think we would be creating a much more difficult precedent if we were to try to turn back the clock and somehow say that, well, we knew what was going to happen, we knew what happened the next day, and therefore that should have been what was approved. So That's an inarticulate way, I think, I'm sorry to say, of saying, you know, this is kind of the nature of the beast. And I think this is the right decision with the motion that was put forth. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Harris, Councillor Borrego, and then we'll go to close. Thank you, Mr. President. And one thing that I understand, maybe Mr. Melendros, briefly, I don't want to belabor this any more than we have to, but understanding that even though this exact project might not get approved, that a very similar project could be approved even if the rules were changed. And what I mean by that is that I understand that in fact they could do a very similar project but the setbacks would even be closer to the neighborhood, not further away. So I really don't, you know, this seems to be something where there really isn't any harm to the fact that that there were these procedural things that went on that were not the way we'd like them to go. But at the end of the day, this project is going to get done. And that sort of guides my analysis in that this is an appropriate use for the site near Paseo del Norte. It's a project that is not going to be out of character with that area. And the developer followed the rules and they shouldn't be punished, as Councilor Jones said, because administration, prior administration made an error. Thank you, sir. Councilor Borrego as our final comment and then we'll move to the close on the motion on the floor. Thank you. I think Councillor Harris kind of hit the nail on the head is, you know, there's a difference between the procedural questions and then the actual zoning that's approved for the land use and the land use and the zoning did not change. And so, you know, the, the procedural issues were affected and they were, they, when, when they realized that they were affected, it seems to me like they went back and they corrected them. So, I, I think that, you know, what is entrenched in the zoning code is really the land use and the zoning and the density and those did not change. in my mind anyway, that kind of stays with me. So that's my only comment. Thank you, ma'am. And councilor's last option for any other comments before we return to councilor Jones for the close on her motion to accept the Lujo recommendation with exceptions. Seeing none, councilor Jones to close on the motion. Thank you, Mr. President. And I appreciate all the discussion on this. It is not an easy, It's not an easy procedure on this particular one, but I believe that it was a fair process that has been set in place and timing was unusual on this one. But I believe that this will end up being a nice project that will be an asset to the community. So thank you and I urge your support. Thank you. Ms. Ortega, would you call the roll call, please? Senator Senna? Yes. Senator Benton? Yes. Senator Pena? No. Senator Borrego? So if I vote no, that's not upholding the appeal or it is upholding the appeal? Mr. President, Senator Borrego, a vote of no against this motion would be a vote to reject the land use hearing officer recommendation, which recommends that the site plan be approved. So voting no would be a vote to not necessarily disapprove the site plan at this time, but to hold further hearings on it. A vote of yes would be to approve the site plan at this time. Yes. Councillor Davis. No. Councillor Gibson. Yes. Councillor Jones. Yes. Councillor Harris. Yes. passes on a six to two vote with Councillor Bassan recused. Thank you, Councillor. That matter passes. And we'll invite Councillor Bassan to rejoin us and ask Mr. Melendrez to get queued up for AC 23. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilors, AC, sorry, I've got my paperwork. Next up here. Actually, and before we do that, Mr. Melendrez, could I yield the floor back to Councilor Bassan for a quick clarifying question now that she's rejoined us? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I just would really appreciate, and I should have done this prior to the recusal, but if Mr. Melendrez could, for the record, explain why I had to recuse myself so that way my constituents and the developers and everybody involved will know why we have to do that. Please. Sure, Mr. President and Councillor Bassan. So we spent a lot of time discussing due process requirements on the last appeal and your recusal relates to those standards as well. And in deciding these types of matters, the city council sits as a quasi-judicial decision-making body, which means that you are legally obligated to act a lot more like a judge than you would a legislator in your normal sort of city council capacity. And for that reason, safeguards are required in the process, including that if a person has had prior involvement with the project or perhaps has prejudged the outcome of a project, based on evidence that may be outside of the record, then it would be appropriate to recuse oneself in that context. And so that happens from time to time as counselors, you're in touch with your community and in very, you know, in touch with a lot of these issues. And sometimes that comes up as a conflict for a counselor that is safest to recuse from a matter in order to ensure that the process is fair and appropriate is required by the legal requirements for due process in these matters. And it's my understanding that you have had involvement with this project in the past. And so I believe it was an appropriate exercise of discretion on your part to safeguard the process moving forward. Thank you, Mr. Melendrez and Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Melendrez. And don't leave the spotlight. We're going to put you right back in it. Would you explain appeal AC20-3? Thank you, Mr. President. AC20-3 is another site plan matter. The issue in this appeal is whether a site plan for indoor storage should be approved at the southeast corner of Osuna Road in Juan Tabo. Here again, the Development Review Board approved that site plan, finding that it met the requirements of the IDO. The land use hearing officer recommends that the DRB's decision be affirmed and that the site plan be approved. The subject site is 2.37 acres. A conditional use permit was previously approved for this site, which resulted in an appeal to the city council. So I think most folks are familiar with this site. That appeal before the city council resulted in an approval of the conditional use permit for this exact use. However, as another requirement and safeguard of the IDO, a public site plan review process was required for the indoor storage facility. That went before the DRB. And the DRB approved the site plan with 116,000 square feet in a 35 foot high self storage building. It approved that based on a determination that the proposed site plan meets or exceeds the requirements of the IDO. The site is fully served by urban services. and that the site plan adequately mitigates adverse impacts through significant, and this is a quote, significant perimeter landscaping by limiting hours of operation and by applying sensitive nighttime lighting protocol in an effort to help preserve the night lighting and nightscape of the area for the neighborhood. On appeal, the LUJO determined that the DRB should be affirmed because the appellant's arguments that the site plan presents a flooding concern are not supported. the evidence, the DRB heard evidence on the FEMA floodplain and determined that FEMA flood regulations do not apply to the site because it's not in a FEMA floodplain and also the DRB, LUHO affirmed the DRB based on its determination that the site plan was generally consistent with the prior conditional use permit that was approved by the zoning hearing examiner and affirmed by the city council. This is another matter for accept or reject. We won't hear from the parties tonight. If you have questions, I'll do my best to answer those from the record. If you feel like you need additional information, you can vote to reject the Landy's Chairing Officer recommendation and hold a full hearing at a later time. Thank you, Mr. Melendrez. Well done again. And we, Counselors, just like we did last time, we'll take motions by the raise your hand function. And first up, I see Counselor Jones. Do you have a motion or a comment? Thank you, Mr. President. I do have a motion. I think this one is self-explanatory with the information that came along with it and that is basically there is no substance in this appeal. Therefore, I make a motion to accept the land use hearing officer's recommendation and findings. And I think that's Councilor Borrego and Councilor Gibson with the second. But we'll take Councilor Borrego. I saw her first. Thank you, ladies. Councilors, any discussion on the motion on the floor to accept the Lugo recommendations and findings? Councilor Borrego, does it have a question or just a second? Okay, thanks. Seeing going once, going twice. Seeing no further discussion. All those in favor of the motion vote yes. Ms. Ortega. Councilor Senna. Yes. Councilor Benton. Yes. Councilor Pena. Yes. Councilor Bassan. Yes. Councilor Borrego. Yes. Councilor Davis. Yes. Councilor Gibson. Yes. Yes. Councillor Jones. Yes. Councillor Harris. Yes. That's unanimous. Thank you, ma'am. And thank you, councillors. Thank you, Mr. Melendrez for presenting that and answering those questions very well this evening as well. And thank you, councillors, for working through our first hearings via Zoom. Next up, approvals. And in order to get us started, just to get us started, I'll make a motion to approve EC72. And I'll take a second and then I want to... over to Councilor Bassan for a follow-up question I believe but I need a second first going once going twice somebody wave at me please well seeing none Councilor Benton will do it just for discussion purposes just to get us started Councilor Bassan go ahead with your question now thank you Mr. President it's not really a question I would like to move for deferral until June 1st if possible in the will of the council because there are some details inside of this EC that I had discussed previously with DMD in February that are appearing to be different than what we had discussed. So I'm hoping to have a meeting with them and to clarify and make sure that we're all on the same page prior to going forward with this. Great. And Councilor Benton, I think, is seconding that motion for a deferral until June 1st. As a courtesy, I just always want to ask, Mr. Real, is there any objection from the administration or DMD for a deferral on this item? and delay this project in any significant way. Mr. President, Councillor Will, can you hear me? Yes, sir, go ahead. We're fine with the deferral. Great. Councilors, any other discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Dicker will call the roll on the motion to defer until June 1st. Councillor Stanton? Yes. Councillor Benton? Yes. Councillor Pena? Councillor Pena? Yes. Okay, Councilor Basan. Yes. Councilor Borrego. Yes. Councilor Davis. Yes. Councilor Gibson. Yes. Councilor Jones. Yes. Councilor Harris. Yes. Thank you. That's deferred to June 1st. Thank you. And thanks, Councilor Basan. Councilors, next up was EC74, but that item has been deferred thanks to earlier matters. And so we are next up on final actions. Councilor Benton to present 014. Thank you, Mr. President. 014 is imposing an excise tax equal to one fourth of 1% of gross receipts that was passed by the voters. Dedicating revenues received from the tax for transportation infrastructure improvements, I move a due pass. Thanks. And I'll second that motion for the due pass on 014. And I want to recognize, I believe, Councillor Bassan, you have an amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to... I will move floor amendment to 014 on page three line one insert the following section and renumber all subsequent sections accordingly. Section seven expiration of tax the municipal gross receipts tax imposed by this ordinance and popularly known as the transportation infrastructure tax shall expire June 30th to 2030. Thank you, Councilor Bassan. I see Councilor Borrego. I'll take that as the second on this one and several councilors have seconded. Councilors, other discussion? Mr. President, if I may just kind of explain that. Yes, Councilor Basson, go ahead and then we'll take questions. So since the inception of the tax in 2000, when we first started this, we had established, the City Council then had established a 10-year sunset. That way the sunset creates a review of the tax by the administration and the council every 10 years to determine if the tax is the most effective way to continue funding transportation projects. And it provides the voters a direct voice in the decision it's an appropriate instrument for funding transportation projects and requires the city to update the spending program for the implementation of this tax. Thank you, ma'am. And we'll get started with Councilor Borrego who has a question. Thank you, Mr. President. I also have an amendment to this to include Paseo del Norte. I believe That will be for R47, which is the projects list resolution that we will have already deferred until our June meeting. And so if that's right, I think the only amendment we have on the ordinance and the ordinance is only to put the tax into effect. And then we will have amendments for the R47 at our June meeting, if that's OK. That's fine. Thank you. Great. And counselors, just as a reminder, remind you that if you have those amendments, please be sure to get those through to and Councilor Benton or others, as I think they'll be part of our budget conversations as well. But let's back on the amendment number one, which is inserting the expiration or the 10 year sunset. Councilor Borrego, do you have a question about the sunset? Yeah, before we move forward, I do have a question about the sunset because it would make it more difficult for us to include Paseo projects like Paseo del Norte. So I'm a little concerned about that. And I defer to Councillor Benson. Ms. Yara, would you just give us a quick rundown about process here? And then I have a follow-up as well about timelines here. But Ms. Yara. Yes, Mr. President, Councillor Borrego. I just wanted to mention also that talking to bond council about this morning and just making sure that we could put a sunset on this on this tax, Mr. Muirhead did also mention that the city is able to bond against this money. So in the case of Paseo, it could be that we issue other capital bonds against this money that could take your Paseo project a little further than the 10 years. So that is also an option here. So could you explain that a little more, please? Right, so normally when we receive tax revenues, they can be dedicated to bond against. For example, in the case of our gross receipts tax, we often have revenue bonds that are using that to pledge against. In this case, it is allowable to use this tax to bond against for capital items, which then means that, like I stated before, we're not limited to a 10-year period Usually bonds can be up to a term of 15, even 20 years. So I just wanted you to keep that in mind as well. And if we did pass this tonight with the sunset date, what kind of timing would that be on it in terms of bonding against it? What are we looking at in terms of timing? Right. So, If it were to be bonded against, I would assume that we would need to act quickly. If the 10-year sunset were to pass, you could only basically issue 10 years of bonds because you don't want to commit the council to something beyond the term. If this weren't to pass, however, I think that opens up the possibility of bonding for a 15 or 20-year term. One of the concerns I have, Mr. President and counselors, is that the voters did not vote for a sunset. And I think that it's important that we keep this as a clean bill and we should trust our voters. Mr. President and Councillor Borrego, I'd like to address that as well. And that was my main reason for talking to bond council this morning. The question that is sent to the voters is basically for the imposition of the tax itself. No sunset language is required when it gets presented to the voters. For a bond council, the city council has the authority to set, put a sunset on the tax as it is been approved by the voters. So you're actually restricting that a little more than that, than they were thought to believe. It is allowable. I understand it's allowable. I'm saying is that if we include that language in here it's going to make it much more difficult to you know use this type of funding for projects like Paseo del Norte and there's probably other projects in the city that we also need to consider that are large projects and it's going to take more time especially in a time when we're going to need jobs and you know we do have money already committed to projects like the sale del norte. So I think it's important that, you know, I'm not sure that this is really, it's really good to keep that sunset language in this bill. I'm not convinced of it, Mr. President. Thank you, Councillor. And we're gonna move to other counselors with follow up questions and if we need to come back, we can. Next in my list, I have Councillor Benton, Councillor Senna, Councillor Gibson and myself. And so we have those four counselors and hopefully can go back to close on the motion on the amendment, starting with Councillor Benton. Yes, just, I guess I'll go ahead and respond as best I can to Councillor Borrego, but I had also asked the question about bonding against this tax. And as sort of I expected to hear, we can bond against it. But with regard to the concern from Councilor Borrego, Ms. Yara, would this change the term then of the bond? I mean, what are our choices or options in terms of the term of any bond that's identified? which these funds are utilized as a collateral. Mr. President, Councillor Benton, thanks for the question. I actually would probably need to do a little more research with our bond council and the treasurer downstairs. I do know that I have seen bonds issued with a 10 year term and I've seen them issued up to 25 years. So I think it's really at our discretion. We would have to also talk to our financial advisor along with bond council to see what the best option would be for the city, what our options would be in this case, because it is a pretty unique source of revenue. So I would need to do that research for the council, please. So Mr. President, if I could. So Ms. Yara, you haven't said it yet, but I'm getting the implication that we would not normally for less than 10 years? That is not the normal case, no. It's usually 13 or 15 years. Okay, we do have a motion on the floor, but I'm inclined to go ahead and defer this bill with that question that's now out there. So I'm going to move a deferral until 15th and we can hear this together. I did want to point out when I first raised my hand before Councillor Verhego asked her question, I was going to say to be really clear to anyone who looked at the packet, the list that DMD has is DMD's list. This is in our court now and we want to be equitable across the council. I certainly want to be as a sponsor of the bill. And so I think I've told a couple of you that already, but that's just putting it out there. But I think this is the question of bonding and how far do we wanna go with it? Of course, it's easy to say, oh, we're gonna bond for it and we're gonna get all this money. Well, that money's gonna have to be paid back too. So I think it's a legitimate question out there and I think it might be best at this point and that's why I'm going to make that motion to defer to the 15th and we'll hear the two bills together at that time. Thank you. Councillor Benton, I hear your motion and in fact I'll take my own I'll take myself as the second for it but I want to ask a procedural mini question here and then I want to go to the administration who want to weigh in on this discussion and then I'll go to the councilors with follow-ups. Councillor Benton would you consider a deferral until just our June 1st meeting? Internally here we just wanted to be sure that we had time to enact the pass the legislation on the 15th, get it enrolled in gross, signed and enacted by July 1st. I think there's some timeline issues there. So would June 1st be okay for you? Yes, it is. And I also wanted to clarify that I'm not against the tenure deferral. And another thing I wanted to point out just while I have the floor is that, uh, counselor, uh, Sanchez and I were the co-sponsors of this historically, uh, in the last 10 years ago. And then this time around when we put it on the ballot and, um, He agreed with the idea of a sunset that was actually Ken's amendment the last time around 10 years ago. So I think there's a lot to be said for the sunset because of the way somebody described, I guess, Councilor Pisan who sponsored the amendment that bringing this back every 10 years for us and the public to look at In general, I think it's good government and I support that, but I would like to get past this bottom question. So thank you, Mr. President. I agree too. That's a friendly amendment to my motion is to go to June 1st. Thank you. Ms. Ortega's captured it as a motion for deferral until June 1st. I'm the second. And so, councilors, the motion on the floor is the deferral until June 1st of the whole bill where Councilor Bassan and others might have the opportunity to offer their own amendments. But for the moment, I want to acknowledge the administration. I think Mr. Real, I think, is jumping in here really quickly if you have information on this and then we'll come back to councilors who have follow-up questions. Mr. Real. Mr. President and members of the council, just a couple of thoughts about this particular bill. Now this is going to date me a bit, but I was here in 2000 and when we first put this issue on the ballot and the 10-year sunset was a compromise between the executive and the council at the time. And that's how the 10 year sunset, and then it was reimposed in 2010. And now the voters approved at this last election. But the challenge with this particular legislation is twofold. One is that if you'll recall, in this particular issue, the 38% of the funds go to operate transit programs, which means they're ongoing programs and the projects and their routes. So they're paying for operating costs. So every time you have a sunset, you always run the risk of the voters not approving it for whatever reason, and you're gonna lose 38% of your funding for transit that comes out of this tax. So that's just a point of consideration. The other piece of this is that it was put on the ballot and the voters approved the measure as it was presented. to the conversation regarding bonds is that, sure, you could sell seven-year or eight-year bonds, but you're spending a lot more of your revenue paying debt service than you are, if you will, getting projects out the door. So the point of interest or information for you all to consider is that a 10-year bond or a 15-year bond, whatever the case might be, gives you the ability to do major capital projects like or other major projects across the city. And it doesn't put your transit system in a pickle every 10 years as to whether or not you're gonna continue to operate it. So as Ms. Yara indicated, you do have the ability to change the length of bonds, but it makes sense to do these in a way that you still pay for your ongoing operations at transit, but also give you to do major capital investments that might be important to the community as a whole. And so the last piece I would say to you is we do have an issue that we have to get this issue to the Department of Tax and Rev in Santa Fe so that they can put it on the tax rolls now that the voters have approved the tax. And deferring it to the first is not an absolute, issue, but it is important that we get this information to the TRD within 30 days of it being actually imposed on the, if you will, on our tax rules. So just want to put that out there for you all to consider. June 1st is probably not a showstopper, but it is pushing the issue with TRD. Thank you, Mr. Ray. And just to clarify, yeah, since voters... of approve this we have to do it anyway you're just saying we need to have this approved later than 30 days before July 1st which I guess bad math dropped it date is June 1st so we'd have to do this at our next meeting no matter what if we if we defer tonight and Mr. President I think the last piece I would say to all of you is that you know we've been reviewing the the vote 65% of the voters approved it as it was written as it was put on the ballot so I think that there is at least confidence on our side that there was for notification and information to the voters about why this is important as it relates to the operations and the continuing moving of the city forward. So just for you all's information. Thank you Mr. Rao. I remember these debates, what was it six, eight months ago? Maybe almost a year ago now. Councillor Senna, then Councillor Bassan, then Councillor Borrego, then Councillor Pena and then hopefully we'll close on the motion for a deferral. Councillor Senna. Thank you Mr. President. I think some of my were just addressed now in speaking to the mayor's office. So thank you. And also for Ms. Yara to clarify that on the tenure. So thank you. Great. Thank you. And Councillor Bassan, then Councillor Borrego. Councillor Bassan. Nope. One more button and then we'll come back. Now can you hear me? We got you. I'm figuring it out when it Thank you, Mr. President. I want to ask a clarifying question of Ms. Yara. Is it possible if we were not to defer this ordinance tonight, can a sunset be added at another time soon? And I ask that because I realize that there's the sense of urgency to make sure to get this deadline to get it to Santa Fe. But I do think that any kind of length of carte blanche with some you know, rules and taxes and information like that for the public and there will be a new administration in 10 years. There will probably be some different counselors in 10 years. So I think that to offer that sunset, but I also would hate for this amendment to be what holds it up when if maybe we could add that in and make the amendment later, maybe Councilor Benton, if you would consider not differing, if we can still manage to further discuss that soon. Mr. President and Councillor Bassan, based on what I understand, the council can move, put that amendment in place at any time. I see the administration is bringing in Mr. Bakhtas, we're bringing in the big guns for this as well. So now he's available to answer questions. And thanks, Ms. Yara. Councillor Borrego, then Councillor Pena, then Councillor Harris. Councillor Borrego. Thank you all and thank you for the discussion. I think it's really important that we consider that Paseo del Norte has received funding from the voters and that there is funding from the city that has allocated toward that. And I think that's something that we, as Ms. Yara indicated, there's some things that we still I think that we can still get something reasonable into the state by June 30th. So I would just ask that counselors really consider that because the number of you know, jobs that could be created as a result of that particular project is huge. And we're going to need that, especially in this environment. Thank you. And Councillor Pena, then Councillor Harris, and then I think we're going back to Councillor Benton, but Councillor Pena. Thank you, Mr. President. Just want to say to Councillor Bassan that I appreciate her amendment, but as you know, And I think that the 10 year sunset really prohibits that because of the bonding issue. And I think the only thing that I they didn't vote on a sunset. They trusted that I think that we could do this with the right intention in mind about getting some projects done. And unfortunately, 33, although $33 million a year sounds like a lot of money, it really doesn't go that far. Councilor Pena, thank you so much. Councilor Harris, then back to Councilor Benton. Thank you, Mr. President. And just some history, because I was on the council, I wasn't on the council in 1999 when it first passed, and I don't know why there was an initial sign. For 2009, there's some history that Marty Chavez, when he was mayor, wanted to enact the tax without sending it to the voters and use the tax for a streetcar. And then that actually, the tax passed, but then the council repealed it and then thought it should go to the voters. And then at that point in time, they actually repealed the tax and said, send it to the voters and they put the sunset on it again. And then in 2019, we decided not to put the sunset on it. One of the things that happened in 2009 is that RJ Berry was campaigning for mayor and he's actually campaigning against the tax being enacted. And then the voters did overwhelmingly approve the tax. And I used to give RJ a lot of grief, like, aren't you glad that you weren't right, of people to vote against that thing, because you'd be in big trouble. Because around that time, we had a recession, it was just starting to get really bad. The mayor, Mayor Chavez, moved a bunch of property tax bills to the operating budget, and then RJ Berry had to do a bunch of cuts. And we really would have been in bad shape if we were out that 33 million on top of that. One of the things I will say is that I'm not all that excited about funding against this money to the extent people seem to be excited about it, because this money's been used keep our streets really in good repair all over the city. And that's been a huge use of that money. And prior to 1999, our streets are really in bad shape. I think that's why we enacted this tax. And we've used it to keep up. So by the time in any of our council districts, we have a situation where the cracks are growing in the streets and grass are growing up through these cracks. It seems right around that time, the streets get resurfaced because we don't really have streets that get bad for very long. And we really have a really good roadway network in the city. I'd hate to lose that. And I think the voters did agree that this could be a revenue stream like all others. I mean, we don't have sunsets on all of our revenue streams. I think we voted time in 19 not to send it out to the voters that way, the voters approved it the way it is. And I think we just make our job more difficult to get it. Thank you, Councilor Harris. And I think I agree with you. Councilor Benn. on the motion for deferral. We're going to need to unmute you, counselor. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. So I think I've been talked off the ledge of a deferral at this point. I'm going to withdraw that motion. And I want to make again, you know, we're because we're not hearing these bills together, I think there is some confusion about it. And I also wanna point out that I agree with Councillor Harris and if we look at how these funds have been spent and how much has been available for projects that have to do with building roadway capacity like Paseo del Norte have been a very small of how this fund has been used. When we talk about those projects and when we look at them and when I mentioned that I think we wanna do that equitably, these funds are not gonna pay for any project in its entire gap at this point. The best they're gonna be used for, if we're lucky, is to some extent to put down some local match other sources of funding of federal and state grants. And without question, the growing issue of maintenance has continued to grow. And as Mr. Riles stated, the big blockbuster projects, typically we need to identify funding for and bond separately. So, um, it's not certainly not a, a. End all and be all for, for a new capacity projects just to make that point. So I will withdraw my motion of deferral. I am concerned about that deadline. Uh, we'd be cutting it right down to the day. And that worries me. Thank you, counselor. I agree with you and I appreciate that very much. Um, Mark the day that counselors Davidson Benton agreed with counselor Harris out of the gate. Let's go to counselor Bassan. Counselor for the record, we are back on your motion for floor amendment number one. So counselor Bassan and then I have a question for counselor Borrego and then I think I have a question if we don't get to it in there. Counselor Bassan. Thank you, Mr. President. I just was hoping to, there's two questions that I have. So, one is being that there's the resolution and the ordinance isn't the resolution what will help determine the equity involved in the decisions of these projects. But the ordinance is us being able to get this money. And we need to go ahead and get the ordinance passed and approve all of that. Again, I think that, you know, going back to the amendment of my second question. So, it looks like I'm getting clarification that I am correct in that. not talking about making sure that we have a division that's that's equal right now that's on the resolution but we we need the money I think this tax is something that's been proven that it's working but I do think that there's always a good space to reevaluate so um that's thus the sunset uh clause that was that was there before but my other question is is did did Mr. Botka ever come in and to clarify the big guns for making sure that we are doing, we could potentially consider adding this sunset in later. It was that something we were waiting on or did I just miss something with Ms. Yara and her clarification earlier? Councilor Basson, I believe Ms. Yara clarified that bond council in their conversations earlier had agreed that it was possible for us to do that as it would further restrict the voters. We didn't expand and say raise the tax, but we could restrict it with a sunset. So, I mean, open to the concept and the idea that we can maybe look at this amendment later. So in the effort of not having to negotiate and not pass this ordinance tonight, if that is, if that's going to do the trick. If it's the will of the sponsor, you could withdraw your amendment this evening. We could vote to enact the ordinance itself tonight, which as you mentioned, simply does place the tax on the tax rolls and starts, allows us to begin collecting it. And then we could revisit the issue of a sunset along with the resolution that would authorize the spending of the money or projects with it at a later date. But it would be up to the sponsor. The motion on the floor at the moment is for your amendment. Okay, so if I can then, and I guess I'll need Ms. Yarez and Crystal and Ms. Anyway, you get me. So if I can withdraw the amendment and hopefully put it on, I'd like to defer it, or if that's even doable with an amendment to where we can revisit this. I don't want to wait. But when we revisit the resolution in the future at the next meeting, I think that that would be fair. Thank you, Councilor Bassan. You said the magic word. And so the motion or the amendment for floor amendment number one is withdrawn. And you have the option to reintroduce it as a new ordinance. And as we've done for every other counselor during this session, If you have a pertinent new ordinance, we'll take that as an introduction for immediate access necessary at the next meeting so that it's consistent with the other legislation. Thank you. I would like to do that, Ms. Yara, please. Thank you all. That's noted and Ms. Ortega has noted it. So, counselors, the deferral is withdrawn and the amendment is withdrawn. We are back on the bill as introduced. And so with that, I see Councilor Borrego still has her hand in the hand. I want to be sure we address any questions she might have and then we're going to be back on the motion to approve 014 as introduced. Councillor Borrego. And thank you, Councillor Basson for listening to us. It's important that we get more information on that issue regarding the sunset and whether or not we support it at that time. But I think it's imperative that we listen to the voters tonight and Any projects, not just Paseo del Norte, but any other projects that are big projects that are going to create jobs and construction jobs in the future, I think we need to support. So my understanding, Councillor Davis, if we vote for this tonight, then we're passing the ordinance without the sunset. Is that correct? Councilor Brayda, that's correct. Sorry, Councilor Brigo. That's correct. Did you have any other questions? Okay, great. Councilors, any other discussion on the matter of approving 014 as presented? Seeing none, Councilor Benton to close. Thank you, Mr. President. And yeah, I think we're on the right track here. I think everyone's well-intentioned. Everyone wants to get their projects done. We're going to see... We're going to see as we go to the resolution, you know, how much is really going to be consumed by maintenance. And of course, we're talking about a $33 million figure that's not going to be there most likely in terms of our revenues. So as was pointed out in the staff write-up by Mr. Manacucci. So I urge your support. Thank you, counselor. no other discussion the motion on the floor is to pass a do pass on 014 uh Ms. Ortega would you do the roll call vote please. Councillor Senna. Yes. Councillor Benton. Yes. Councillor Pena. Yes. Councillor Bassan. Yes. Councillor Borrego. Yes. Councillor Davis. Yes. Councillor Gibson. Yes. Councillor Jones. Yes. Councillor Harris. Yes. That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Councilors. And Ms. Ortega, just remind us that the R47, which is the sort of authorizing or projects list for the transit tax, that's coming up at a future meeting on the 15th, is that right? Correct, June 15th. Great. So, Councilors, take a look at that. Get your amendments ready. Be sure they get them in early so that we have a chance to work with the administration and other Councilors on those. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilor Benton. I'm going to pick my nose. Moya would you put Mr. Councilor Borrego on mute while she's off there we go uh and so next up Councilor Benton on R29 and I believe uh Mr. Moya is going to bring in a guest as well but Councilor Benton R29. Thank you Mr. President um R29 is considering whether R25 which determined that a nuisance substandard dwelling or structure in need of abatement at 1112 Iron Avenue Southwest 87102 should be enforced or rescinded. I move a due pass. Thank you. I have a motion on a due pass on R29. Councilors, I need a hand raised for a second and I'll take Councillor Jones is the first one I see. Councillor Bitton, back on the bill. Thank you. I move the amendment that is in your IPAS. It has to do with the current status of this property. and the need for the city to remain vigilant on this past nuisance at least. And we know that some efforts are being made by the owner at this time. Mr. Melendres could probably speak to those. Great. And Councilor Benton, would you object to me asking Ms. Ortega just to read this in the record? I know there's some neighborhood people following and watching. I want to be sure they could follow us as well. Sure. Mr. Ortega, would you mind reading floor amendment number one into the record? And reminder, we need a second for this as well from councilors who can raise their hand. Thank you. Sure, no problem, Mr. President. On page two, line 13, add the following. However, the city shall prioritize continued monitoring of this property, and if any nuisance conditions return or continue to persist into the future, the planning department shall swiftly prepare of sets the subsequent nuisance abatement resolution for council action and shall act swiftly to complete any and all associated abatement measures, including but not limited to removal of structures. And the explanation for this amendment states that this amendment expresses that even though the prior nuisance abatement resolution is being rescinded, the city is going to keep a close eye on this property and will take future nuisance abatement action as appropriate. Thank you for reading that into the record. Councilors, we need a second on the amendment number one. I thought I saw one during the discussion. Thank you, Councilor Senna. I appreciate that. Councilor Benton, I believe you also have a guest. I wanted to give you the opportunity to introduce her if you'd so like or give her a second to make any statement if that's appropriate and then we'll go to councilor questions, however you'd like to proceed. I do not, but there may be someone Mr. Melendris may know something that I don't. I think we have Ms. Jeanette Whitaker who's been from the neighborhood or connected with the property that's joining us just to listen and take questions if I understand. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Jeanette Whitaker and I'm actually the attorney for the mortgagee of the property and her name is Mary Frederick. And can you hear me okay? Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. And she has a mortgage against the property and she's the one that has stepped forward to make repairs on the property. We've contacted code enforcement and have come to an abatement agreement as to what can be done. Now the foreclosure is pending. So she has, she's limited as to what she can do at this point. She doesn't own the property, but she's taking efforts now to clean up the property, We'll do weekly inspections and we'll have a contact person that will take any calls from code enforcement in the event any work is needed. And so we are in support of doing an abate going forward with the abatement agreement. And the abatement agreement allows the resolution of all the items by October 1st, 2020. Thank you, ma'am. And I see Mr. Williams from planning. I want to give the administration an opportunity to weigh in on this. I know this has been a property that's been on the radar for a while. Mr. Williams, do you have any comment or? Mr. President, thank you. Other than what Ms. Whitaker mentioned, that is correct. Code enforcement has been contacted by her. We've seen improvements at the property. Compliance is the ultimate goal here. So we would not be opposed to some sort of a deferral to allow the mortgagee to be able to do what she needs to do with the site. Councilor, any other questions on the amendment, floor amendment number one? Councilor Harris, we lost you there for a second, but I think I see you. Do you have a question? Yes, I do. For the attorney, I mean, if it's under foreclosure, it almost seemed like it would be better, but I don't know how we can do this for the mortgage commission. mortgagee I guess it is to foreclose and fit in its lien at the foreclosure sale and then after it owns the property then it can deal with us but it seems like they're in kind of an awkward position especially as a mortgagee because if they do all this work then they're just the benefit of the benefit of Council Harris we lost you there Ms. Whitaker did you catch most of that or one in response? I think he's I didn't get the last sentence. If you could repeat the last sentence. Councillor Harris. So mortgagee foreclose. They did their debt on the property. And it would seem like to be much better for all involved if we were dealing with the owner rather than a mortgagee because the mortgagee really does not have power because someone else owns it. So this abatement agreement with the mortgagee is kind of unusual in a way and I just want to see if she can address that. Sure. The problem is the borrower has basically walked away from this property. In fact, we're having trouble serving him because we believe he's out of state but we can't find him. So we are having to serve him by publication. So he has not come forward to make the repairs. nothing we've been able to do to get them to do any of the work. So the mortgagee is willing to do that. She has heard the concerns of the neighborhood association and they are in support of having allowing the mortgagee to do that. They would rather from what I'm understanding is that they would rather have the improvements done than to have the condemnation done and have a vacant lot in the alternative. Thank you. Councilor, other questions on the matter of floor amendment number one? Seeing none, Councilor Benton to close. I urge your support for the amendment. Mr. Ortega. Councilor Senna. Yes. Councilor Benton. Yes. Councilor Pena. Yes. Councilor Bassan. Yes. Councilor Borrego. Yes. Councilor Davis. Yes. Councilor Gibson. Yes. Councilor Jones. Yes. Councilor Harris. Yes. amendment passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Ortega. And just to clarify, so Councilor Benton, if you could just remind me as the sponsor here, passing this new resolution tonight as amended, it essentially says that the council is reversing its findings earlier that this is a nuisance. In other words, there's a good abatement plan in place. We're going to keep a good eye on it and we reserve the right to come back and reintroduce nuisance if nothing happens, but it this property owner essentially a second chance or the new mortgagee or whoever's worked out the agreement. Is that right? That's correct, Mr. President. And as was stated, the neighborhood is supportive of this. You know, it's an unusual situation, but they're supportive. So I'm supportive. But I thought passage of that amendment was very important to kind of put that marker out there and keep, you know, keep everybody vigilant from all sides. So I'll use that as a close unless anybody else has any questions. Thank you, sir. Great close. Ms. Sortega, take the roll call please. On motion to approve the ordinance, excuse me, the resolution as amended. Councillor Senna. Yes. Councillor Benton. Yes. Councillor Pena. Yes. Councillor Bassan. Yes. Councillor Borrego. Yes. Councillor Davis. Councillor Gibson. Councillor Gibson. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Jones. Yes. Councillor Harris. Councillor Harris. Yes. Thank you. Our 29 passes as amended unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Ms. Whitaker for joining us. that will work out well. Thank you very much. I think I'm going to turn this over to Councillor Bassan because we're having a little hard time catching Councillor Harrison a good spot. So Councillor Bassan for R40, would you introduce that for us and then we'll move to other councillors. I will. Thank you, Mr. President. So R40 is directing the mayor to evaluate and amend for the city. appropriate the public health orders requiring the continued broad closures of business and facilities in response to the statewide public health emergency, I move a due pass. Great. And so we present our first, is it your amendment you want to present first, Councilor Basan? Yes, I can. Let me pull it up here. And just for the record, I'm going to take Councilor Harris as the second to introduce the legislation R40. Thank you. Let me pull it up. So this will be, I'm assuming, a floor amendment number one for R40. On page two, line three, add subsection D as follows. The continued ban on mass assemblage and specifically its impact on churches and places of worship continues to be necessary to promote the desired health and safety outcomes. And just to say that this is one of those that It's asking the mayor to reevaluate Albuquerque in comparison with the state of New Mexico. It's not asking him to continue the ban. Got it. And so that's floor amendment number one. Do we have a second? I think I see Councilor Gibson. Is that a second? Yep. I'll take that. Great. So that... Second. And, Councilors, any questions? And seeing none, I'll take the privilege, Councilor Besson, and then I see Councilor Jones. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. So, Councilor Besson, does this mean that we are asking the Mayor to re-evaluate the current decision on the attendance at these different events that you discussed through churches and gatherings? Yes, Mr. President and Councillor Jones, this is another amendment. It's adding on to our resolution. It's asking the mayor to work, and you'll see in another coming amendment too, but working with the governor, not defying the governor, but to really seek out that Albuquerque is being treated autonomously. This one is something that we felt the need to make sure to include the places of worship. also in there because of the different orders that have been issued from the state of New Mexico and coming down. We wanted to make sure not to leave any of that out. This would allow the mayor to say that he thinks that Albuquerque, you know, needs to be treated differently and that places of worship may or may not need to be opened more than what is coming from the state of New Mexico and from the governor's office. Thank you. Councillor Jones and any other questions, I'll recognize myself for a minute. Councillor Bassan, I have to admit, I don't know how to talk about this without talking about the whole package of the resolution. So forgive me if I take up too much space here. I have a hard time seeing why we need this at this moment. I recognize that home rule power allows us, or let's get away from that a minute. The governor can make a public health order The mayor can't undo the governor's order. He could make it perhaps more restrictive under our emergency powers. But the mayor hasn't made it more restrictive, in fact. And so I'm not sure... help me understand why it is that we need to do this? I mean, I feel like the mayor has the ability to make his own conclusions and to make these recommendations to the governor, to us, to the public, and he certainly has a daily press conference where he tells us what he thinks about these issues every day. I'm not sure I understand why the council needs to pass a resolution to tell them how to do that or when to do that. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm glad you are asking that question, and I think that hopefully, Councillor Harris will be able to weigh in on that soon as well, but And it is kind of, you have to talk about the whole lump package a little bit too. So I appreciate that we're all allowing for that flexibility a little bit in the discussion, but this is not a demand on the mayor. This is asking the mayor to work with the governor to make sure in a timely manner to make sure that if the city needs to be treated differently, right? And she has started to release some of her limitations on the state by region. This is saying that the mayor gets to be able to advocate for our city as best he sees fit. And I see your point that it could be more restrictive. However, the mayor himself is also indicating that he is considering thinking that it is time to move a little bit more. From my understanding with what I heard from Councillor Harris and discussions he had, I don't wanna speak for him. So I don't know if he's available yet to speak, but from what I have heard, the mayor has said even that know the city could potentially open up possibly and maybe administration can weigh in that there will come a time that the city can open up more than what the governor is is allowing at the time and that we can actually have him advocate while communicating daily with the governor's office to hopefully come to an approval with that. I want to give the council Harris as the co-sponsor the opportunity to jump in now that he's sort of back and we've got a good connection but I also want to give the administration or city legal the chance to jump in here as well just a heads up of where I'm going next but Councillor Harris you had your hand raised go ahead sir we need to take you off mute there Councillor sorry about that so what I think is important is for this part of this is sort of symbolic and that we're really making a stand as a city that the city of Albuquerque should really have a say. We are very professional city. We have what 6,500 employees. Our police force is about the same size as the state police force. Largest metropolitan area in the city. And we have a very professional city and we have our own needs and our own timeline and our own, you know, what's going on the ground here is not what's going on in McKinley County and it's not what's going on in Dunyana County. It's not what's going on in Sierra County. This is Bernalillo County, it's the city of Albuquerque. And as a council, I think we should be encouraging and sending a message that we really should be having more say over what happens in the city of Albuquerque because we are not a one size fits all city with one of the largest geographical, one of the geographically largest states in the country where we don't have a huge population. So we actually have a fairly sparsely populated state a lot of different areas which are actually facing a lot of different challenges. The city of Albuquerque, I think, should not be considered sort of lumped in with the problems that are happening in other parts of the state. For good or bad, we should be controlling our own destiny. And I think we're just encouraging and making a message that the council encourages the mayor to negotiate with the governor and do what we think is right for the city of Albuquerque, both less restrictive or more restrictive. Thank you, Councilor Harris. Thank you, Councilor Bassanti. Seeing no other questions, let me just assert myself here and then I'll go to the administration. But I appreciate that argument. I would respond by saying that we are part of New Mexico, however, and I don't think I can support any of these amendments for the resolution because I think that unless we secede, we are part of New Mexico and we've got to follow the same rules as the rest of the state. And if we wanted to change that, I think it would be more appropriately directed at the legislature and not at the governor's to give us that flexibility, but that's why we're here for that debate. And I wanna, since we invoke the administration, give Ms. Nyer or any of her team the opportunity to briefly respond to this. I know this was a hot topic for us at our last meeting as well. Ms. Nyer, you and your team have any comments? Sure, thank you, Council President Davis. It's a little tough without seeing the amendments on our side, but let me just address the question a little more generally. I tend to agree with you, Council President, that this is just something that we're already doing. So the mayor is already part of the mayor's council, which talks to the governor weekly. We have several members of our administration on the various subcommittees for reopening. We talk to the office regularly. And I do believe that our considerations are I think a great example of this is what we did with the youth program. So, you know, there was no guidance as to whether we could operate summer youth programs or not. We went ahead and developed that plan with a lot of detail to give the kind of assurance that we would be able to follow all the COVID safe practices and still operate these programs for the children of essential workers. We met with the with the governor's office and shared all those materials. And then within just a couple of days, the public health order that was issued did include the ability to have these youth programs. So that was an example where we kind of led the way, as I believe is the will of some counselors in an area where there had been no guidance. And we continue to do that in a number of different areas. So I tend to agree that this is just something that we're sort of already doing and stand for questions. I see Councillor Harris's hand and if I don't see any other hands I'm going to take this as a close. Oh wait I see let's see economic development which I suspect is Mr. Aguilar so let me continue the theme of the administration and let Mr. Aguilar and those folks and then we'll come back to the sponsor. Thank you, President Davis and councilors. Just to be clear, and again, I agree, I haven't been able to see the amendments, but insofar as any of those amendments require or obligate the city or the mayor to take any action that would be in contradiction to any public health orders, the New Mexico Supreme Court on April 29th was very clear, and Balderas versus Hicks. that a local government has the duty to execute the governor's health orders. And so in every municipality must follow those. So just to the extent that it's, if that may be an issue, I wanted to make sure that that was clear. Thank you, sir. The last two I see are Councillor Harris and Councillor Bassan and so I'm going to use this as their close on the amendment which is amendment number one relating to places on mass assemblage and specifically churches. So Councillor Harris will let you go first then Councillor Bassan and then we'll take that. Yes, thank you Mr. President. Just one brief comment, something that you said I had a hard time believing I was hearing it. Governor is the only reason why the city of Albuquerque cannot govern itself with regard to these procedures and with regard to what's best for the city of Albuquerque and it's perfectly appropriate after six weeks or so, now that we have the ground rules to ask that the city of Albuquerque manage its own affairs. Thank you, Councillor Harris. Councillor Bassan to close. you, Mr. President. You know, and I realize that we're still talking about the amendment, so I'm going to stay very focused on that this time around. But for the administration's benefit as well, to answer the question that Mr. Aguilar gave us just now regarding this amendment, I realize that it sounds a little bit when you're only hearing what I read earlier, but right before all of that, it says the mayor shall immediately analyze weather. So that's the kind of full part of this is that it's calling out saying the mayor shall immediately analyze whether the continued ban on mass assemblage and specifically its impact on churches and places of worship continues to be necessary to promote the desired health and safety outcomes. So this is not by any means ordering the mayor to do anything on a statewide level by superseding any of the regulations that are imposed upon us by the governor. But it is saying that we as a council believe that the mayor shall immediately analyze it and really think about it and make it public because we are Albuquerque. And although we are a part of New Mexico, we are the largest city, like what Councillor Harris was saying. And I think that that in and of itself is reason to say that should set a positive precedent to say that our mayor can do this. And even though he is doing it, I think that it's really something that could change at any moment. And I think it's really wise of us as a council to make sure that we are not leaving out places of worship when there is any kind of analysis being done. And that being the close, Ms. Ortega, would you take roll call vote on floor amendment number one to R2040? Councillor Sandoz? No. Councillor Benton? No. Councillor Pena? No. Councillor Basan? Yes. Councillor Borrego? No. Councillor Davis? No. Councillor Gibson? No. Councillor Jones? Yes. Councillor Harris? Yes. That motion fails three to six. Thank you Mr. Ortega. Councillor Basan, I'm going to... the theme of the sponsors here. I believe you have an amendment with Councillor Pena, which would be floor amendment number two if you choose to present it. Sure, thank you Mr. President. Floor amendment number two I would like to introduce for R40 is on page one lines two and three strike the language directing the mayor to evaluate and amend for the city as appropriate and replace it with the following requesting that the mayor collaborate with the governor, Governor Lujan Grisham to evaluate. And on page two, line 25, strike the language, immediately analyze and replace with the following, collaborate with Governor Lujan Grisham to determine in a timely manner. And on page three, line three, insert the following after the term, the mayor shall encourage the governor to. And so this amendment adds language to the bill requesting that the mayor work with the governor in order to determine the appropriate reopening procedures while still advocating and, you know, So we have back to the same principle on this one I did of the other one which is I'm not sure this is the proper I understand the intent I'm just not sure this proper vehicle I think adding things like encourage the mayor shall encourage the governor etc I think it's not our role to tell the mayor what to say I think if the council wanted to say we believe we could present it as a memorial that could be shared with the governor or otherwise. But again, I just don't think this is the right vehicle and I don't think it's our place to do that. I think we have that relationship. And so I would be prepared to vote no on a floor amendment number two. But I want to give the sponsors an opportunity to respond if there are no other questions and we'll use that as a close as well. So Councillor Bassan and Councillor Pena to close. Thank you, Mr. President. And I will allow, I mean, if councilor Pena wants to say something too, I mean, again, it's the same, whether it's the vehicle or not, I feel like this is a vehicle that we need to drive. We are the city council. We are supposed to represent our constituents in our city. And we need to make sure that what we say and what we're hearing is also heard in a very official manner as well. So, I mean, with the principle and the intent there, to me, it's the same in and of itself. numbers are different our data and our statistics are different and you know there are certain things that are not coming in in that way with full transparency and I think that this is a way to try to ask for and do our part as a city council to have that transparency come through and Councillor Pena foreclosed let me say unmute no can you hear me yes ma'am so I just want to thank Councillor Bassan for talking to me because when I read the language initially was something that I definitely could not support the bill just because I just thought that we're following the governor's orders and the mayor's doing a great job in terms of his communication with the governor and what's happening and I know the urgency that some of the community members have and business members have but I do think that now that things have started to open I think it's actually just the bill itself may not be as necessary. The amendment that I was proposing to Councilor Bassan softened the overall language of asking them to work together rather than direct them. So, you know, I support the amendment, the overall legislation. not so much, but I do support, I did support, you know, softening the language, not knowing where the will of the council was. Thank you, counselors. And I see council Borrego has a brief question and then we'll go to a vote. Councilor Borrego. Thank you, Mr. President. I think the way that I envision this particular amendment is that it's asking, you know, that, And I think that it gives it a little bit stronger voice for each one of us because there are nine districts. And, you know, I think that at some point in time, we need to be able to, you know, talk to us about the district. And I think that, you know, we need to be able to, you know, talk to us about the district. to the mayor and let them know what our constituents are telling us. So that's kind of the way that I see this amendment. I think it's being done in a very courteous way and in terms of this particular amendment, I think that it's something that I can support. Thank you, ma'am. And I see Councillor Senna now has a question and then we'll try to go to a vote on the amendment. Councillor Senna? I appreciate Councillor Pena as one of the sponsors of this amendment because this softening of the language, I do support, I don't support the overall resolution in itself. So I just appreciate that clarity. Thank you. I'm sorry, Councillor Pena, I lost you there for just a second on my end. It was my fault. But did you close on that question or do you have an open question? Okay, thanks so much. So Ms. Ortega, would you take us on a roll call vote on for amendment number two? Yes. Councillor Senna. Yes. Councillor Benton. Yes. Councillor Pena. Yes. Councillor Bassan. Yes. Councillor Borrego. Yes. Councillor Davis. No. Councillor Gibson. No. Councillor Jones. Yes. Councillor Harris. Yes. That passes on a seven to two vote. Next up, I believe we have an additional amendment by Councilor Borrego. Councilor, do you want to present your amendment as floor amendment number three? Yes, I do. Thank you, Councilor Davis. So floor amendment number three on page two, line five, So I would move that floor amendment. Thank you Councilor Borrego for floor amendment number three. Is there a second? Councilor raise your hand or wave at me really big. Councilor Pena. Thank you. Councilor any questions on this matter? Seeing none, Councilor Borrego to close. I urge your support. Ms. Ortega. Councilor Senna. Yes. Councilor Benton. Yes. Councilor Pena. Yes. Councilor Bassan. Councilor Borrego? Yes. Councilor Davis? Yes. Councilor Gibson? Yes. Councilor Jones? Yes. Councilor Harris? Yes. That passes unanimously. Thank you. And Councilors, we are back on the bill as twice amended. I'm going to ask, are there any additional questions, including from the administration, or opportunities to comment? Going once, it's going twice. I see Councilors Gibson and Senna. Any other Councilors for comments? If there are none, we'll take Councillor Gibson, Councillor Senna, then Councillor Pena, and then try to close on the vote on R40. Councillor Gibson. Thank you, Mr. President. My comments are real short. I would just like to remind everybody that it's been, I think, less than two weeks, maybe two weeks now, that 68% of the country answered questions indicating their unease about opening things up too quickly. And I believe that much of that comes from political will rather than medical advice. I think that these are decisions that really have to come as sound advice from public health workers and epidemiologists and all of those people who know so much more than we do. So actually, my favorite amendment was the last one. I congratulate Councilor Borrego on that. bringing us back to that. Unfortunately, I'm really sorry I won't be able to support this resolution. You know, I think that we have better luck in getting through this pandemic with our skin if stick together as much as we can and help each other. That sounds like Pollyanna, but it's absolutely the truth in this case. And to watch the data. So those are my comments. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Vice President. Counselor Senna. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate Councillor Gibson in reminding us of that importance, this really thinking of the data and what's driving this. And for me, having a background, having an education in healthcare while also having the unique of what I always say is I'm a professional patient having been a cancer survivor, a three-time cancer survivor while also actively in chemotherapy. And I know when this bill was heard for immediate action that few weeks before when I was sitting in my chemotherapy chair, I actually saw that that date a few weeks ago, we had the highest number in deaths that day. And so for me being uniquely situated and hearing on Friday in a town hall with cancer patients, their families, their caregivers, and really trying to get us to focus on the data and think about and considerations of not just those that we believe as vulnerable, because I'm sure many would see me and not think as one of those that are immunocompromised, even though I'm still in active treatment. So in thinking of our populations, my fellow cancer patients, in thinking sitting next to them, in about two weeks, they'll have to be sitting in the chemo chair again. So having to think about them, but also thinking about our healthcare workers and making sure that they have all of the protections that they need, because I know that that's what's driving that data as well. It was just consideration for our healthcare workers in opening up. So I understand that this is just an evaluation because we are uniquely situated, yes, but we are also without that previous amendment in having the data in thinking of who we should be consulting with because for the city, from my understanding, we have the environmental health department, but they don't have specific epidemiologists that focus on infectious disease. So I can't willingly support this resolution and sit in the chemotherapy chair, stare at my fellow fighters and also tell the nurses that I wasn't making every consideration possible to also protect them, while also thinking about my neighbors as well, the neighboring cities and especially our reservations who are being impacted much more profoundly than we are. So being a good neighbor to our fellows. And I know that the Department of Health at the state, as well as the governor, is making those considerations. And we've heard before that the mayors in constant weekly Mayor's Council's meetings with the governor to express our unique situation being such a large city. So with that I won't be supporting this. Thank you, Councilor Senna-Wilside. Councilor Peña. Mr. President, I do want to thank Councilor Hassan and Councilor Harris for putting this forward. I know I'm hearing from lots of my constituents well about businesses small businesses mom and pops who are wanting to open and wanting to do this in a safe manner um i actually put forth my amendment because i felt that the language i felt like they're already working together i felt like the language initially was very kind of um kind of strong in a way that you know um as councillor gibson said um pollyanna you know we just really want to work together to get to where we need to And as to what counselor Santa was saying, you know, and you know the health issues and health related and vulnerable population that we all care so much about. I don't think at this point in time, the resolution is needed because I don't think it's whether we are aren't going to open. I think we're already on a path to opening businesses. And I think that as we do that, we need to work together to ensure that we just and we have a lot of people who are in the community and we have a lot of people who are in the community and we can make it as safe as possible for everyone as they begin to open because for the same reasons that people want to open, we don't have the answers that Councillor Senna is talking about and we really want to take a personal responsibility to ensure that we protect our vulnerable populations, our children and everyone and one another. I have a large family and there's so much, you know, I have four nurses in my immediate family some everyday scene that might, hearing some of the stories that are happening out there and it's very scary and it's not, and the virus itself isn't just affecting vulnerable populations. It's affecting our children, it's affecting. So I just believe again, Pollyanna, Councilor Gibson, that we really need to work together to try to figure out what the best and safest path but I can't I'm not supporting the resolution so thank you. Thank you Councillor Penney and seeing no other discussion I'll recognize myself and then go to the sponsors for a close although I think they sort of did it earlier but just to give them a last shot so that's what the rules say. I agree with Councillor Penney and Senna and Gibson and others I appreciate very much Councillor Gibson you're absolutely right we ought to be these conversations by data and healthcare concerns and not by politics, Councilor Sene, you put a personal face on it and remind us why it's so important. I'm wearing my frontline hero pen tonight given to me by one of our first responders the other day, one of our AFR folks who was giving them to nurses because they were trying to remind them that we have to think about those folks too. And our assets and our resources in Albuquerque, which are our people, our real personal assets like the nurses and Councilor Pena's family, are not just Albuquerque's. Those folks are all of New Mexico's and they're counting on us. And just last week we saw that our ICU beds were at capacity. And as we've all heard, and every counselor here has been on a call with the governor's chief of staff. Many of us have had a chance to talk to the governor or their staff on other issues. I don't think there's any issue that we're not working together, but I don't. I agree with the other counselors who've spoken up recently that just said, this is not our place to try to force a wedge between the city and the state of New Mexico. We're all one New Mexico. Somos Unidos. And I think that this would not be, this is not necessary for us to do tonight. So I'll be joining those other counselors and voting against the resolution. That said, the sponsors always get the last word. And so counselors and Harris, leave it to you to close. And then we'll ask Ms. Ortega to take us on the vote, except I see council Borrego. Nope, she came off. So Councilor Bassana here is to close. I'll do the first mini close. Very briefly, I appreciate the comments and comments about data. My sister is a doctor in Philadelphia. She spends all of her days doing COVID testing. She comes home from work every day and strips at the door and disinfectizes herself. My niece is a nurse in Philadelphia who spends all of her day actually on COVID battlefield actually treating COVID patients. So, you know, I'm not insensitive to data. I'm not insensitive to the fact that this is a real struggle. This is a real pandemic and that we have to use data. But my only concern is, or my major concern is that the city of Albuquerque has, does have an environmental health and it has a phone. I mean, no one's saying that the mayor should not talk to epidemiologists. What I am saying is that, you know, if I have to summarize the president's basic stance, you know, in sort of a negative way is that, you know, we are not a potted plant. That's not why I was elected. That's not why we are all elected. And I think that we should have a voice in what's happening. I am glad that the mayor is working with the governor, but I think that as a council, we should encourage him to do so and make a statement as a council that we want to have a little bit more control over the city of Albuquerque. That's what our constituents want us to do. Councilor Besson. I have a few notes that I want to share before we go ahead and put this up for a completely successful vote. And I really hate that this resolution is making people think that Councilor Harris and I do not appreciate or do not value the safety and the well-being of people that are out in our society. I think it's actually the contrary, is that we are grateful to the first responders and we are grateful to the vulnerable population, whether they look like they're vulnerable or not. However, there's a whole bunch of other vulnerable people right now that I think would argue that Pollyanna is not there for them. And I think that's what is really initiating why we did this resolution. And we did it with immediate action two weeks ago because things are changing so quickly. So it's fabulous that the mayor is working with the governor. We do have a responsibility to all of our constituents, and it's not saying that we should go against the CDC or the World Health Organization. And in fact, I am questioning sometimes the transparency in our government and what is coming down when there are private labs doing the testing or the I think that's the way that we have to make the analysis of how to make these mandates. And when there is a committee that goes behind closed doors without open meetings or any kind of accountability to the public, I believe that this is exactly what is making us say that the mayor should be able to be transparent and defend our city. And so I wrote that, you know, full transparency by all government agencies, whether it's the governor or higher or below, you know, obligation, especially in this pandemic that is so unknown, to make sure that we maintain the public's trust. And although, again, I feel like it's really tragic that people think that I am a cold-hearted person and don't want to keep people safe, that is absolutely not it. I'm saying there are some people that are not safe because they are on unemployment. And they say for every 1% of unemployment, could lead to 37,000 deaths if you go to the resources for the different employment agencies. So these are the data that I believe that we need to take into consideration. And I think that it's our job, instead of in hiding these important meetings, and instead of saying that our mayor should not be accountable to our city, that this is the time for the utmost transparency. And the other thing that I, the last thing I really, really want to say is, I don't think that we're moving too quickly. We're not saying that we want the mayor to just do this with any unaccountability. That's exactly the opposite of what this is saying. It's that the data and the statistics that are being given to us sometimes could seem like they're being cherry-picked. Because I think that here in Albuquerque, we have different jobs, we have different businesses, we have people that are starving, domestic violence is going up. We have to take into account all of that. I really feel like it shouldn't just be an all COVID or no COVID, it needs to be all of Albuquerque. So for that, that is the motivation of why this resolution came about to encourage the mayor to really advocate for the city on behalf of the city. And I'm happy to say that I sponsored this to try for our constituents and everyone in this city to be safe and to reopen in a manner of that. Thank you. Councilor Borrego, you wanted to raise a quick point. Usually we let the sponsors close, but Councilor Borrego, you said you have a new issue? Well, I wanted to just mention to you that I don't know, I do own a business and my business opened this weekend on Saturday. It's not in the city of Albuquerque right now, but it was. And there was some responsibility to the business owner to determine how many people were able to enter the building, what the requirements were in terms of they had to wear a mask, and you know, there was hand sanitizer available to those retail people that were shopping. So, you know, at some point, and that's why I sponsored the amendment number three is because at some point in time, I mean, I think, you know, the phased opening is really important, but we also have to take some personal responsibility, not just as human beings, but as business owners. And it's imperative that we do take that personal responsibility. I was in the grocery store today And there was a requirement in the grocery store to wear a mask. And that is the governor's directive. And the manager, someone entered and he wasn't wearing a mask. And she asked him to leave. And I think that kind of responsibility is really important. I think the data, yes, well, I think that is crucial. And that's what my amendment was, is that we incorporate And so, you know, what the New Mexico public health and what the CDC are proposing. I mean, that's, that's imperative. But we also at some, at some point, need to talk about where are we going to go in terms of a city in terms of the state, if we have no gross receipts taxes, because New Mexico, And unfortunately, or fortunately, whatever the case may be, is dependent on gross receipts taxes. So, you know, at some point, we're also have to start asking ourselves, how are we going to be paying for unemployment benefits? How are we going to be paying for, you know, health insurances? And we have already given the governor, I mean, excuse me, the mayor, And he has an emergency powers directive. We've already given him that. And he can by default, if he sees a spike in the data, he can, in those emergency powers, he can use those emergency powers. The governor has said that if she sees people out in public not wearing masks and continue, that at some point she will go back to where we started. And I think that at some point in time, we have to take some personal responsibility, but also responsibility for our neighbors. And, you know, I'm going to support this because, and it's not, I mean, I don't see it as a division between Democrat, Republican. I mean, I think it's, at some point, we need to start looking at how are we going to move forward and looking at those And if you go back to Memorial 20-2, we're looking at the future. Do we only open at 20%? Do we open at 25%? I mean, we need to start looking at the data, but also looking at how do we start opening safely. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Ms. Ortega to call the roll call, please. Councillor Senna. No. Councilor Benton? No. Councilor Pena? No. Councilor Bassan? Yes. Councilor Borrego? Yes. Councilor Davis? No. Councilor Gibson? No. Councilor Jones? Yes. Councilor Harris? Yes. That fails on a four to five vote. Thank you, councilors. That disposes of R40. As a reminder, we have a number of other items in our agenda tonight, so we want to keep our discussions on point and so we can get through these. Next up, councilor Senna and Gibson, R45, appropriating funds for the Coronavirus Community Support Recovery Fund. Councilors, I'll let you decide who goes first and you're up. Go ahead, councilor Senna. Thank you, Councillor Gibson and thank you, Mr. President. As we all know that the urgent need for our communities, especially those that haven't seen the most support and the most vulnerable, of course, need help and we have enacted funding for that to support these communities. I do have an amendment that's, so I move a new pass of R45. It's just appropriating funds for the Coronavirus Community Support and Recovery Program. And I do move a pass. Thank you and I'll take Councillor Gibson as the second for that, as the co-sponsor. And so, Councilors, we're back on the amendment, or back on the bill. Councillor Sennett, I believe, as you mentioned, you have an amendment and so we'll call that floor amendment number one. I won't make you read all the words and numbers, but... at least to introduce your men of course. Yes, thank you Mr. President and I appreciate you not having me read through the whole list. The amendment is just to add those that we are rewarding the funding to and that's on page one strike line 25 on page two strike line one through two and replaced with the following and as you can see on your share screen that we came up with the total amounts that will be awarded to these groups. And I'll take Councillor Gibson as the second for that amendment as well. Thank you, Councillor Senna. Councilors, excuse me, Councilors, any questions or comments on this item? I know I have a couple, but I'll wait to the end. Anyway, Councillor Borrego and then Councillor Benton, and I believe there are others, but I can only see a couple at a time while we're on screen share. So we'll start with Councillor Borrego. I just had a quick question. And I don't know, maybe Stephanie can answer this in terms of there's a couple of religious organizations, are they nonprofit organizations or just to be clear? Mr. President, Councillor Borrego, so these applications were taken through an RFP process that Family Community Services put out. Thank you very much for that. And I do believe these are all nonprofit organizations. We are allowed to provide funding to such organizations to, if they are supporting indigent and other like populations. Councilor Benn and then we'll go to Councilor Gibson. Yeah, just quickly, I want to thank those who passed the original bill and sponsored that. And then more importantly, who have been working so hard all week long to get this list. It sounded like a monumental task. So thanks to Councilor Sainna, Councilor Gibson and all the others I know in the administration who helped out with this. that very much. Well said, Councilor and as Councilor Gibson is one of the sponsors. Let me just add a couple other names. I know Isaac Padilla in the mayor's office really worked overtime. He called me late at night and on the weekends trying to work through a process to get this working. Anybody who works in government knows that getting contracts and things Approved quickly is not what we do well, but he created a process to get this done quickly. Carol and her team and family and community. Mike Pulley, the mayor's chief of staff, was part of the review team, as well as Councilor Senna and Gibson. It takes a lot to go through all of those applications and determine who can best use those dollars effectively. And so we really do appreciate their work. Councilor Gibson. Thank you, Mr. President. I just have to add a couple of names to that. Jeff Hurt from our office was just really, really helpful. We couldn't have done it without him. And as well as Ellen Braden from family. And Stephanie from our office. I think I'm probably still leaving people out. If I am, I'm very, very sorry. But so this is sort of all of those people. I'm very, very grateful. And to have been on this committee to, you know, to, you know, study and review all 68 responses. It was a big job. And we only had one part of it. The next part, course is the contractual part that family is very good at. And so I'm really, I'm just really delighted that I was able to work on this and be a part of a very quick turnaround when you consider we just passed this last meeting. So thank you. Thank you. see whom I think is Director Pierce in the budget conference room, we're going to try to put you up. Is that you, Director? I can barely tell who that is on my little screen. It's me. Hi. Yes, this is Carol Pierce. Hello. Go ahead. Welcome, and thank you again to you and your team. There's a lot of work in this. You're very welcome. It was a monumental effort and a big team effort with council and all the support staff. While I have you, any other comments from the administration? And if not, then I'll go back to the sponsors for close. I think that's a no. So to the sponsors for a close, and then we'll move on the amendment for floor amendment number one to R2045. Mr. President, I just want to add to Councillor Borrego's question. Yes, the requirement was to be a nonprofit. And I just want to say that, you know, when we voted on the original bill of appropriating the funds, that we did add an equity lens to provide the funding to certain groups. And so for these organizations, when we made the consideration, we made sure that equity was applied and making sure that communities that don't typically get aid to get this funding and for especially those that provide those services, get these contracts. And so, you know, it was a very challenging task. And I want to just think, as was stated earlier, the mayor's administration, Councillor Gibson and those from family and community services, really being able to chug through the process and reading almost about 700 pages of applications And so I just appreciate my colleagues and those in the mayor's office. So I urge your support. Thank you, ma'am. Councilor Gibson, anything else? Great. Ms. Ortega, will you take the roll call on amendment number one to R2045? Councilor Senna. Yes. Councilor Benton. Yes. Councilor Pena. Yes. Councilor Bassan. Yes. Councilor Borrego. Yes. Councilor Davis. Councillor Gibson? Yes. Councillor Jones? Yes. Councillor Harris? Yes. Amendment number one passes unanimously. Thank you, councilors. We're back on our 2045 as amended. If there are no other comments, either from the administration or from councilors, I will take the, well, we'll give the sponsors the last chance to close again if they choose. Otherwise, we'll take their last close as the close and move on to our vote. Everybody's good with that. That's great. Ms. Ortega, would you call the roll one more time on final passage for our 2045 as a minute? Yes. Councillor Benton. Yes. Councillor Pena. Yes. Councillor Bassan. Yes. Councillor Borrego. Yes. Councillor Davis. Yes. Councillor Gibson. Yes. Councillor Jones. Yes. Councillor Harris. Yes. Passes as amended unanimously. Thank you, Ms. Ortega. Thank you to the council. and everybody who works so hard on this, getting that million dollars out the door is gonna be critical for our community. And we look forward to seeing how that happens very quickly. So thank you all. Next up, item J on the agenda is R46. I think Councilor Pena is the lead sponsor on this, perhaps with Councilor Senna. So Councilor Pena, would you like to present for us? Thank you, Mr. President. R46 is a request for cost benefit analysis of a staff member community commuting model for certain city employees. So the summary is that the resolution requests the Office of Management and Budget and the human resources department to complete a cost benefit analysis of health community models for city employees who work in non-public facing positions. A final analysis report shall be submitted to the mayor and city council by August 1st, 2020. And this is really just, you know, hearing from lots of different city employees and with the COVID and people working from home that it has been very efficient and people are getting a lot of things done and saying that they're actually working more productively from home. So I guess really to try to find that's accurate and see if we could do a cost savings for the city of Albuquerque in terms of office space and other matters. So I don't know if Councillor Senna wants to add to that. Councillor Senna, no. Okay. Councillor Senna, any questions and any comment from the administration? I see Councillor Benton with a question. Go ahead, sir. I just wanted to ask the administration to comment on it. Certainly seems to make sense. I just know that we all have a lot on the table right now and and I wanted to get their take on it before I make my decision. Council President Davis, Councilor Benton, we were happy to do this work we'd be doing I think it's a good idea and also just want to make sure though that we're not over promising there are maybe only about 600 or 700 employees who out of the 6,000 who are actually truly telecommuting as opposed to like a remote dispatch but we have heard you know some positive things especially from certain units and so we with the county getting ready to move out of the building next month. It's a good time to, I mean, sorry, next year. It's a good time to think about reallocation of space. And this is part of that conversation. So happy to do it. Thank you, ma'am. Councilor Masson. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a question. So just a clarifying question on page two, section two, line number 23 it says the potential for conversion of full-time positions to part-time based on work efficiencies and I'm just curious is that with the intention to maybe get more people to be part-time instead of full-time? For either of the sponsors perhaps? I will ask Ms. Yadda I don't have it up in front of me I'll ask her to answer that. Yes Mr. President, Councilor Basson I drafted this Councillor Pena and yeah the intention was to see if there would be any cost savings to the city by possibly converting full-time positions to part-time if this model dictated that. Exactly. Thank you for that clarification. It's a little challenging to think about doing more job cuts per se but at the same time I guess with a cost analysis that might, I don't know, almost wondering about that one line. Mr. President, Councilor Bassan, also that information can inform your decision one way or another once that report is submitted. Thank you. And Councilor Brago. Thank you, Mr. President. So I mean, I love the idea of this, but two things. One is, should we be incorporating this into kind of our budget process? And the timing, I mean, we're asking for a report by August. And that just seems like, you know, it's really fast, given what we're all trying to deal with right now. And I'm just wondering if that's really realistic. So, you know, I don't know. I mean, I defer back to the sponsors, I guess. Mr. President, Councilor Borrego, I'll try to answer that. Actually, I had in mind that we might be able to be working on the FY21 budget by August, and that's why I set that deadline in the resolution. That is certainly open amendment if that's the will of the council. Sorry, I'm having computer issues here. Would the sponsors consider incorporating this into the budget process. I want to recognize Councilor Pena who I think was speaking but we couldn't hear her so Councilor would you try to reset your mic with that F8 button? No. I think we've got that magic. Councilor Pena we're going to take you off again go ahead. Yeah. Yep there we go. was just saying that counselor but I go that's exactly where we're trying to get it done by August so that we could have it in time for your second part of your question is for budget so that we can analyze whether it's going to be prudent or not so this doesn't and that in essence do anything but just gives us the information and the tools to make that decision. Great answer and it sounds like the opening of a great close counselor Pena anything else? Thank you counselor Senate. I just wanted to mention that it is just a study just to analyze the current situation as to what we could be doing in terms of savings. And so it's just a better scope and way and tool to make these important decisions. So I appreciate Councillor Peña for bringing this up and yeah, I urge your support. Great. Ms. Ortega, would you call the roll call vote, please, on the motion to approve? Yes. Yes. Councillor Bento. Yes. Councillor Pena. Yes. Councillor Bassan. Yes. Councillor Borrego. Yes. Councillor Davis. Yes. Councillor Gibson. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Jones. Yes. Councillor Harris. Yes. Passes unanimously. Thank you, Councillor. One more on this page, Councilors, and then we'll be on our last page. Councilor Simma, R48. Thank you, Mr. President. R48 is amending the composition of the governing body of the Inspiration Public Improvement District, approving the appointment of directors of the governing body, and I do move to pass. Great. Thank you, ma'am. And we need a second. Councilors, don't go. me yet we're almost done but I do need a second I see Councilor Pena I'll take that one thank you very much and thank you Councilor Jones anyway we'll need you in a second Councilor Senna back from the legislation. Yeah so this is just incorporating and that we did pass this before is just naming those that would be on the governing body. Councilor Borrego with a question. Councilor you're still muted would you try you again? So is it, Councillor Senna, and this is just a question, do we typically name the individuals or do we just name the position? Because those individuals could go away and, you know, I just wonder if it's, if it would be better to take off the names of the individuals themselves. So, if it's okay, can I give that to Ms. Yara as the director? I know she's been working on a number of these boards. Thank you, Mr. President and Councillor Barrett, go to answer your question. PIDs, normally I've seen them done two ways. They're either appointed by their position within the city. So for instance, the director of DMD or the chief financial officer. In other instances, I've seen them named specifically. And then of course, in this case, it's kind of both. So for the inspiration TID, say the representative named for DMD, who is Mr. Sorosso, leaves the city, then DMD would be able to appoint a different person in his place. We wouldn't have to necessarily amend this by resolution. So it is allowable both ways. remember also all of our PIDs after six years of formation do have to go to an election of district members, residents, property owners. So city staff hopefully will only be on these PID boards for six years. Those elections are successful. and thank you to that. So any other discussion from any counselors or the administration? Seeing none, Councilor Senna to close. I urge your support. Ms. Ortega. Councilor Senna. Yes. Councilor Benton. Yes. Councilor Pena. Yes. Councilor Bassan. Yes. Councilor Borrego. Yes. Councilor Davis. Yes. Councilor Gibson. Councilor Gibson. Thank you. Councillor Jones. Yes. Councillor Harris. Councillor Harris. Yes. Passes unanimously. Thank you, councillors. We're on our last page. Councillor Pena, R49. Here we go. Yes, ma'am. I'm going to ask you to ask the question. to implement the guidelines. So really all this is, you know, there's been some discussion. Well, let me read a little bit of the summary. So the resolution directs the mayor to work with local business leaders such as the local chambers of commerce to establish standardized guidelines for city businesses to follow to protect their customers once corona restrictions are eased in the upcoming months. These guidelines would provide specific procedures for distancing, health screenings, require protective equipment, been establishing maintaining physical capacity limits. And so let me tell you the intent of this and the history behind it. Hearing from a lot of community leaders and particularly talking about working together, really talking to some of the larger business owners is that what their concern is is that, again, you know they during this whole process they they say that immediately after closing they went into the mode of what are they going to do once it comes time to reopen so they started buying some of the PPEs this hand sanitizer some of the the equipment necessary to open when it's time and so what they want to do is again when we were talking earlier about personal responsibility and what it's going to take to ensure that everyone's safe is that there were to me and said what they'd like to do is reach out to some of the smaller businesses and I'm going to have an amendment for businesses that are five or less employees but that actually that how could they work with the city and other local government to actually help these small businesses because some of them are just gearing up to try to open and they may not have access to the PPEs, may not have access to hand sanitizer because as you know it's in high demand and people can't find it on the shelves. So really this is just to work together, try to see if we can get some items. I've been working with the Hispano Chamber of Commerce and they've already And so, as we were able to get to the And so the Hispano has already gotten much of this stuff donated. And so how do we work with them to help fill those care packages, get them out to the smaller businesses? And then the other part of it is that obviously there are so many guidelines, so much information out there that everyone has to follow. they do you know the follow the CDC guidelines follow all the the state and the city guidelines but they're asking that for some of the small businesses so that they can have the information available to them in kind of a simplified manner so that they know that if they do at least a the XYZs that they know that they can open and and be successful. So this is really coming from the business community wanting to work together to make sure that we're all successful and keeping everyone safe. Thank you ma'am and we have R49 on the floor. Is that Councillor Borrego I believe will take as the second unless you're asking a question. Yep she's got the second thank you. We have a number of amendments that are available here and so I'll I will start with the one on top which is Councillor Sinnoh. You have floor amendment number one. Thank you, Mr. President. Floor amendment one on page two line one after the term, Upper Kruki Chamber of Commerce, insert the following, Westside Chamber of Commerce, as well as on page two, line five, after the term local business, insert the following, and labor. So that would mean and labor leaders. For the explanation of this, the amendment would just add the West Side Chamber of Commerce to the list of community partners who can provide guidance for reopening protocols. It also clarifies that the mayor is directed to work with both local business leaders and labor leaders to develop the standardized guidelines as stated in the where as statements. Mr. President, if you don't mind, Councilor Senna, if we could add to that because I don't have it written down, but I wanted to add less than five employees to your amendment or I'll make a separate amendment. I don't know what would be more appropriate. I guess, Mr. President, I guess my question would be where. Yeah, Councilor Pena. actually defer to um Steph for this because I just wanted to make sure and we have so many businesses and obviously we're not going to be able to get enough you know so we wanted to make sure that it was and we would start off and if it expanded to you know more businesses but I think we should start off with the business the smallest businesses we have our mom and pops in our community um okay yeah Mr. President Councillor Pena, I'm thinking yes on page two, line 10. So it reads currently provide resources to businesses for purchase of health screening and other equipment. We would amend that to read provide resources to businesses with less than five employees and so on. Is that correct Councillor Pena? Yes, five employees or less. employees or less. Yes. Thank you. And Councillor Senna, will you take that as a friendly amendment or would you rather her carry that separately? That's a friendly amendment. Great. Ms. Ortega, I just want to be sure you captured that correctly. We're just going to add that in on the amendment number one. Great. Thank you. We always got to talk to each other since we can't see each other. And we need a second, which I assume now will be Councillor Pena since she helped to And so we'll take that as the floor amendment number one from Councilor Senna second by Councilor Pena. Councilor's discussion on floor amendment number one. Going once, going twice, and I want to give the administration a chance to comment just on the amendment here and then we'll come back and talk about the big bill, but anything from the administration. Council President Davis, Councilors, we appreciate the clarification on the small business. I think that's very helpful. We'll also make the small business office the logical place for this work to land. So thank you. Thank you. And I have a question, but I also see Councilor Bassan has one. So we'll go to the gentlewoman from the Northeast, Ms. Bassan. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, my concern is that, that we have to have some boundaries with it, but five people, there's a lot of other people that need this program. And I don't, I guess I didn't understand. And are we paying for, or you're intending on getting it donated, these care packages? Because I just want to make sure to clarify that when I read it and it says to establish a program to provide resources, I'm reading that to say that it's kind of the a handbook on how to go about it. And then we would work from our earlier discussions, I was under the impression we would work to see about getting, you know, whether it's per counselors funding that we have individually or if it's donations. But I certainly am really concerned about limiting it to just businesses with under five because some businesses with six to 10 people might need this program and resources available to them as well. And they're still very small. I need to have some clarification on that, please. Councilor Pena, we're not able to hear you. And so we'll just ask you to hit that button. There we go. Can you hear me now? Okay. So, Councilor Bassana, I actually thought you were on this resolution. So, anyway, but yes, so that was the discussion is that we We actually narrowed it down to businesses with five employees or less because as you know, there's so many businesses out there and it may get, it could potentially get a little unruly and we don't want to over promise what we can't do. And so working with the Hizpano Chamber of Commerce, they actually said that they have items donated currently, gloves and masks for like a thousand people. doing that we thought well we'd start with um five business you know five employees or less and then if it we could expand on it obviously we we would and want to and then um yes so working with and then the other part of your question in terms of the items is absolutely one of the things that um we are having a hard time seeking is really the thermometers and i was hoping that maybe each of the counselors from their counselor that we could find some resources to be able to buy at least the thermometers because that's going to be a struggle. They're pretty, they're not real pricey, but they're pricey in terms of a small business acquiring them to be able to open. I hope that answered your question. It did, Mr. President, if I may, just to respond to that real quickly. Thank you. I just, I thought I was going to be on this too, but I guess maybe something happened. So, yeah, My concern still lingers with the five people or less and some of the other issues that apparently I don't recall changing and I wasn't privy to. So I don't think I'm going to be able to support this with those parameters. Thank you, Councillor Bassan. Let me ask really quickly for either for the administration or the sponsors and I'm not sure which. We do have a small business advisory council that's already established that we put members on that is designated to advise the city, the mayor and the city council on small business issues. It already defines what a small business is. It already works with an economic development and with the small business office. been contemplated or what would the role for that group be since they have a statutory you know since they have a statutory role in advising us on these issues and we went through the trouble of nominating and appointing them and using that process. Council President Davis if you'd like that answer from us. could certainly make recommendations as to how to implement the program and what might be some of the effective strategies for reaching the target audience. I think that would be their most appropriate role. Yeah, and Mr. Nair, thank you. I appreciate that. I'm not being critical at all. I think it's important that we include these voices. I'm curious if we could maybe have a follow-up question there, but I just want to be sure we've worked hard to establish that group and to make them more robust. David is a great leader for the small business office. And I know they've been working with him to do that. I just want to be sure that we think about the folks we already have on the tools we already have in the toolbox as we bring in new ones. And I appreciate that. I think that's a great role for them. And I think these folks could certainly supplement it. It's not a criticism. I just wanted to be sure we're thinking out loud about the other folks that we also have there. And if I could follow and ask either one of the sponsors, and it might end up being a, I can't tell if Mr. Bakht is still there. He might've gone home by now. Do we believe that these funds or these expenditures would be eligible for expenditure under the COVID CARES dollars that are currently in reserve for us? Or do we have enough information to make that decision? I think that would certainly help us make a decision about whether we could afford to assist these businesses with purchasing equipment, which could really get a big tap pretty quickly. Mr. Bakta, I might throw that to you. I don't know if you're the right one here. Thank you, Mr. President and members of the Council. I believe, yes, it would be qualified. It would be eligible expense. I think we can probably buy the supplies and then distribute according to whoever qualifies. But we believe that it would be eligible expense from the $150 million money on the Relief Act that we have. and in that case I withdraw any objections. I see Councillor Bassan, Councillor Borrego, then Councillor Gibson remind us that we're still on the amendment with the friendly amendment and then we'll try to take a vote. So Councillor Bassan. I thank you Mr. President. I just I really just wanted to clarify on the five people and the change of of heart in a way because you know these small businesses with five people or less got micro grants some of them and I don't really understand the metric to determine the magic number is with five and and i really struggle with the equity in that when we're trying to help our our small businesses and and make sure that it's safe for them and i realize we have to limit it somewhere but at the same time i i just don't i i really think that that middle group is really missing out on some stuff here and i i find that really unfortunate i i i see counselor peña wants to jump in on that specific point and so let's let counselor peña jump in that matter since she sponsored that friendly amendment and then we'll go to council borrego if we need to follow up councilor penia would you hit your mic button on your side for us i have to hit three buttons before i can unmute so anyway um the reason it went to five um five or less was because initially whether this um was going to pass or not going to pass working with the hispano chamber of commerce they just really wanted to and the business community they really wanted to see what they can do to help in the community in the community so what they've been able to get donated thus far is for like about a thousand businesses so that's why so there it's like this determination so if the city wants to get involved and we pass this resolution and we want to I mean, we could do that as well. But from their standpoint, they didn't want to over commit. So they were saying that, well, let's at least help the smallest businesses possible. And then if we get other items donated, because like I said, the stuff that we have so far has been donated like hand sanitizer and gloves and masks. But I mean, if we wanted to grow it to more businesses, I think that tab would end up being on the table. on the city's and I was just looking at it to see if we could get some from the city's perspective some thermometers because they run about a hundred dollars they run about a hundred dollars a piece for the ones that are no contact thank you ma'am that's for Borrego with the question well I just wanted to thank Councillor Pena and Councillor Senna for pushing And I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I'm going to be pushing this forward. I see this kind of as a start. We've got to start somewhere. And when we're talking about phasing, reopening, the argument that I've heard from a lot of my constituents is why the big box and the small, you know, the smaller ones can't open. I kind of see this as a beginning and just kind of a model and maybe eventually if it's successful, then we could add more money to it or we could look for donors or, you know, so I would hate to see this bill die and Councillor Bassan, this kind of goes back to your earlier bill and Councillor Harris's bill is it really kind of gives us sort of a beginning phase of, you know, how do we move forward? Thank you, Councillor Jones. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm listening to all of this and all the different ideas that we have about what we want to do and it's all wonderful but I was trying to do some things with the city to help a few smaller and underprivileged groups and do things. It was explained to me very carefully that This is why we give grants and we work with all of the organizations to do all of this work. And we have multitude of these organizations throughout the city. We give them grants, we help them, they use federal money, we use state money, they go out and raise money. And they have specific requirements for what they must do, who they serve, how they serve, and what the money goes for. And to me, this just seems like a multiplier of basically reinventing something. we already have and works well and I can't imagine why we would put something like this in place when we already have many in place to serve everyone in the city in different areas and I think that perhaps rather than developing another layer and another group of administrators and costs and overhead I would like to see us take this idea and take it to some of the groups that are already serving people and see if they can work together to expand what they do or listen to them on some of the things that they think they need to do more rather than spending the time, the energy, and the resources to invent one more group to do what all of these groups already do. I can't support this because I don't think we need to spend our resources and our time right now and take new things for me. Thank you. Thank you, counselors. Any other discussion on the amendment, floor amendment number one as amended and friendly amended? Seeing none, Ms. Ortega, would you take the roll call vote on amendment number one? Counselor Senna? Yes. Counselor Benton? No. Counselor Pena? Yes. Counselor Bassan? No. Counselor Borrego? Councilor Davis? Yes. Councilor Gibson? No. Councilor Jones? No. Councilor Harris? No. That fails on a four to five vote. Thank you. Councilor Brazler, you have floor amendment number two. Yeah, my amendment is really simple. It's similar to the amendment that I made for Councilor Basson's bill to require adherence to the state health department orders, the CDC and the analysis in Bill M20-2, which we passed. So it's really just giving that guidance. And so Councilor Borrego has for them at number two. Do we have a second? I see Councilor Payne for the second. And Any discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, Ms. Ortega. Amendment number two. Councillor Sano. Yes. Councillor Benton. Yes. Councillor Pena. Yes. Councillor Bassan. Yes. Councillor Borrego. Yes. Councillor Davis. Yes. Councillor Gibson. Yes. Councillor Jones. No. Councillor Harris. Yes. on an eight to one vote. Thank you. And I believe we're back on Councilor Pena R-49 as amended once. Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Okay. This is to close, right? So I urge your support. I just think it's a great tool that we could use in terms of being a partner in the community I understand what Councilor Jones was saying but this isn't we don't grant private businesses if we're looking at just mom and pops this is just a unique opportunity for us to go out and work have all these expectations on businesses in general and I agree with Councilor Basson I wished that the resources were out there so that we could do all small businesses but I think that's a good question. Right now, I think we're limited and I don't want to overreach or over promise. So I think that, you know, if we could at least at minimum help those businesses and if it's successful, then, you know, I would see that other counselors may want to expand on it. But for now, with or without this resolution, we're, you know, we're, my perspective I'm going to partner with the Hespano Chamber of Commerce and the other business leaders to make sure that we get these small care packages together and give them to the small businesses that are out in our community that need these resources in order to open. Thank you. Thank you and I want to say Councillor Senna got a question in under the wire before I had a chance to call that close so if it's okay we want to go to that and see if to re-close also Councilor Besan jumped in at the last second. So Councilor Senna, I apologize for that. I just didn't see your hand earlier. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. I do have some concerns now without the amendments in terms of creating this almost council for the mayor to talk to our business leaders and our labor leaders, especially in thinking about reopening, not being able to talk to our essential workers and incorporating them in the discussion of what it would take to kind of implement these phases and providing these guidelines to businesses, because I know that that is some of the pressing concerns that I'm hearing from my constituents is they kind of want more guidance as what it would look like for them to open and without having these conversations with some of the other chambers of commerce, but I'm sure that, you know, Councillor Pena will work with them as well, but also in thinking about our essential workers and labor leaders not being able to be incorporated in that conversation. So I think I also just had some questions for the mayor's office now without having that limitation, what concerns they have with this bill. Mr. President before you go to the mayor's office I have the same concern because there's I think there's like 6,000 businesses in the city of Albuquerque. So if we actually have this without that limitation of five employees or less, it just becomes something that we're over promising as a city. So, you know, I don't know where that takes this bill, but I do know that, you know, I think it was kind of a good faith effort to try to work with the business community to do this. And I was hoping that we could really manage to get this done as a partnership If that's not the case, like I said, I think this program aside from the other part with the mayor in terms of the guidelines will still continue. Okay, so I think that's invoking the mayor's office twice. So let's go to the mayor's office really quickly to let them respond. And then I'm seeing counselors line up with Councilor Basson, Harris, and Gibson to follow. But anything from 11? I think maybe one possible middle ground might just be defining small business as opposed to just I think the original bill says just businesses and then we could work with the S-FRAC to define the contours of what that small business looks like to address the concerns of how do we help every business and do we actually want to help Costco when there are actual smaller businesses that need help. That would be our suggestion if there's a concern about the scope. In the absence of that, if this passes, we will work with the SBREC anyway to determine how to best implement this bill. Okay, Councilor Bassan. Thank you, Mr. President. So I like Ms. Nair's I've been a recommendation to do small business. Even so far, I don't even know if it's worth discussing of even local small business. But small business, nonetheless, I realized there has to be some parameters. And I'm willing to do some legwork and I'm willing to make bags and care packages and help get them out while wearing the proper everything and doing all the right stuff. However, I just, I really, now, what's the metric? are we going to pick which thousand? Or is it the Hispano Chamber of Commerce that's going to decide because they are the ones leading, in which case I'm completely willing to help them out and back them up. But I just am concerned that we don't have the metric now. And again, we had this micro grants go out to the very small businesses. And it's very tough because I want to help everybody. But at the same time, it's a bummer that we can't find a way necessarily you know balance that out where not just the bottom gets everything all the time or the top but to incorporate a little bit of everyone and how are we going to do that? Thank you, Councillor Harris. Thank you, Mr. President and I have some of the same concerns it's not the the bill, the purpose of the bill or the function of the bill or what it's trying to accomplish, but the mechanics of how it's going to get implemented. I'm always concerned when the government tries to do something that it's never done before. We are good at some things, but we're not good at everything. I'm in favor of deferral or maybe work with a different agency who does this a lot, and I think there's a lot of this is implementable if that doesn't work. So those are my concerns. Thank you, Councillor Gibson. Thank you, Mr. President. And my thoughts are much the same, believe it or not, as Councillor Harris's. I think, you know, I don't see an appropriation in here. I certainly see a need. I see that. And actually section one I think is great. Section two worries me a little bit because we don't see any kind of a resource or source of funding to draw from and not really an oversight group or agency or board of committee that the city has. I actually kind of thought that maybe we were on to something when the council president talked about small business SBR, RAC or whatever they're called, good group that does run through economic development. I think that seems like it might be a good thing to do. So I have a problem with section two, but I love section one. That's it. Thank you. Councilor Barrado. I'd like to ask the sponsors if they're interested in a deferral until our next meeting to work out some of the kinks. I'd be happy to make that motion. And, you know, it seems like it's a good it's a good program. There's still some things that need to be worked out in it. I don't think that we should kill it tonight. But I don't know. Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Kind of, I just want to say point of order because you had asked me to close and then you had said that Councillor Senna had gotten under the wire. So I said that that was fine. And then you went on to other councillors, but I just, you know, because he had already asked to close, I'm just saying point of order. But anyway, aside from that, I just want to say that, you know, yes, Councillor Borrego, I think a deferral would be nice, but the, the, the I mean, the machines are already in works in terms of really getting these packages out and getting donations from businesses. So I just would prefer that we just, if everybody decides to just kill the bill, that we just kill the bill because working with the Hispano, I mean, they're already getting these items donated. The businesses are starting to open. We really need to get those out to them. And when we talk about bureaucratic ways on how not to do something, I'm hearing a whole lot of people that right now, you know, and I appreciate everyone's concern. I understand this is just was just a way to try to be creative to try to help small businesses out in the community. That's all it was. Thank you, Councilor Pena and the record, you know, we be clear, this is a little awkward and so we've always tried to extend the same courtesy to everybody that if you have a question and you can get your hand raised, we try to take it even if it's a little bit out of order so that folks with bad connections have a chance to also participate. So I'm trying to be sure everybody gets a chance to participate here and we always come back to the sponsor. So with that, I did not hear a motion from Councilor Borrego, so we're back on the bill. and Councillor Pena it is yours to close if you choose to use it and then we'll go to I again ask for your support thank you great Mr. Ortega would you take a roll call on the item for R49 Councillor Senna no Councillor Benton no Councillor Pena yes Councillor Bassan no Councillor Borrego Councilor Davis. No. Councilor Gibson. No. Councilor Jones. No. Councilor Harris. We luckily know that fails on a two to seven vote. Thank you, ma'am. And hopefully we can bring that as a great idea. I hope we can bring it back maybe through emergency purchasing or otherwise to help do some of that through another vehicle. Next up, Councilor Pena, you're still hot. R-50. Yeah. for counselors Pena, Borrego and Senna, but you're first, so we'll take you first. Okay, thank you, Mr. President. This is R50 calling on the mayor to establish a pool of contractors to provide grant writing services for the procurement of available coronavirus support and relief funding, adjusting and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the city and the city of the a lot of advocating over the years, even prior to being non-city council and just knowing that the city of Albuquerque has done just a great job in terms of securing federal and state grants, but And so the unfortunate thing is that each department, whether we do Head Start or CDBG funds, is that those departments have been focused on those same grants for years and years and really having the staff to be able to go out and venture to look for additional grant opportunities has always been kind of a challenge. And so I've always kind of advocated and hoped that we could create a department We start to seek out those grants. As you know, we get grant opportunities on a regular basis from our federal lobbyists and year after year, we hear from the lobbyists and learn that we're actually leaving a lot of dollars on the table. So this would really give us an opportunity to hire some folks or a contract with folks to be able to seek out those things that fit into what we're already doing. Like for example, open space is a prime example of that because we're always trying to figure out how to acquire or buy additional open space or expand our open space. And we're always kind of arguing over the same small pot of money. And this gives us an opportunity to seek out additional resources. And then I don't know whether it would require a deferral whether it would require, but I would like to make an amendment that it actually states either contract with or hire an employee. And then if we can take it from, if we can have the money come from reserves instead of, I think the COVID money. Okay. Let's do that amendment step to work on that. on it really quickly and in the moment I'm going to take so that's Councilor Pena put forward our 50 Council Borrego is that you as a second can I count you thank you very much and so Councilor Pena let me come back to you for for your amendments Ms. Ortega was taking notes let's see if she caught it all so that we can have it for the record and we'll make it a formal amendment. Ms. Yarrow would you take us through and be sure we get it inserted in the right place for the sponsor? Mr. President, Kilder Pena, so I got that you wanted to change the source of funding from the CARES funding to the general fund reserve. What was the other part of your... And then the other one was that we could hire, because I had put in there, just requested to contract with folks, but if we could also add or hire someone. So it would be- Or hire people, but probably- So it would be both either create a vendor pool or hire additional staffing? Yes, there you go. Okay, thank you. Let me work on the line numbers. Thanks. Sorry, Steph. We'll come back to that in just a second. And then we'll take Councillor Gibson, Councillor Benton, and then I want to go to the administration. I don't want to forget by the way, I know Councilor Bassan also has an amendment here, but I want to give us just a second to get the sponsors amendment in first since it's hers and then we'll go to you Councilor Bassan. So I'm sorry, Councilor Gibson, go ahead. So we're speaking to the amendment right now, right? I just wanted to say something about the bill. I actually think the bill's a pretty good idea. I don't know that I like, that's the amendment. I don't know that I like going to the reserve the money out of the reserve. I'm real gun shy about things like that given our current economic status, but that might be something that could be worked out. Grant writing has become quite a specialized vocation. And we have some, I'm sure we've got a great law enforcement grant writer, for example, We have really good grant writers over in family, which has been really, really valuable. But over other, and those are the two I know about. I'm sure we have other good ones too. But sometimes there are special niches that would be very advantageous for us to be able to call upon a contractor to come in and help. a grant. So I'm in favor of this. I'm just not real sure about the funding source. So although I suppose you could make a pretty effective argument that we would be taking money out of reserves to pay for a better chance of receiving a grant that would more than pay for itself. So anyway, that's really all I have on this. Thank you. Councilor Gibson, before we go to Councilor Benton, I want to let Ms. Yara jump in here with, I think, will be the text for Councilor Pena's amendment. Ms. Yara? Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Pena, I have one more question for you before I read the amendment out. Do you have a preference for which general fund department would be handling the funds? Did you hear me? Yes. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and read the amendment into the record for everyone. So on page two, line 25, after the term pool, insert the following, comma, or hire additional staff, comma. That would be the first part of it. That would add staffing as well as a vendor pool. The second part of the amendment would read on page two strike lines 27 through 30 and replace with the following. Section two, that funds in the amount of $150,000 are hereby unreserved from the general fund 110 and appropriated to the chief administrative office for fiscal year 2020. Thank you. And Councilor Braco, I'm taking you as the second pair. I see your fingers for that. Is that right? Yes, but I also... Just a second. So I need a second for that first. Then we have a couple of other counselors and the administration ahead of you before new questions. I wanted to suggest something to the Councilor Pena regarding that amendment. I was just wondering if the finance department would be the appropriate place that if she would consider that. I would ask the administration. All right at this point let's go to the administration quickly for comments on the bill itself and the proposed amendment. Ms. Nyer can you talk to us about this? Sure thank you Council President Davis. A few things. First the was actually presented as an issue paper from our Department of Finance and Administrative Services to create a full-time position back when before COVID when we were just doing the annual budget. So DFAS would be the appropriate department, I believe, for that appropriation. In addition, I think that it is good to have the choice of an employee or contractors. I think historically with less success to have contractors look at grants and because there are so many nuances in terms of the match and those kinds of things and city rules and regs, it's just really hard for an outside contractor to understand enough to be effective as opposed to I would appreciate that flexibility if this amendment passes. We understand that the desire is ultimately to use COVID money, whether that be CARES money or FEMA recovery, but by appropriating it in the first instance from the reserve, that gives us the ability to put this into the larger plan for the CARES money rather than appropriating that CARES money piecemeal. And of course, as with anything that we're doing in this era, we will seek recovery if this ends up passing for any of the costs that we can recover. Oh, sorry. One more thing, Councilor President Davis, if I may. We actually already have a grant management unit in the accounting department, and CFO BACTA can tell you more about that if you're interested, but that's where we would place this position or this contract if this passes. Thank you, ma'am. All right. I want to go back very quickly. Councilor Pena, are you okay to... the finance department now instead of the cao's office at the recommendation administration yeah i'm just really more interested in the city getting more money from grants that's great i just want to be sure we get it right on the record since we don't have it in writing to pass around so uh seeing that i have counselor besan then counselor borrego and then we'll take any other counselor questions and be back on the bill so counselor thank you mr president you know i really i think that I mean, at first you're, you know, we have this minimal amount of money that we're, we're having our city right now. We're also worried about funding with the GRT and everything going down. But so my first reaction is, oh my gosh, why are we going to spend money? But you have to sometimes spend money to make money. So I really appreciate too, that counselor Pena is seeing a creative approach to being able to do that. I just want to clarify, cause it sounds like Ms. Nair did say that we would be able to seek relief this time around for, the ability to make sure that right now for that $150,000 that we would be able to kind of use that, even if it comes from the general or the reserve, we could get it reimbursed this time. I want to make sure that's true because I think that I'm mostly hesitant, even though I realized in the longterm, this could be beneficial. I think that we should reevaluate if this becomes a regular position. Once we get a little bit more stabilized after, after everything opens up. So I think right now, Absolutely, I'm on board with that, but I am hesitant to put this into something regular when we are unsure of how our budget is anyway. Thank you, Councillor Borrego. I had placed my hand up only earlier because I just wanted to make a friendly amendment to the bill to add it to the Department of Finance. And if you'll accept that as a friendly amendment, Councillor Pena, did that already in the earlier yeah okay so the motion on the floor is for the amendment seconded by councilor borrego councilor basan is your hand raised and councilor basan will have to go to your amendment after we take care of this first but go ahead i'm sorry i just mr president i was asking miss nayer just to clarify that this was something that we would recover i just wanted the clarification on that i'm sorry to be an imposition oh that's great no problem uh miss nayer Council President Davis, Councilor Vassan, the CARES funding guidance is ever evolving, but as we understand it right now, we do think that at least some, if not all of those expenses would be eligible for recovery. Thank you, Ms. Naira. And would this be something that we're agreeing to be a rollover situation year to year, or is this something that has a timeframe on it for right now? Council President Davis, Councilor Bassan, as I understand the bill, it's a one-time appropriation. If this were to be, so it'll either go to the contracts or if this were to be an employee position, we would create it as a term position that had the specific source of funding. And then in the next budget cycle, we could determine whether to make that a regular position that's funded with recurring dollars. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Councilor. catching that. Councilor Payne, do you have a comment there or are we okay to go to the close on the amendment? Go ahead. Yeah, I was just going to ask if you're going to go to the close, I just would like to for Councilor Boreg or Councilor Senna to close on it because I really appreciate them, their willingness to be a sponsor on this. Either of those councilors to close on the amendment number one. Well, having worked in the city, I think that we've been working for almost 30 years and knowing how much money we've lost in grant funding that we somehow didn't see or we missed, I think this is a really great opportunity. And especially now during COVID, I think that we can be looking for whatever is out there to help our small businesses, to help our whatever. Eventually the census will come out and that's another piece that there's funding opportunities there as well. So I urge your support. Mr. Ortega, roll call vote for the Councillor Pena's amendment number one. Councillor Senna. Yes. Councillor Benton. Yes. Councillor Pena. Yes. Councillor Bassan. Yes. Councillor Borrego. Yes. Councillor Davis. Councilor Gibson? Councilor Jones? Councilor Harris? Councilor Harris? Yes. That amendment passes unanimously. Thank you. And next up we have Councilor Bassan, which I'll believe you have floor amendment number two. Thank you, Mr. President. I move floor amendment number two to R50 on page two, line 26, after the term 2020, insert the following. the vendor pool shall be and I guess now it's vendor pool or staff shall be completed through a competitive request for proposals RFP prior to the previous amendment getting put through I think that again this is just good to have transparency and and be fair in making sure that whomever gets selected in this vendor pool is not just behind behind kind of an office area and we can all have equal opportunity with that. So I don't know if we need to make a small change now that it also involves staff or if this will work, but I think that standard to everything else we do, I think this is fair. Yeah, we don't need to make a change for this. I think that's already addressed in the previous. So this would be a standalone and counselors, we do need a second. However, if someone wants to sponsor the amendment as a second, that counselor Pena is the second counselors, any discussion on the amendment number two offered by council Besson? none. Councilor Bassan will take that as your close because it was a really good opening and Ms. Ortega go ahead. Councilor Senna. Yes. Councilor Benton. Yes. Councilor Pena. Yes. Councilor Bassan. Yes. Councilor Borrego. Yes. Councilor Davis. Yes. Councilor Gibson. Yes. Councilor Jones. Yes. Councilor Harris. Councilor Harris. Yes. Thank you. Amendment 2 passes unanimously. This idea has been thought of for a while now and it's especially is and really have niche that can be as well because grants are always looking for specifics. So I appreciate this bill and urge your support. Thank you ma'am. Councillor Pena, your thumb up which says she's done too. Councilors, that concludes our debate. Ms. Ortega on R50 is admitted. Councillor Senna. Yes. Councillor Benton. Councillor Pena? Yes. Councillor Bassan? Yes. Councillor Borrego? Yes. Councillor Davis? Yes. Councillor Gibson? Yes. Councillor Jones? Yes. Councillor Harris? Yes. Our 50 passes unanimously as amended. Thank you all. Thanks to everybody who hung out with us tonight. I know it's a little hard to do this online, but four and a half hours later, we had our marathon Zoom meeting and it looks like our next meeting is going to be like that too so hang in there with us but we'll get this done there being no further business this city council meeting is adjourned