>>COUN. LEWIS: THE 12th MEETING OF THE 26 COUNCIL WILL COME TO ORDER. WELCOME EVERYONE. ALL COUNCILORS ARE PRESENT. COUNCILOR SANCHEZ IS JOINING US ON ZOOM. WE'LL HAVE MOMENT OF SILENCE. AND THEN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. [ INAUDIBLE ] >>COUN. GROUT: CIVIC PLAZA PARKING PASSES ARE PROVIDED FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. YOU CAN OBTAIN ONE FROM COUNCIL STAFF AT THE TABLE NEAR THE CHAMBER ENTRANCE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, CITY STAFF AND THE MEAD THE ABILITY VIEW THIS ON GOVTV, GOVTV WEBSITE, YOUTUBE AND ZOOM. THE LIVE STREAMS CAN BE ACCESSED FROM MOST SMART TONES TABLETS AND COMPUTERS. THIS MEETING IS CLOSED CAPTIONED AND YOU MAY ENABLE THE CLOSED CAPTIONING SERVICES AT THIS TIME. THE VIDEO RECORDING OF THIS AND ALL PAST COUNCIL MEETINGS WILL REMAIN AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT ANY TIME ON THE CITY COUNCIL WEBSITE. COUNCIL STAFF IS AVAILABLE VIA TELEPHONE AM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC NEED ASSISTANCE FINDING THEM ONLINE. CALL 505-768-3100 FOR ASSISTANCE DURING BUSINESS HOURS MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY 8 A.M. TO 5 P.M. THE COUNCIL WILL TAKE A BREAK AT 7 P.M. WITH REGARD TO DECORUM WE WANT TONIGHT'S PROCEEDING AS CIVIL AND RESPECTFUL AS POSSIBLE. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS OR APPLAUSE DURING THE MEETING. THE MEETING WILL BE SMOOTHER IF WE ARE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE ON PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS. COUNCILOR ROGERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I'M EXCITED TO CALL UP THE MEMBERS FROM OUR JUNETEENTH PLANNING COMMITTEE. WE HAD OUR CELEBRATION THIS SATURDAY AT CIVIC PLAZA. AND THEN WEDNESDAY WE COMMEMORATE THE HOLIDAY WITH THE DAY OFF AT THE CITY. AND SO, TODAY I'M EXCITED TO INTRODUCE BEFORE I READ THE PROCLAMATION, WE HAVE CAR LA, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF NEW MEXICO. PICKET FROM EQUITY AND INCLUSION. AND OUR NEW DIRECTOR OF EQUITY AND INCLUSION SONYA LARA TO RECEIVE THE PROCLAMATION. I'LL START WITH READING. WHEREAS JUNETEENTH CELEBRATES THE END OF SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. WHEREAS IT ALSO WAS KNOWN EMANCIPATION DAY, FREEDOM DAY, INDEPENDENCE DAY, BLACK INDEPENDENCE DAY, OR BY STATUTE JUNETEENTH NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE DAY. ON JUNE 19th, 1865, MAJOR GENERAL GORDON GRANGER ARRIVED TO TEXAS AND ANNOUNCED THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR AND SLAVERY. ALTHOUGH THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION CAME TWO YEARS EARLIER ON JANUARY 1, 1863, MANY ENSLAVERS HELD BLACK PEOPLE CAPTIVE AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT. WHEREAS, JUNETEENTH BECAME A FEDERAL HOLIDAY ON JUNE 17th, 2021, ALL 50 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RECOGNIZED JUNETEENTH, AND 28 STATES INCLUDING NEW MEXICO AND D.C. DESIGNATED IT AS A PERMANENT PAID OR LEGAL HOLIDAY THROUGH LEGISLATION OR EXECUTIVE ACTION. IT BECAME A PAID CITY HOLIDAY THANKS TO ALBUQUERQUE CITY COUNCIL IN 2020. WHEREAS IN THE WORDS OF FORMER DISTRICT SIX CITY COUNCILLOR AND U.S. SENATOR MARTIN HEINRICH WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FULL EQUALITY HAS YET TO BE DELIVERED. THIS JUNETEENTH WE MUST GO BEYOND REMEMBERING THE SHOCKING RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND INJUSTICES. WE MUST RECOMMIT TO TAKING ON RACIAL INJUSTICE AND HATEFUL DISCRIMINATION THAT PERSISTS TODAY. WHEREAS THE VOTERS OF DISTRICT SIX ELECTED ME AS THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN TO CITY COUNCIL WE THE REPRESENTATION TO ENSURE THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY ARE PRIORITIZED. BE IT PROCLAIMED -- I JUST WANT TO GIVE SOME SPACE. WE ADDED THAT SECOND PART BECAUSE LAST YEAR I WAS STANDING WHERE THEY ARE AND SAID TO THE PLANNING TEAM THIS TIME NEXT YEAR I WILL BE UP THERE GIVING THIS PROCLAMATION. TODAY WE GET TO DO THAT. TODAY IS REALLY SPECIAL FULL CIRCLE MOMENT STANDING THERE THIS TIME LAST YEAR. AND BEING HERE GETTING TO DO THIS FOR OUR COMMUNITY IS SPECIAL. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT YOU KNOWING -- THANK YOU TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS COUNCIL. >> COUNCILORS, WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND YOUR SUPPORT. JUNETEENTH WAS A SUCCESS THIS YEAR. THERE'S SO MANY FAMILIES IMPACTED AND SAW THEMSELVES HONORED IN THIS EVENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> COUNCILORS, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO STAND BEFORE YOU AND HOLD SPACE FOR HONORING OUR ANCESTRY AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY, TO THE STATE, TO THE NATION. AND I WILL SAY IN THE WORDS OF -- WHO WALKED THOSE 1400 MILES TO THE CAPITAL TO ENSURE THAT JUNETEENTH IS A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED HOLIDAY. SHE ALWAYS SAYS THAT THE 4th OF JULY IS WHAT FREED THE LAND, BUT JUNETEENTH FREED THE PEOPLE. WE WANT TO KEEP THAT CENTERED IN ALL THAT WE DO IS WE CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR THAT EQUALITY. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. >> GOOD EVENING, WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THE MAYOR, FOR COUNCILOR ROGERS, AND THE OTHER COUNCILORS THAT ACTUALLY CAME OUT TO HELP US CELEBRATE. WE WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO YOU ALL. WE'RE GRATEFUL TO THE COMMUNITY THAT CAME OUT TO HELP US RECOGNIZE AND CELEBRATE THIS MOMENTOUS OCCASION. WE ARE JUST GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. WE COMBINED IT WITH THE BLACK SUMMIT THIS YEAR. WE HAVE A LOT OF GREATE EDUCATION TO MAKE SURE THE ECONOMIC RESPONSIBILITY REMAINS. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO READ THE NAMES OF THE OTHER MEMBERS THAT COULDN'T BE HERE. WE HAVE CARLA AND THE YOUTH LEADERS. [ READING NAMES ] ALL OF THESE FOLKS WORKED TIRELESSLY AND I HAVE TO GIVE A SPECIAL SHOUT OUT TO THE DEPARTMENTS THAT HELPED US THIS PAST WEEK. WE HAD HELP FROM SOLID WASTE TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TO ARTS AND CULTURE. EVERYBODY PITCHED IN TO HELP AND MAKE SURE THAT THIS WENT WELL. WE ALWAYS WILL DO BETTER. WE CAN AND WE WILL. IT WAS REALLY -- ANY TIME I CALLED FOR HELP YOU WERE OUT THERE. THEY CAME DOWN TO LOOK AT THE CONSTRUCTION OF CIVIC PLAZA. WE DO HAVE COPIES OF THE PROCLAMATION. IF YOU WANT TO COME AND SHAKE HANDS, WE'LL GIVE THEM A ROUND OF APPLAUSE. [ APPLAUSE ] >>COUN. LEWIS: ITEM FOUR. ADMIN Q&A. COUNCILOR ROGERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THIS ONE IS FOR ARTS AND CULTURE. ARE THEY AVAILABLE? THANK YOU. I GOT SOME -- THANK YOU, DIRECTOR SANCHEZ, FOR BEING HERE. I JUST WANTED TO TALK A BIT, SINCE WE'RE ON THE TOPIC OF JUNETEENTH, WE WORKED TOGETHER FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS. THIS IS OUR THIRD YEAR HAVING IT AT -- FOURTH YEAR. SINCE 2021. LAST YEAR I MET WITH THE TEAM TO GIVE THE DATES FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. I GOT FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY REALLY UPSET WITH WHY WE PLANNED SUMMERFEST THE SAME DAY AS JUNETEENTH. IT CAME UP BECAUSE OUR VENDORS WERE UPSET THEY HAD TO LOSE ON A VENDING DAY FOR THEM. OUR VENDORS CHOSE JUNETEENTH BUT THEY WERE FACED WITH A REALLY TOUGH DECISION. I'D LIKE TO FIND OUT HOW DID THAT HAPPEN AND HOW WE CAN MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN NEXT YEAR. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR ROGERS, FIRST I WAS UNAWARE YOU MET WITH THE TEAM TO DISCUSS DATES. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THERE WAS ANY CONVERSATION AT ALL ABOUT TRYING TO ALIGN DATES. THE HEIGHTS SUMMERFEST HAS BEEN THE SECOND SATURDAY OF JUNE FOR THE LAST EIGHT TO TEN YEARS. IT'S PART OF THEIR STANDARD CALENDAR. SPECIAL EVENTS TEAM IS THREE OR FOUR PEOPLE WHEN ITS FULLY STAFFED. THAT MANAGE A VERY FULL SUMMER OF OUTDOOR EVENTS AND THEY HAVE TO SCHEDULE ALL OF THOSE THINGS, THE BIO PARK CONCERTS, SUMMER FEST, FREEDOM 4th, OLD TOWN CONCERTS SO THEY CAN BE PRESENT FOR ALL OF THOSE. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A -- IT'S A MAJOR JIGSAW PUZZLE TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE ABLE TO STAFF ALL OF THOSE AND NOT HAVE BACK TO BACK EVENTS ON THE SAME WEEKEND. I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER, BUT THAT'S KIND OF BEEN STANDARD FOR SUMMER FEST. I WAS UNAWARE YOU HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS AND WERE HOPING FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SOMEHOW MANAGE THOSE DATES IN A DIFFERENT WAY. >>COUN. ROGERS: THAT WOULD BE GREAT. I THINK, MR. PRESIDENT, I THINK THE THING IS IF WE CAN HAVE SUPPORT OTHER THAN -- NOW THAT WE HAVE A BUDGET ASSIGNED TO JUNETEENTH, I THINK THE SUPPORT -- WE'LL MAKE SURE WE DON'T PLAN IT -- IF THAT'S THE ROLLING WE ALWAYS DO IT THE SECOND WEEKEND OF JUNE, I CAN COUNT ON THAT FROM NOW ON WHEN WE'RE DOING OUR PLANNING? >> COUNCILOR ROGERS, THAT HAS BEEN THEIR SCHEDULE FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS. I MEAN, WE'RE ALWAYS HAPPY TO SIT DOWN -- WEEK -- WE LOOK AT ALL OF THE DATES IN JULY, AND WE FINALIZE ALL OF THE CALENDAR YEAR DATES SOMETIME IN DECEMBER. PRELIMINARY CONVERSATIONS WILL START AS SOON AS WE HAVE A FULLY LOADED BUDGET IN AUGUST AND WE TALK AGAIN IN DECEMBER. WE CAN OF COURSE TALK ABOUT ALL OF THESE THINGS AND HOW TO ASSIGN RESOURCES AND SHARE ALL THE SUMMER DATES. >>COUN. ROGERS: EXACTLY. OR MAKE IT A JUNETEENTH SUMMERFEST AND BRING A COMMUNITY THAT WOULDN'T GO TO JUNETEENTH TO -- IT COULD BE A COMING TOGETHER. WE COULD NOT HAVE ELEVATED THE EVENT TO WHAT IT IS WITHOUT THE DEPARTMENT. I THINK SOME OF THE COMMUNITY FELT IT WAS INTENTIONAL. BECAUSE YOU ALSO BOOKED THE WAILERS ON THE SAME DAY. OUR COMMUNITY WAS LIKE, REALLY, WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR A HEADLINER AND THE ONE YOU BRING ONE IS ON JUNETEENTH. I DID MY BEST TO DISSPELL THAT AND SAY I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT IT AND GET AN EXPLANATION OTHER THAN IT WAS ON PURPOSE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHY. THANK YOU. I'LL GET BACK TO YOU. OURS IS THE SATURDAY BEFORE JUNETEENTH. WE'LL WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T OVERLAP. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR GROUT. >>COUN. GROUT: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST DO A COUPLE THANK YOU. SATURDAY WE HAD OUR THIRD ANNUAL -- IT WAS REALLY NICE TO SEE ALL THE CHILDREN'S FACES. GETTING CLOSE TO TRUCKS AND POLICE CAR AND HELICOPTERS AND IT WAS ALSO EQUALLY WONDERFUL TO SEE THE SMILES ON ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS -- THE EMPLOYEES THAT WORK AND ALL THE PRIDE THEY HAVE IN THEIR DEPARTMENT. IT WAS REALLY WONDERFUL. I'D LIKE TO SPECIFICALLY THANK ALL OF THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS THAT PARTICIPATED. APD, AFR, ACS, COMMUNITY POLICING COUNCIL, CULTURAL AFFAIRS, PUBLIC ART, MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT, STATE POLICE, OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMUNITY CENTERS AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS A WONDERFUL DAY AND I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY THAT PARTICIPATED. ALL THE DIRECTORS AND I WAS VERY APPRECIATIVE OF EVERYBODY. ALSO, MY POLICY ANALYST RACHEL ORGANIZED EVERYTHING BEAUTIFULLY. AND APD'S CRIME PREVENTION SPECIALIST FROM FOOTHILLS COMMAND WAS ABLE TO GET THE NEW MEXICO STATE POLICE THERE. AND FINALLY, I'D LIKE TO THANK D.C. BACKGROUND FOR GETTING ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS WITHIN APD. IT WAS REALLY NICE. THE NEXT THING I WANTED TO DO IS THANK DMD'S DIRECTOR JENNIFER TURNER. LAST SUNDAY, JUNE 9th, WE HAD THE MASSIVE DOWNPOUR OF RAIN. IT WAS UNEXPECTED. A LOT OF FLOODING. AND THE NEXT DAY I SAW THAT THE GUTTERS, THE STORM DRAINS, WERE REALLY FULL OF DEBRIS AND I MADE A QUICK CALL OR TEXT AND THAT NEXT MORNING I SAW THE BIG DMD TRUCK CLEANING OUT THE STORM DRAINS. I WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR THAT QUICK RESPONSE. IT WAS MUCH-APPRECIATED. AND FINALLY, I WANTED TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME SIGNS THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY. I WANTED TO TALK -- IS COO MONTOYA AVAILABLE? SOMEBODY MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP ME. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR GROUT, I THINK HE'S ON HIS WAY BACK FROM A SITE VISIT. I SAW HIS CALENDAR THAT HE WAS SCHEDULED TO GET BACK. HE'S NOT HERE YET. WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO ANSWER IF WE CAN OTHERWISE WE'LL TAKE NOTES. >>COUN. GROUT: MY QUESTION IS ABOUT SIGNS. WE HAVE SIGNS ALL OVER THE CITY. WE HAVE STOP SIGNS AND SPEED LIMIT SIGNS AND SIGNS AT OUR PARKS AND MEDIANS. AND WE HAVE SPECIAL SIGNS TOO. THERE'S THE CUSTOM SIGN FOR DIFFERENT ADOPT A MEDIAN OR ADOPT A HIGH WAY TO CLEAN IT UP. AND WE HAVE PARK SIGNS. MY QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT -- DO WE HAVE A CONTRACT FOR SIGNS WITH A VENDOR THAT -- FOR SIGNS THAT ARE MISSING OR DAMAGED? >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR GROUT, I SUSPECT THAT DIRECTOR TURNER CAN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. I'LL GIVE HER THE CHANCE. >>COUN. GROUT: OKAY. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR GROUT, REGARDING SIGNS -- DMD CAN ACTUALLY MAKE TRAFFIC SIGNS IN-HOUSE. THEY HAVE TO CONFORM TO THE -- I'M GOING TO GET THE ACRONYM WRONG, I APOLOGIZE. THERE ARE GUIDELINES THAT GOVERN WHAT COLOR SIGNS CAN BE, WHAT SIZE THEY CAN BE. OUR IN-HOUSE VENDOR CAN ACTUALLY MAKE THOSE SIGNS IN-HOUSE. >>COUN. GROUT: THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. HOW LONG SHOULD IT TAKE FOR SIGNS TO GET MADE? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR GROUT, IT ACTUALLY DEPENDS ON THE SIGN. IF IT'S A SPEED LIMIT SIGN WE HAVE LIKE 35 MILES AN HOUR, WE USUAL LAY -- USUALLY KEEP THOSE ON HAND. IF IT'S CUSTOM, IT TAKES LONGER. >>COUN. GROUT: DO WE GO THROUGH YOU FOR ALL THE SIGNS IN THE CITY? EVEN MEDIANS AND PARKS ? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR GROUT, FOR TRAFFIC RELATED SIGNS THOSE GO THROUGH DMD. FOR THE PARK SIGNS, I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO DIRECTOR SIMON AND I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD IF HE HAS HIS OWN SIGN VENDOR OR IF HE CONTRACTS OUT. >> ALSO TOO, FOR THE MEDIANS WE HAVE CONTRACTS FOR THE ADOPT A MEDIAN SIGN. WE HAVE A CONTRACTOR. THAT'S WHERE WE DO THE ADOPT A MEDIAN. >>COUN. GROUT: HOW LONG DOES IT TYPICALLY TAKE TO MAKE A SIGN MADE? I >> I WOULD SAY NO LONGER THAN SEVEN TO TEN DAYS. >>COUN. GROUT: SINCE DIRECTOR SIMON IS HERE -- HE'S RIGHT THERE. OKAY. HOW LONG SHOULD IT TAKE TO GET OUR PARK SIGNS MADE? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR GROUT, IT DOES DEPEND ON THE TYPE OF SIGN. WE HAVE A NEW IMPROVED VERSION OF OUR STANDARD PARK SIGNS, WHICH IS THE NAME SIGN PLUS THE PRINCIPLE REGULATION THAT GO ALONG WITH PARK USE. THOSE ARE CONTRACTED OUT. THEY TYPICALLY TAKE THREE WEEKS PLUS OR MINUS, TO GET THOSE SIGNS IN. SOMETIMES A LITTLE BIT LONGER. MOST OF THE TIME RIGHT ABOUT THAT. THEN WHEN WE HAVE PARKS -- WE HAVE SIGNS THAT WE CAN HANDLE IN-HOUSE, WE HAVE A SMALL SIGN SHOP THROUGH OUR OPEN SPACE VISION AND WE'RE ABLE TO MANUFACTURE MOST OF THOSE SIGNS IN-HOUSE. >>COUN. GROUT: GLAD TO HEAR THAT. HOW LONG SHOULD IT TAKE FOR IN-HOUSE SIGNS ? >> FREQUENTLY, WE CAN KNOCK THOSE SIGNS OUT, PROVIDED STAFF ARE NOT ON OTHER ASSIGNMENTS SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A DEDICATED SIGN MANUFACTURING POSITION, WE CAN TYPICALLY KNOCK THOSE OUT IN A WEEK OR LESS. >>COUN. GROUT: WEEK OR LESS. DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH STAFF TO GET ALL THE SIGNS MADE FOR THE PARK? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR GROUT, I THINK WE CAN UTILIZE OUR EXISTING STAFF WHEN WE NEED TO CATCH UP ON SIGNS. WHICH IS ONE WAY TO APPROACH IT. WE CAN GET A MASTER LIST OF SIGNS THAT NEED PRODUCING AND HOLD THE REQUIRED STAFF IN TO HANDLE THE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCE THOSE SIGNS EXPEDITIOUSLY. WHEN IT COMES TO SIGN MANUFACTURING WE CAN CAN DO THOSE IN-HOUSE. WE'RE DEPENDENT SOMETIMES ON EXTERNAL VENDORS. THAT CAN BE TOUGHER. IT'S OUT OF OUR PERSONNEL CONTROL. >>COUN. GROUT: IS IT NORMAL TO PLACE A SIGN -- PLACE AN ORDER FOR 30 SIGNS AT A TIME, MISSING OR DAMAGED SIGNS? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR GROUT, WE DO PLACE LARGE ORDERS OF SIMILAR SIGNS WHEN WE DO A BATCH ORDER. A LOT OF TIMES THAT WILL BE FOR OUR -- THE INITIATIVE OR THE PROCESS WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW REPLACING A LOT OF OUR STANDARD PART SIGNS. WE'RE DOING THOSE IN BATCHES. SORT OF A 30 TO 50 SIGNS. WE DO TAKE THAT APPROACH WHEN WE'RE ORDERING A STANDARD SET. >>COUN. GROUT: MY LAST QUESTION, WHEN WE HAVE SIGNS THAT WE NOTICE ARE DAMAGED BY THE SUN OR HAVE BEEN VANDALIZED, WHO SHOULD I CALL? TO MAKE IT HAPPEN QUICKLY. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR GROUT, IDEALLY, WE CALL OURSELVES. WE SHOULD BE MAKING NOTE OF THOSE THINGS. AND INCLUDING THEM OR ENTERING THEM INTO OUR WORK ORDER SYSTEM. OR MAINTENANCE REPAIRS THAT WE DO WANT TO TAKE CARE OF AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, IF WE'RE NOT AWARE OF A SIGN THAT NEEDS REPLACEMENT, WE MISSED THAT AND SOMEONE SEES BEFORE WE DO, I THINK THE 311 SYSTEM IS AN EXCELLENT WAY TO REPORT MISSING OR DAMAGED SIGNS. THAT WAY IT'S CAPTURED, REFERRED TRACKED AND WHEN THOSE COMMENTS COME IN. I ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO USE 311 SYSTEM AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. >>COUN. GROUT: THANKS SO MUCH. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE ON THE JOURNAL. COUNCILOR GROUT. >>COUN. GROUT: MR. PRESIDENT, I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOTION AND SECOND BY COUNCILOR BASSAN. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: ITEM SIX, COMMUNICATIONS. I MOVE THE RULES FOR PLACING EC169 FOR FINAL ACTION. IT'S THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION OF AWARD FOR RETAIL MERCHANDISING MANAGEMENT AT THE ALBUQUERQUE INTERNATIONAL SUNPORT. MOTION AND SECOND BY COUNCILOR GROUT. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: I MOVE THE RULES BE SUSPENDED FOR THE PLACING OF EC170 ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA FOR ACTION. IT'S THE UPTOWN TRANSIT CENTER JOINT DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT INCREASED REIMBURSEMENT. MOTION AND SECOND BY COUNCILOR GROUT. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: I MOVE THE RULES BE SUSPENDED FOR PLACING EC171, IT'S THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DEVELOPMENTING MARKETING AND EXPANSION. MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR GROUT. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR ROGERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, I MOVE THAT THE RULES WE SUSPENDED FOR PLACING EC160 OUT OF FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND PLACING IT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA FOR ACTION. IT'S THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION OF ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT FOR BAGGAGE SYSTEM AT THE AIRPORT. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I MOVE THE RULES BE SUSPENDED FOR PLACING R64 ON THE AGENDA. ESTABLISHING A THREE MONTH MORATORIUM ON SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN CHAPTER 14 ARTICLE 23 RELATED TO ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEMOLITION OF BILLINGS OR STRUCTURES TO ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL TO TIME TO CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT TO RECTIFY CONFLICTING LANGUAGE. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR GROUT. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU. COUNCILOR PEÑA. >>COUN. PEÑA: OKAY. I MOVE THE RULES BE SUS PEPPEDED FOR THE PLACING P5 ON THE AGENDA. IT'S CHARTER AMENDMENT ADOPTING A PREEPZALAL TO BE SENT TO THE VOTERS PROPOSING ARTICLE TWO OF THE RELATED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ELECTION CYCLES. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR GROUT. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION. JUST WONDERING WHY WE NEED THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT. IT'S A PACKED AGENDA. GIVEN THE LARGE NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT WE'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT AND GIVING THAT THIS IS A CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT COULD BE ONE OF ONLY TWO POTENTIALLY PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS MATTER, I'M WONDERING WHY WE NEED TO HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S ACTION. >>COUN. LEWIS: I BELIEVE IT WILL GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS. BUT THE INTENT WILL BE -- I'LL LET COUNCILOR PEÑA RESPOND TO THAT. >>COUN. PEÑA: THAT'S CORRECT. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN, THE ONLY WAY TO BE ABLE TO GET A POSSIBLE THREE HEARING WOULD BE FOR THE FIRST HEARING TO BE TONIGHT. THE SECOND HEARING WOULD HAVE TO BE ON AUGUST 5th, AND IF NECESSARY, THE THIRD HEARING WOULD BE ON AUGUST 17th -- I'M SORRY 19th. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE FIRST HEARING TONIGHT YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE THE FIRST HEARING UNTIL THE FIRST MEETING IN AUGUST. BY PUTTING IT ON FOR FINAL ACTION YOU HAVE THE FIRST HEARING TODAY, SECOND HEARING AUGUST 5th, AND IF IT PASSES AUGUST 5th, THEN WOULD BE ABLE TO PROCEED OR POTENTIALLY ANOTHER HEARING ON THE 19th. BUT THE 19th WOULD BE CUTTING IT CLOSE IF THAT WERE TO BE THE -- IF IT NEEDS THREE HEARINGS IT CUTS IT CLOSE TO GET THE INFORMATION TO THE COUNTY CLERK AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WE'RE ASSUMING THIS WILL PASS AND WE'RE SCHEDULING IT BASED ON WHAT'S NEEDED FOR THE CLERK, NOT CONSIDERING THAT PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO HAVE A POSITION ON THIS MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT IT UNTIL RIGHT NOW OR POTENTIALLY IN A COUPLE WEEKS. THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION. APPRECIATE THAT, MR. PRESIDENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS? >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WHAT IS THE DROP DEAD DATE WE NEED TO GET THINGS TO THE COUNTY TO GET IT ON THE BALLOT? THIS IS FOR MY OWN LEARNING. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR ROGERS, I BELIEVE THE DROP-DEAD DATE IS THE 27th. BUT SINCE YOU HAVE RESOLUTIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH IT, THOSE RESOLUTIONS NEED TO BE SIGNED BY THE MAYOR BEFORE THAT. ENROLLING AND GETTING IT TO THE MAYOR IS WHAT MAKES THIS 19th DIFFICULT IF YOU'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO ANYTHING. ON THE 5th IT WOULD ALSO -- THAT WOULD GIVE SOME TIME TO GET IT SIGNED, BUT THE RESOLUTION REQUIRED BY STATE LAW NEED TO BE ACTEDED BY THE MAYOR BEFORE -- AND PUT TO THE COUNTY CLERK TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: P5, MOVED AND SECONDED FOR RULE SUSPENSION. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES ON A 6-3 VOTE. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, WE STILL NEED -- THERE'S EC-174 THAT WAS -- COUNCILOR CHAMPINE WAS GOING TO MOVE FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION. NEVER MIND. THAT'S NOT NECESSARY. I APOLOGIZE. >>COUN. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE ON R-65. COUNCILOR PEÑA. >>COUN. PEÑA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE THE RULES BE SUSPEND FOR THE PLACING OF R-65 ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA FOR ACTION. R-65 IS ADOPTING A PROPOSITION TO BE SENT TO THE VOTERS AT THE 2024 ELECTION PROPOSING TO AMEND ARTICLE TWO OF THE CITY CHARTER RELATED TO CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS CYCLES. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION QUESTION? [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES ON A 6-3 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR PEÑA. >>COUN. PEÑA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE THE RULES BE SUSPENDED FOR PLACING R-66 ONTHEN AGENDA. IT'S ADOPTING THE PROPOSITION TO BE SENT TO THE VOTERS AT THE 2024 ELECTION PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE ARTICLE TWO RELATED TO CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS. >>COUN. LEWIS: YOU SAID P-6? >>COUN. PEÑA: I'LL CHANGE IT TO P6, BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE. I ACTUALLY SKIPPED ONE. >>COUN. LEWIS: I GUESS WE COULD DO THAT. LET'S DO THAT. YOU MOVED R-66. WE NEED A SECOND. SECOND BY COUNCILOR GROUT. ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? THIS IS R-66 SUSPENSION OF RULES. MADAM CLERK. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES ON A 6-3 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR PEÑA, P6. >>COUN. PEÑA: I MOVE THE RULES BE SUSPENDED FOR PLACING P6 ON THE AGENDA. CHART AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ADOPTING PROPOSITION TO BE SENT TO THE VOTERS 2024 ELECTION PROPOSING AMEND ARTICLE TWO RELATED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ELECTION CYCLE. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION ON P6? MADAM CLERK. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES ON A 6-3 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: I BELIEVE COUNCILOR SANCHEZ HAS A MOTION. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. MOVE THE RULES BE SUSPENDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTRODUCING R-67 AND PLACING IT ON THE AUGUST 5th COUNCIL AGENDA FOR ACTION. IT'S THE AMENDING OF R-24-8 THE ADOPTED CAPITAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM OF THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE RELATED TO THE LOCATION OF THE WEST SIDE SPORTS COMPLEX OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE KEN SANCHEZ INDOOR SPORTS COMPLEX. NEED A VOTE ON SUSPENSION. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR GROUT. ANY DISCUSSION? RULE SUSPENSION MOTION. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU. >>COUN. GROUT: MR. PRESIDENT, I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE LETTER OF INTRODUCTION. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOTION AND SECOND BY COUNCILOR BASSAN. [ ROLL CALL ] >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: FOR THE RECORD, I DIDN'T MEAN TO PUT ANY WORDS IN ANY COUNCILORS MOUTHS, I APOLOGIZE ABOUT THAT. IF ONLY I COULD. WE'LL GO TO REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. COUNCILOR SANCHEZ. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THE FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MET ON MONDAY, MAY JUNE 10th, AND REPORT THE FOLLOWING. IN THE MATTER OF EC-158 AND EC-160 BE APPROVED. IN THE MATTER OF O-24, O-30, R-53 AND R-60 DO PASS. IN THE MATTER OF O-25 IT BE WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION AS RECOMMENDED. IN THE MATTER OF R-54 IT BE WITHDRAWN AND IN THE MATTER R-55 AND 56 FAILED. I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MEET REPORTS. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR ROGERS. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, THE LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE MET WEDNESDAY JUNE 12 AND REPORTS, EC-157 AND 159 RECEIPT BE NOTED. AND IN THE MATTER OF O-23 WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION. I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE REPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR BACA. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: ANY DEFERRALS OR WITHDRAWALS? THERE ARE NONE. CONSENT AGENDA. ANY CHANGES TO THE CONSENT AGENDA? COUNCILOR CHAMPINE. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES, MR. PRESIDENT. I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE EC-24-165. >>COUN. LEWIS: EC24-165 IS REMOVED. ANY OTHERS? COUNCILOR GROUT. >>COUN. GROUT: I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOTION AND SECOND BY COUNCILOR BASSAN. [ ROLL CALL ] >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: FOR SHOWS INDIVIDUALS ON TONIGHT'S CONSENT AGENDA THAT HAVE BEEN APOINTED TO THE BOARD OR COMMISSION WE WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO SERVE, CONGRATULATIONS. WE'LL GO TO EC-165. COUNCILOR CHAMPINE. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WANTED A QUICK QUESTION AND CLARIFICATION OF IT. WHEN RESEARCHING AND REVIEWING THIS, I BELIEVE THAT TONY LLOYD IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY. MY QUESTION IS CAN AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY BE A MEMBER OF THE IMPACT COMMITTEE? OR ANY COMMITTEE? >>COUN. LEWIS: MR. MORROW, WOULD YOU ADDRESS THAT? >> IF I MAY, MR. PRESIDENT, I THINK THIS GENTLEMAN HAS RETIRED FROM THE CITY. NO LONER EMPLOYEED. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOTION FOR APPROVAL. SECOND BY COUNCILOR BASSAN. ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: [ INAUDIBLE ]. [ INAUDIBLE ] >>COUN. LEWIS: APPEALS THE EXAMINER DECISION TO DENY VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 45-FOOT MEASURE OPEN SPACE. FOR LOTS 8A1 AND BLOCK TWO. LOCATED AT 7805 NORTHWEST. WE'LL GO TO MS. RONQUILLO. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WILL BE GOING OVER BOTH AC9 AND AC10. THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE APPEALS THAT WERE CONSOLIDATED BY THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER. THEY INVOLVED TWO SEPARATE APPLICATIONS FOR TWO SEPARATE LOTS BUT IT'S THE SAME OWNER AND LOCATION. THEY HELD ONE HEARING AND ISSUED ONE RECOMMENDATION. YOU'LL NEED TO DO TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS AND TWO SEPARATE VOTES. THESE TWO APPEALS CONCERN TWO APPLICATIONS FOR TWO VARIANCES ON TWO ABUTTING LOTS THAT BORDER THE PETROGLYPHS. TWO LOTS WERE ORIGINALLY ONE LOT WHICH THE OWNER CHOSE TO SUBDIVIDE WHICH HE INTENDS TO BUILD TWO HOUSE. THE LOTS ARE NEAR MAJOR OPEN SPACE THEY REQUIRE A BUFFER BETWEEN THE OPEN SPACE. THE OWNERS PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS ENCROACH INTO THAT 45-FOOT BUFFER. ONE HOUSE BY 10 FEET AND THE OTHER BY 30 FEET. THE OWNER APPLIED TO TWO VARIANCES WHICH THE DHE DENIED. THE SAID THEY WERE UNAWARE OF THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT AND THE CITY HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ADVISE THEM OF THE REQUIREMENT. THEY CLAIMED THEY WILL INCUR ADDITIONAL EXPENSES TO CHANGE THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED HOUSES TO COMPLY WITH THE BUFFER. THE LUHO RECOMMENDS THE COUNCIL DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISIONS TO DENY VARIANCES. THERE'S RECORD SHOWING THEY DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA TO SUPPORT THE REQUESTS. THE LHU AGREED THAT THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCES WAS CREATED BY THE APPELLANT WHEN THEY SUBDIVIDED ONE LARGE LOT INTO TWO SMALL LOTS. THE ARGUMENT THAT THE FAILED TO ISSUE THE NOTIFICATION IS NOT -- THE LUHO RECOMMENDS REJECTING THE APPEAL. YOUR MOTION IS TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION AND FINDING, ACCEPT OR ADOPT DIFFERENT FINDINGS, OR REJECT THE FINDINGS IN WHICH CASE WE'LL HOLD A FULL HEARING OF THIS AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING IN AUGUST. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WE CAN DIRECT ANY COMMENTS IF YOU LIKE. ANY EXPLANATIONS THAT YOU NEED. FURTHER EXPLANATIONS THAT YOU NEED. COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE LUHO RECOMMENDATION FINDING. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOTION AND SECOND. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT MOTION? [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE GOING TO GO TO ITEM B IS THE NEXT ONE THAT'S RELATED. THIS IS AC-10. I'M NOT GOING TO READ THAT WHOLE INTRODUCTION. PLEASE GIVE AN EXPLANATION. >> THE SAME EXPLANATION APPLIES TO THIS APPEAL AS WHAT I JUST SHARED. IF YOU LIKE ME TO REITERATE I CAN DO THAT. WE JUST NEED A MOTION AT THIS POINT. >>COUN. LEWIS: NORMALLY, I GUESS LOOKING AT THIS I WAS INCLINED TO REJECT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SENDING THIS TO A FULL HEARING AND HEARING THE APPELLANT'S FULL ARGUMENT ON IT. I THINK THIS IS CLEAR-CUT, THE APPELLANT DIDN'T MEET ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VARIANCE WHICH WAS THE REASON WHY I VOTED TO ACCEPT THE LUHO. ANY MOTION? >>COUN. ROGERS: I MOTION TO ACCEPT THE LUHO'S RECOMMENDATION. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE APPEAL? MADAM CLERK. I'M SORRY, COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, WE'RE GOING TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION AND FINDING OR DIFFERENT FINDINGS? >>COUN. LEWIS: MOTION IS TO ACCEPT RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE ON GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN PROVIDE LIVE PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE COUNCIL IN PERSON OR VIRTUALLY IF THEY SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT PER THE INSTRUCTIONS PUBLISHED ON THE AGENDA AND ON OUR WEBSITE ON FRIDAY. HERE ARE THE GROUND RULES EACH PARTICIPANT HAS ONE MINUTE TO PRESENT. COMMENTS ARE TO BE ADDRESSED TO THE COUNCILORS ONLY THROUGH THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT. ANY DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT WILL RESULT IN REMOVAL FROM THE MEETING. ONE MINUTE TIME LIMIT, BILL WILL RING TO INDICATE YOUR TIME IS UP. WE HAVE 100 PEOPLE TONIGHT. WE HAVE A LOT ON OUR AGENDA WHICH COULD TAKE US TO EARLY HOURS OF THE MORNING. IF WE DEAL WITH EVERYTHING TONIGHT. SO IN ORDER TO GET EVERYBODY IN, WE WANT TO HEAR FROM EVERYBODY TONIGHT. SO, WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THOSE GUIDELINES TONIGHT. PLEASE CALL THE NAME OF THE FIRST SPEAKER. >> IF I MAY, THOSE ON ZOOM, PLEASE DO NOT TURN ON YOUR CAMERAS UNTIL YOUR NAME IS CALLED. OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS PATRICA FOLLOWED BY MONIQUE. >> COUNCILOR LEWIS, COUNCILORS, EIGHT MONTHS, 60 CITY WIDE AMENDMENTS, THREE SMALL AREA AMENDMENTS, 11 LUPZ AMENDMENTS, EIGHT COUNCIL AMENDMENTS, 60 SECONDS TO COMMENT. AS THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON ZONING MATTERS, COUNCIL HAS THE CAPACITY TO FIX THIS BROKEN SYSTEM. STOP USING THE IDO AMENDMENT PROCESS TO MAKE MAJOR CHANGES TO THE ZONING CODE. CHANGES THAT GENERALLY SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND DISENFRANCHISED NEIGHBORHOODS. DUPLEXES WILL NOT FIX THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS, TALLER WALLS KILL NOT STOP CRIME. THERE ARE 15 STATEMENTS UNDER THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF THE IDO. NUMBER ONE IS TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. STATEMENTS OF PROTECTION OF COMMUNITIES AND QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE LISTED BEFORE STATEMENTS ABOUT PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU. >> MONIQUE FOLLOWED BY JANE. >> GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I AM A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER WITH -- AND A RESIDENT OF -- I'M HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT A TEXT AMENDMENT OF THE IDO THAT REQUIRE REFERRALS OF APPLICANTS TO TRIBAL REPRESENTATIVES. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT OUR LEADERS ARE -- THAT REQUIRE I'M SORRY -- MAKING DECISIONS WILL COME TO DEVELOPMENT AND ON OUR SACRED LANDS. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT THAT YOU RESPECT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THESE SACRED AREAS AND THE NEW DEVELOPMENT OF EXTENDING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN OR ONE MILE AWAY. BEING A MOTHER OF SIX IT IS CRITICAL TO SAFEGUARD THE PETROGLYPHS AS THEY'RE OUR ANCESTORS WHISPERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> JANE FOLLOWED BY ARIANA. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SERVE AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN PROMOTING COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY PLANNING. NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ARE A SOURCE OF IMPORTANT INPUT BY PROVIDING INFORMATION AND ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES. THE CITY'S ENGAGEMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS SHOULD ALWAYS BE THROUGH LENS OF PROMOTING STRONGER PARTICIPATION. LOFTY RHETORIC FROM THE NARROW, THE IDO PROCESS MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE STATEMENTS. IT IS SO CONVOLUTED AND TIME-CONSUMING THAT ENGAGING IS EFFECTIVELY IMPOSSIBLE. IT IS USED EXPLICITLY REMOVING ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES, IT SEEKS ONLY TO APPEASE OBLIGATIONS WHILE PURSUING CONTRARY OBJECTIVES. IT IS PAST TIME TO STOP USING THE IDO PROCESS TO IGNORE THE COMP PLAN, CIRCUMVENT THE CPA PROCESS AND MAKE FAR REACHING ZONE CHANGES THAT DISINFRANCHISE THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND PUBLIC. >> ARINA FOLLOWED BY ANAMI. >>COUN. LEWIS: IF YOU'RE NEXT UP, WE'LL READ TWO NAMES. IF YOU'RE NEXT UP YOU CAN SIT IN THE FRONT ROW AND BE READY TO SPEAK NEXT. >> ANANI FOLLOWED BY BRIAN. >> THIS SATURDAY THE HUMAN RIGHTS BOARD IS GOING TO HAVE ITS HEARING ON THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. ANTI- HOMELESS SENTIMENT/DISCRIMINATION BASED ON HOUSING STATUS IS TO SET AT 1 P.M. AT THE INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT LIBRARY. WE ARE SOLICITING TESTIMONY FROM PEOPLE WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE AND PEOPLE WHO WORKED WITH PEOPLE WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE. I GUESS DISCUSSING ANTI- HOMELESSNESS. THAT IS SATURDAY, 1 P.M. INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT LIBRARY. AND CABQ.GOV/CIVIL RIGHT FOR MORE INFORMATION. THANK YOU. >> BRIAN FOLLOWED BY STEVE. STEVE FOLLOWED BY LISA. LISA FOLLOWED BY CARLOS. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, CITY COUNCILLORS, GOOD EVENING. I'M LISA. I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED ONCE AGAIN THAT WE'RE DOWN TO ONE MINUTE. WE HAVE NO IDEA UNTIL WE GET HERE. WE PREPARE AND TRY TO HAVE A STATEMENT AND IT GETS CUT SHORT. I WANT TO THANK COUNCILOR PEÑA, MY REP, FOR DISTRICT 13 FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE WITH SHARISE WHO IS YOUR POLICY, JENNIFER MONROE, AND THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR THE MUCH-NEEDED HELP IN GETTING THE STUDY FOR BLAKE ROAD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. THE CHANGE TO PUBLIC INPUT AND COMMENT THAT HAPPENED AT THE JUNE 3rd MEETING AND THIS MEETING REALLY IS STARTING TO GIVE THE IMPRECISION THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO HAVE PUBLIC INPUT. MAYBE WE HAVE LESSON THE AGENDA THAN THAT WE CAN HAVE FULL COMMENT BECAUSE FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE TRUST ISSUES, THIS LACK OF TRANSPARENCY REALLY SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE. >>COUN. LEWIS: MA'AM, FEEL FREE IF YOU HAVE OTHER THINGS TO SHARE, I'LL GIVE YOU MORE TIME IF YOU LIKE. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. LIMITING THE VOICES OF ALBUQUERQUE TO ONE MINUTE PROVES PUBLIC COMMENT IS PERFORMATIVE, FOR ME THAT'S MY IMPRESSION. I ALSO GET THE IMPRESSION WITH PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CHARTER WHY WOULD WE THE PEOPLE GIVE YOU ALL MORE POWER OVER DECISION MAKING, CITY CLERK, FIRE CHIEF, POLICE CHIEF, WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN REALLY WANT OUR PUBLIC INPUT. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANKS. THE INTENTION FOR THE ONE MINUTE IS TO MAKE SURE WE GET THROUGH EVERYBODY. THANKS FOR UNDERSTANDING THAT. APPRECIATE IT. >> CARLOS FOLLOWED BY JIM. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, I'M ON THE -- I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT EXPANSION OF I-25. I KNOW YOU DON'T OVERSEE NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. YOUR VOICE CARRIES A LOT OF WEIGHT. I URGE YOU TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND IMPACTS. I LIVE IN HIGHLANDS AND SEVERAL OF THE OPTIONS THE STATE IS CONSIDERING WILL GO THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEMOLISH HOMES AND THE ONLY PARK IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE CONSTRUCTION OF I-25 SEPARATED OUR COMMUNITIES AND HAS A LASTING EFFECT THAT IS FELT TODAY. IT'S INCONCEIVABLE IN THIS DAY AND AGE WE'RE CONSIDERING THIS KIND OF OPTION THAT DESTROY THE HOMES OF THE COMMUNITIES. FURTHER MORE, DECADES OF STUDIES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY HAVE SHOWN THAT ADDING MORE CAPACITY DOES NOT SOLVE CONGESTION. I KNOW THIS OUT OF YOUR CONTROL BUT I URGE YOU TO LOOK AT IT AND THE IMPACT IT HAS. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU. >> JIM FOLLOWED BY JOANNE. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, I'M EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE RENEWABLE ENERGY INDUSTRY OF NEW MEXICO. WE HAVE 60-PLUS MEMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND SINCE 2004. OUR MISSION IS TO SUPPORT, PROMOTE, THE RENEWABLE ENERGY IN NEW MEXICO. MAKE THIS TRANSITION 100 RENEWABLE ENERGY ECONOMY AND ENERGY STORAGE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. WE APPLAUD THE CITY FOR MAKING CHANGES TO THE INITIAL ZONING AMENDMENT FOR ENERGY STORED SYSTEMS THAT ARE MORE CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS. HOWEVER, WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE SLAND -- LANDSCAING REQUIREMENTS THAT MIGHT ADD COST AND POTENTIALLY COST SOME SAFETY HAZARDS. WE DO SUPPORT A6. I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT WE, THE LARGEST ASSOCIATION IN NEW MEXICO, WAS NOT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE INPUT ON THIS AMENDMENT. AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE THIS WAS NOT VETTED AT THE ALBUQUERQUE ENERGY COUNCIL. WE HOPE IN THE FUTURE WE'LL BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU, SIR. >> JOANNE FOLLOWED BY JAMES. JAMES FOLLOWED BY CRYSTAL. >> GOOD EVENING, ALL. I'M FROM DISTRICT FOUR. EXTENDING THE COUNCIL MEETINGS PAST 10:30 IS A SIGNIFICANT DISSERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY. I RECOGNIZE THREE OF YOU VOTED AGAINST EXTENDING THE MEETING. EXTENDING THE MEETING PAST 10:30 CREATES CIVIC INDISENGAGEMENT. ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT STATED HE IS WILLING TO STAY TO 2 OR 3 A.M. TO COMPLETE THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY. IT'S COMMENDABLE THAT THE COUNCILOR HAS BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL AND BECOME SO -- THAT HE CAN STAY UNTIL 2 OR 3 A.M. THE AVERAGE PERSON CAPACITY CANNOT REMAIN UNTIL PAST 10:30. I IMPLORE THE OTHER COUNCILORS TO SEARCH THEIR SOUL AND VOTE AGAINST EXTENDING THE MEETING PAST 10:30. IF NECESSARY TO CONTINUE EXTENDING THE MEETINGS, THE PROCESS OF THE MEETINGS SHOULD BE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU, SIR. >>COUN. PEÑA: MR. PRESIDENT. MR. FREEMAN, YOU KNOW I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. A COUPLE COUNCILORS TALKED ABOUT IT. IT'S JUST THAT WE START THEM AT 5 P.M. BECAUSE PEOPLE COULDN'T BE HERE BECAUSE THEY HAD TO WORK. IT CREATES A CHALLENGE. WE'RE HAVING SUCH LONG MEETINGS, AND NOW WITH THE ERA OF ZOOM IT GIVES PEOPLE AN ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY. MAYBE WE WOULD CONSIDER DOWN THE ROAD WITH THE CONSENSUS TO LOOK AT THOSE TIME CHANGES. JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION. THANKS. >> CRYSTAL FOLLOWED BY ATSA. ATSA FOLLOWED BY LORETTA. >> GOOD EVENING, CHAIR LEWIS, COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NABA. A 501C3 NATIVE ORGANIZATION THAT WAS BIRTHED TO PROTECT THE PETROGLYPHS FROM PASEO EXPANSION IN THE 1990s. I RESIDE IN DISTRICT FIVE, YOUR DISTRICT MR. CHAIR. I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK YOU TO VOTE IN SUPPORT OF THE ADOPTING THE SMALL IDO LANGUAGE AMENDMENT. REQUIRING TRIBAL CONSULTATION AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS. ALBUQUERQUE IS THE SIXTH LARGEST URBAN AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE POPULATION IN THE ENTIRE NATION. PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT THE CITY TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE. WE HAVE WITNESSES THE PROBLEMS THAT OCCUR WHEN TRIBAL LEADERS ARE NOT A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. IT'S UTMOST IMPORTANCE THAT YOU RESPECT THE VOICES OF OUR TRIBAL LEADERS. THEY MUST BE A PART OF THIS PROCESS. WE ALSO SUPPORT THE PUEBLO OF LAGUNA RECOMMENDATION TO EXTEND THE BOUNDARY FROM 650 FEET TO A MILE RADIUS. ALBUQUERQUE IS SURROUNDED BY TRIBAL LANDS. IT IS TIME TRIBES HAVE A VOICE IN THIS MATTER. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU. >> LORETTA FOLLOWED BY PERRY ON ZOOM. >> GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL, COUNCILORS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE IS REQUESTING THE CENTRAL ABQ COMMUNITY PLANNED AREA BE DEFERRED BEFORE THE COUNCIL HAS FINAL ACTION ON IT. AND UNTIL THE CITY PLANNING STAFF MEETS WITH THE H&A LEADERSHIP TO DISCUSS OUR PROPOSAL OF THE PLAN. IF THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE STATES IN THEIR ALBUQUERQUE-BERNALILLO COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT THEY WANT TO KNOW THE CENTRAL ABQ COMMUNITY PRIORITIES, THIS MEETING NEEDS TO OCCUR. THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE STATES THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS ARE AN AREA OF CONSISTENCY BUT THE PROPOSED CENTRAL ABQ COMMUNITY PLANNED IS FOR AREA OF CHANGE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTS THERE'S A STUDY DONE TO SHOW HOW THE NEW TREND OF MULTIFAMILY DENSE APARTMENTS OR CHANGES TO THE ZONES AND THE ECONOMIC GOALS AFFECT THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. PLEASE CONSIDER DEFERRING THE CENTRAL ABQ COMMUNITY PLAN AREA AND REQUEST THE CITY STAFF TO MEET WITH THE H&A TO BEGIN A DIALOGUE THAT IS CONSTRUCTIVE AND IMPLEMENTS THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE GOALS TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS AND STOP THE RACIAL INEQUALITY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> PERRY FOLLOWED BY NICOLE. >> HELLO COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS. ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS PROPOSAL ONE TO CHARTER CHANGE TO ELIMINATE DEMOCRATIC RULE IN OUR CITY. BREAKING WITH ESTABLISHED NORMS OR PROPOSING TO DO AWAY WITH MAJORITY ROLE A CORNERSTONE OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. YOU'RE SUGGESTING A CANDIDATE THAT RECEIVE AS MAJORITY OF VOTES AGAINST THEM IS FIT TO SERVE AND CARRY THE MANDATE TO GOVERN. LOCAL HISTORY TELLS US THIS DOESN'T WORK FOR THE CITY AND THIS SHOULD BE A SETTLED ISSUE GIVEN IT WAS SO RECENTLY VOTED ON. THIS IS A SERIOUS CHANGE THAT DEVERVES SERIOUS DEBATE. IT SHOULDN'T BE RUSHED THROUGH MULTIPLE MEETINGS LATE AT NIGHT WHERE THE PUBLIC AND COUNCILORS ARE UNABLE TO HAVE MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE ABOUT THIS ISSUE. LET US CONSIDER THIS ISSUE THOROUGHLY THROUGH A CHARTER TASK FORCE WHERE EXPERTS AND THE PUBLIC CAN FIND THE BEST RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CITY TOGETHER. THANK YOU. >> NICOLE FOLLOWED BY EVELYN. >> CHAIR, COUNCILORS, DISABLED COMBAT VETERAN, HOMEOWNER ON THE WEST MESA HERE ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND MY FAMILY. I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO OPPOSE P1 THROUGH P4. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED IN A SPECIAL ELECTIONS. WE DECIDED OUR ELECTIONS HINGE ON BEING THE MOST DEMOCRATING. IF THIS IS TRULY A COST ISSUE I SUGGEST RANK CHOICE VOTING. R-49 WILL CHANGE THE HIRING AND FIRING OF VITAL POSITIONS SUCH AS FIREFIGHTER AND POLICE CHIEF AND CURB THE VOICE THE PEOPLE THAT ATTEND ON THESE POSITIONS AS A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH. THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE DEMOCRACY AND TRANSPARENCY BUILT IN BEFORE MOVING FORWARD ON THIS BILL. PLEASE VOTE NO AS A CONSTITUENT OF COUNCILOR PEÑA AND ASK YOU TO VOTE NO. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> EVELYN FOLLOWED BY MICHAEL. >> PRESIDENT LEWIS, COUNCIL MEMBERS, HAVING OBSERVED THE IDO AMENDMENT PROCESS FOR THE LAST YEAR I FIND THE PROCESS CUMBERSOME AND CONFUSING. IT ALSO LACKS TRANSPARENCY AND COLLABORATION WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC. I ATTENDED THE FIRST THREE ZOOM MEETINGS OF THE INITIAL IDO PRESENTATIONS LAST OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER. THE TOTAL ATTENDANCE WAS 36 PUBLIC MEMBERS. THESE AMENDMENTS ARE NOT BASED ON RESEARCH, DATA, CAREINAL ANALYSIS, AND LACK SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. FOR EXAMPLE, THE OVERNIGHT SHELTER AND BATTERY STORAGE UNITS. NOBODY WOULD EXPECT A BUSINESS LOAN TO BE APPROVED BY A BANK PURELY ON AN IDEA. CITY COUNCIL SHOULD SET THE BAR HIGHER FOR THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. >> MICHAEL FOLLOWED BY JULIE. >> GOOD EVENING, PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE ALBUQUERQUE CITY COUNCIL. I'M A RETIRED DISABLED SERVICE MEMBER AND ALBUQUERQUE SHAWL BUSINESS OWNER. I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT WOULD CHANGE OUR ELECTION SYSTEM AND SHIFT THE BALANCE OF POWER. THE CITY'S PROPOSAL TO ALLOW CANDIDATES TO WIN WITH 40% OF THE VOTE INSTEAD OF 50% THRESHOLD IS CONCERNING. THIS RISKS MINORITY ROLE AND UNDERMINES THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE OF MAJORITY SUPPORT. HISTORICAL EXAMPLES SHOW THAT MAYORS ELECTED WITH LESS THAN A MAJORITY FACE CHALLENGES. THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL PROCESSES FOR KEY POSITIONS LIKE THE CITY CLERK ARE TROUBLING. MAKING THE CITY AN AT WILL EMPLOYEE DISMISSIBLE IS -- THESE AMENDMENTS THREATEN THE DEMOCRACY BY SHIFTING POWER TOWARD YOU, THE COUNCIL, AND AWAY FROM WE THE PEOPLE. WE MUST SUPPORT DEMOCRACY AND MAINTAIN PUBLIC FAITH IN OUR INSTITUTIONS. THESE AMENDMENTS FAIL TO DO THAT. THANK YOU ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. THE CITIZENS OF ALBUQUERQUE DESERVE TO KNOW WHERE THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS STAND ON THESE CRITICAL ISSUES. >> JULIE FOLLOWED BY ROBERT. >> GOOD EVENING, PRESIDENT LEWIS, TONIGHT I WANTED TO SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT ZONING ENFORCEMENT SINCE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IDO OR ZONING MAP. I'D LIKE TO WORK WITH PLANNING ON EVALUATION AND EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC ON THE CODING ISSUES THAT HOMEOWNERS NEED TO BE AWARE OF. PERHAPS THE FEATURE MESSAGE ON THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WEBSITE. EVERY QUARTER OR OVER MONTH ON THE WEBSITE. REQUIRE PROOF OF INFORMATION WHEN AN APPLICANT GOES BEFORE THE ZHE. HAVE THEM SUBMIT PHOTOS OR PROOFS AND FOLLOW UP TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE PROVIDING ACCURATE INFORMATION. FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE ZHE NEEDS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. >> ROBERT FOLLOWED BY ELANOR. >> HELLO. OKAY. FIRST, I'M LOOKING AT AN EMAIL THAT SAYS TWO MINUTES NOT ONE MINUTE. I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. CAN WE SET THAT FOR TWO MINUTES LIKE THE EMAIL SAYS? >>COUN. LEWIS: SIR, GO AHEAD AND START. YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE TONIGHT. >> OKAY. I DON'T SEE MY CAMERA LIGHTS ON. IS IT WORKING? >> SIR, IT'S UP TO YOU TO TURN ON YOUR CAMERA. >> I'M SORRY. THERE IT IS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU GUYS THAT TWO MINUTE MARK IS IMPORTANT. GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF RANK CHOICE. DESTROYS VOTER CONFIDENCE AND TRUST IN ELECTIONS. THIS HAS BEEN TRIED WITH HORRIFIC RESULTS BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY IT'S DESIGNED TO WORK IS BY ELIMINATING BALLOT. THE COUNTY CLERK DOESN'T PUBLISH CANDIDATE INFORMATION NEITHER DOES PUBLIC MEDIA. THIS RIDICULOUS MESS OF A SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO -- I'VE BEEN A SYSTEMS ANALYST FOR 49 YEARS I TREAT THIS BALLOT LIKE A TIC-TAC-TOE OR COLORING GAME. YOUR JUSTIFICATION OF DOING THIS IS $3 MILLION. $250,000 PER YEAR. THERE'S NO CHANCE YOU CAN SAVE MONEY BY DOING RANK CHOICE. IF YOU HAVE ANY INTENTION OF PROVIDING COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION TO VOTERS. RANK CHOICE VOTING DESTROYS EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS. IT DESTROYS VOTER INTEGRITY AND EXPECTING EACH PERSON TO VOTE AND IT'S BEYOND RIDICULOUS. YOU CAN DUMP BALLOTS UNTIL THIS MESS GETS TO THE POINT WHERE YOU GET TO DECLARE A WINNER. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU, SIR. >>-- SAYS THAT. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU, SIR. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE COUNCIL DID HAVE RANK CHOICE VOTING BEFORE US A FEW WEEKS AGO. THAT PROPOSAL WAS VOTED DOWN BY THE COUNCIL SEVERAL WEEKS AGO. >> THANK YOU, ROBERT. UP NEXT WE HAVE ELANOR FOLLOWED BY JOE. >> I URGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST THE PROPOSITIONS TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER. IT'S A PROPOSITION TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM VOTES REQUIRED FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS IS TO SAVE MONEY PLEASE IMPLEMENT RANK CHOICE VOTING. I URGE YOU TO AMEND AMENDMENT FOUR COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT TO AMEND THE MAXIMUM SIZE TO TWO ACRES. THE DENSITY FOR COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT ALREADY RAISES THE DENSITY IN RA ZONES BY 50 TO 300% DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE DWELLINGS. THIS ZONE HAS ALREADY COMPROMISED ON INCREASING DENSITY BY THE RELATIVELY NEW COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT. I URGE YOU TO PASS A MAXIMUM OF TWO. IF YOU LEAVE THE AMENDMENT AT THREE ACRES, THERE ARE PARTS OF THE IDO THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED SUCH AS INCREASING THE TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED AND REQUIREMENTS FOR KITCHENS. CAN I CONTINUE? >>COUN. LEWIS: GO AHEAD. >> I ALSO WOULD LIKE YOU TO REQUIRE EACH COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL TO MEET THE IDO REQUIREMENTS AND NOT SPREAD THOSE REQUIREMENTS ACROSS TWO ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU. >> JOE FOLLOWED BY MAUREEN. >> COUNCILOR LEWIS, COUNCILORS, I AM A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT SIX. I GREW UP IN DISTRICT THREE. I ALSO LIVED IN DISTRICT NINE. I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON A COUPLE OF ITEMS. I UNDERSTAND COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING AMENDMENTS THAT REQUIRE CONSULTATION IN THE IDO PROCESS INCLUDING ONE-MILE RADIUS WITHIN THE NORTHWEST MESA OVERLAY. I STRONGLY SUPPORT THAT. IT'S MORE THAN TIME FOR TRIBE AND PUEBLOS TO BE INVOLVED. THE SECOND ITEM IS PROPOSAL P1 THROUGH P4 MOVING FROM A 50% TO 40% VOTE THRESHOLD. WHATEVER THE INTENT OF THIS PACKAGE OF PROPOSAL UNDERMINES VOTERS AND TRUST OF ELECTED OFFICIALS. THE CITY SHOULD CREATE A TASK FORCE THAT SOLICITS MEANINGFUL AND PUBLIC INPUT. FOR EXAMPLE CITY CLERK AND ATTORNEY SHOULD BE ELECTED POSITIONS. RUSHING THROUGH A SET OF MAJOR POWER SHIFTS IN A SHORT WEEK IS ANTI- DEMOCRATIC. I URGE YOU TO VOTE THESE PROPOSALS DOWN AND APPOINT A TASK FORCE TO ENGAGE CITIZENS IN THESE POTENTIAL CHANGES. THANK YOU. >> MAUREEN FOLLOWED BY DEBRA. >> NUMBER ONE, I ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THE -- AMENDMENT. HOUSING IS A MAJOR ISSUE IN THIS CITY. THIS INCREASES HOUSING ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND COMMERCE CENTERS WHICH CAN STAND MORE DENSITY. NUMBER TWO, I ASK YOU TO OPPOSE ALL AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER. THESE WOULD PROMOTE LESS DEMOCRACY AND LESS STABILITY. THANK YOU. >> DEBRA FOLLOWED BY MICHAEL. >> HI. I'M NOT ALLOWED TO TURN MY VIDEO ON. I WILL START. OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEWIS, COUNCILORS, MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS IN ALBUQUERQUE INCLUDING MINE ARE DECLINING DUE TO DECADES OF INADEQUATE CODE ENFORCEMENT. AN ORDINANCE IS ONLY AS GOODS AS THE VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE. NOT ENFORCING THE CODE IS ISSUING A DE FACTO VARIANCE. I ASK THE CITY COUNCIL DO SOMETHING TO REQUIRE PLANNING TO NUMBER ONE, EDUCATE HOME ENERS THROUGH PUBLIC SERVICES ANNOUNCEMENTS. STAFF UP ENOUGH SO THE ONUS IS NOT ON NEIGHBORS TRAINING NEIGHBORS. THREE, MODIFY THE ZHE HEARING PROCESS SO THE ZHE MAKES THEIR DECISION BASED ON ACTUAL FACTS INSTEAD OF ERRONEOUS INFORMATION PROVIDED BY APPLICANTS. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TELLING ME TO MOVE TO ANOTHER PART OF ALBUQUERQUE. I LIKE MY HOUSE. WHY SHOULD I MOVE WHEN ALL I'M ASKING IS THE CITY ENFORCE ITS OWN ORDINANCES IN ALL PARTS OF TOWN? THANK YOU. >> MICHAEL FOLLOWED BY CANDELARIA. GO AHEAD, MICHAEL. >> MR. PRESIDENT, OUR COALITION SPENT MANY HOURS REVIEWING O-24-13. I'M HERE TO GIVE A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION. THE ENORMITY OF THE TASK MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT. WE REALLY DON'T NEED TALLER FENCES. IN FACT WE NEED TO REMOVE THE INVISIBLE WALLS THAT PREVENT OTHERS FROM TRULY UNDERSTANDING THAT CONSEQUENCES OF THIS BILL. WE NEED MORE INPUT FROM A WIDE RANGE OF STAKEHOLDERS. YES INCLUDING THE NATIVE-AMERICAN COMMUNITY. THIS CHANGE WON'T HAPPEN UNTIL WE HAVE A NEW PROCESS. WE HAVE TOO MUCH ON ONE BILL AND SEVEN AMENDMENTS AND TOO LITTLE TIME TO KNOW THE IMPACT. I ASK YOU TO VOTE NO ON THE SEVEN FLOOR AMENDMENTS. I WILL SAY, STOP USING THE IDO AMENDMENT PROCESS TO MAKE MAJOR CHANGES TO THE ZONE CODE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> CANDELARIA FOLLOWED BY FRANK. >> I'M A WEST SIDE COMMUNITY MEMBER. I STAND IN SUPPORT OF THE INTERCOALITION COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION DATED JUNE 12 THAT WAS SENT TO YOU. IN ADDITION TO THAT I LIKE TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT 14N SHOULD BE OPPOSED. WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS 60 TEXT AMENDMENTS BUNDLED UP WITH A PASS OR FAIL VOTE. THAT IS NOT DEMOCRATIC. IT DOESN'T ALLOW OUR COMMUNITY TO ACTUALLY TAKE A LOOK AT LOFT AMENDMENTS. SOME HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AFTER THEY WERE REJECTED BY EPC AND OUR COMMUNITY. I THINK THIS MARGINALIZED OUR COMMUNITY. IT DIMINISHES OUR VOICE. THIS IS WHERE WE LIVE, WORK, PLAY, CAN VOTE. AND WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION REGARDING THESE CHANGES. PLEASE, CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION TO THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT IS THE LIVELYHOOD. THIS IS HOW WE LIVE IN OUR COMMUNITY. WE WOULD LIKE REPRESENTATION FROM YOU. THANK YOU. >> FRANK. >> HELLO, WEST SIDE COMMUNITY MEMBER AND LEADER. I STAND IN SUPPORT OF THE INTERCOALITION LETTER DATED JUNE 12th. AND THESE ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS. AND ALSO OPPOSE 14-0. SURELY, WE CAN HAVE SUCCESSFUL URBAN CENTERS WITHOUT DRIVE THROUGHS. I SUPPORT ALSO 14B. ALL TRIBAL ENTITIES SHOULD BE NOTIFIED OF ANY DEVELOPMENT NEAR THEIR BOUNDARIES. ALSO, I OPPOSE 14N DUE TO THE NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS, 60-PLUS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED INDIVIDUALLY. ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT HAVE IMPACTED OUR PROPERTY, NEIGHBORHOOD, AND COMMUNITY NEGATIVELY. ALSO, I HAVE REAL CONCERNS ON A NUMBER OF THOSE PROPOSITIONS THAT WILL TAKE AWAY PART OF THE EXECUTIVE POWER OF OUR EXECUTIVE BRANCH. PART OF THIS IS UNHEARD OF. WE'RE SEEING THIS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MR. PRESIDENT, WE HAVE MASON AND LYNN NOT AVAILABLE ON ZOOM. THAT CONCLUDES GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY, WE GOT TO EVERYBODY ON THE LIST? OKAY. THANK YOU. DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK? GO FOR IT. WERE YOU ON THE LIST? >> WE HAD YOU SIGNED ON AS ZOOM. >>COUN. LEWIS: GLAD YOU'RE HERE. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I'M POLICY DIRECTOR FOR COMMON CAUSE. I'M HERE, ONCE AGAIN TO SPEAK ON PROPOSAL ONE WHICH AS YOU KNOW WILL LOWER THE THRESHOLD FROM ELECTIONS FROM 50 TO 40%. OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS THERE'S AN OUTCRY FROM CITIZENS IN THESE CHAMBERS RESPONDING TO THIS PROPOSAL THAT WILL UNDERMINE OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND UNDO MAJORITY RULE. IT WAS ONLY IN 2013 WHICH THAT 50% THRESHOLD WAS PASSED. AND WE AT COMMON CAUSE ARE IN STRONG OPPOSITION. REQUIRING LESS THAN A MAJORITY VOTE IS UNDEMOCRATING. ROLLING BACK THE IMPORTANT REFORMS ALLOWS A REVENUE TO ALLOW FRINGE CANDIDATES. THAT COMES FROM A FORMER ALBUQUERQUE MAYOR JAMES BACA. WE SHOULD ALL BE DOING OUR BEST TO SUPPORT DEMOCRACY AND GIVE THE PUBLIC FAITH IN OUR INSTITUTIONS. THIS PROPOSAL DOES NEITHER. STATE SENATOR AND FORMER ALBUQUERQUE CITY CLERK -- IF THE GOAL IS SAVE MONEY AND IF CREASE TURNOUT THE SOLUTION EXISTS IN INSTANT RUNOFF OR INSTANT RANK VOTING. THE ONLY THING THIS PROPOSAL DOES IS SET OUR DEMOCRACY BACK BY 11 YEARS. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU. WE GOT TO EVERYBODY? IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S NAMES WE MIGHT HAVE LIST. THIS IS GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. P1 IS GOING TO BE NEXT. THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 13 IS APPROVALS. THERE'S NONE. WE'LL GO TO FINAL ACTION. THIS IS SPONSORED BY COUNCILOR LEWIS AND COUNCILOR PEÑA. THIS IS P1. ADOPTING A PROPOSITION TO BE SENT TO THE VOTERS OF THE 2024 GENERAL ELECTION PROPOSING TO AMEND ARTICLE TWO OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE REGARDING MINIMUM VOTES FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND RUNOFF ELECTIONS. WE'LL GO TO A NUMBER OF THOSE SIPED -- SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. REAL QUICK, SOME COMMENTS. JUST SO WE'RE REAL CLEAR ON THE CHANGE. RIGHT NOW CURRENTLY, CANDIDATES MUST RECEIVE 50% OF THE VOTES CAST TO BE ELECTED. IF NO CANDIDATE RECEIVES 50% THERE MUST BE RUNOFF. WHAT'S PROPOSED BEFORE US IS CANDIDATES MUST RECEIVE AT LEAST 50% CAST TO BE ELECTED. IF NO CANDIDATE RECEIVES 40% THERE MUST BE A RUNOFF. I BELIEVE THERE'S NOTHING MORE DEMOCRATIC THAN FOR THE COUNCIL TO BE VOTING ON THIS TONIGHT AND NOTHING MORE DEMOCRATIC THAN FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS IN NOVEMBER. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT IS TO PUT THIS BEFORE THE VOTERS OR NOT. IT'S TECHNICALLY NOT EVEN A VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE CHANGE OR NOT. IT'S A VOTE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED TO PUTTING THIS MEASURE ON THE BALLOT AND LETTING THE PEOPLE DECIDE HOW THEY WANT THEIR GOVERNMENT OR ELECTIONS TO BE RUN IN THIS REGARD. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE FIRST SEEKER. -- SPEAKER. >> WE HAVE ASHLEY FOLLOWED BY CHRISTOPHER. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. PRESIDENT, GOOD TO SEE YOU, COUNCILORS. GOOD EVENING. PRESIDENT REP FOR THE MACHINE UNION, AND CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL. JUST A FACT AGAIN, ABOUT THE CENTRAL NEW MEXICO LABOR COUNCIL. I MADE SURE TO COUNT AND IT'S MADE UP OF 42 DIFFERENT LOCAL UNIONS AND ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS THE ALBUQUERQUE AREA. WE STILL STAND IN STRONG OPPOSITION OF P-24-1 AND R-24-47. IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTARY SHIFTING TO RACISM AND MINORITY COMMUNITIES, THE LABOR MOVEMENT WAS BORN FIGHTING SOCIAL JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF INCLUSION IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY AND LABOR MOVEMENT. NO ONE DOES IT BETTER THAN WE DO. WE HAVE GIVEN BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS FOR ALL OF THOSE CAUSES. AND FURTHER MORE, I WOULD BE REMISS IF WE DIDN'T LOOK FORWARD -- IF I MAY, MR. PRESIDENT, LOOK TOWARD THE INCOMING AND PERHAPS COLLABORATE AND PLAN TO PARTNER TOGETHER SO WE MAY ADDRESS EXPANSION OF ACCESS, EXPANSION OF INCLUSION TO MINORITY COMMUNITIES IN THE VOTING PROCESS. WE'RE UP FOR IT IF YOU ARE. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU. LOOK FORWARD TO PARTNERING WITH YOU ON THAT. >> CHRISTOPHER FOLLOWED BY JOE. >> GOOD EVENING. COUNCIL PRESIDENT, CITY COUNCILLORS, I'M RETIRED PETTY OFFICER. OVER A DECADE AGO VOTERS GAVE A CLEAR MANDATE AND RAISED THE MINIMUM VOTING REQUIREMENT FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS IN OUR CITY FROM 40% TO 50%. WHY DO WE WANT TO GO BACK? I STRONGLY OPPOSE CHANGING THE CHARTER TO GO BACK TO 40% TO GET ELECTED FOR CITY ELECTIONS. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH MAYOR KELLER, JUNE 2 ARTICLE. THIS IS JUST COMMON SENSE. TO GET ELECTED BY A MAJORITY AND I BELIEVE IT STRENGTHENS OUR DEMOCRACY. PUTTING OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS DEMANDS A MAJORITY VOTE. I SEE THE POINT OF SAVING MONEY FROM DOING A RUNOFF ELECTIONS. I BELIEVE IT'S MONEY WELL SPENT. IF CITY COUNCIL SHOULD APPROVE THIS CHANGE AND YOU OVERP RIDE THE MAYOR'S VETO. I ASK YOU TO OVERRIDE THIS. THANK YOU. >> JOE FOLLOWED BY -- DOROTHY FOLLOWED BY MELANY. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I'M CHAIR OF THE WEST SIDE DEMOCRATS OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, AN ORGANIZATION OF 100-PLUS MEMBERS. I RISE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION FOR THIS PROPOSAL. I OPPOSE IT BECAUSE IT'S ASKING OUR VOTERS TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING UNDEMOCRATIC. 50% OR MORE IS DEMOCRATIC, 40% IS NOT. AND I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO TAKE THAT CHANCE. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: JUST A POINT OF ORDER. WE MADE THE MOTION AND IT NEEDS A SECOND. THE MOTION IS MADE FOR APPROVAL. A SECOND BY COUNCILOR GROUT. SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT BEFORE THE PUBLIC COMMENT. MADAM CLERK, IF YOU'LL RECORD THAT. THANKS SO MUCH. NEXT SPEAKER. >> MELANY FOLLOWED BY JAMES. >> CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NEW MEXICO FOUNDATION FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT. WE TAKE NO POSITION ON EITHER P1 OR P2. WE DO QUESTION THE TIMING OF THE DISCUSSION ON BOTH OF THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES. THE FIRST ONE INTRODUCED AFTER 10 P.M. THE FIRST TIME IT CAME OUT, AND WHILE IT CONFORMS WITH THE LETTER OF THE LAW, PERHAPS NOT THE SPIRIT. ALSO THE NEXT TIME IT WAS ADDRESSED WAS THE NIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION. MANY PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE ISSUE WERE CONCERNED WITH SOMETHING ELSE. WHILE WE FEEL THAT THESE ARE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE AGENDA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, WE DON'T NECESSARILY FEEL YOU'RE FOLLOWING THE SPIRIT. OF THE LAW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> JAMES FOLLOWED BY DALE. >> I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OF P1. COUNCILOR LEWIS WROTE AN OPPED PUBLISHED. IT'S TITLED RUNOFF ELECTIONS ARE ROOTED IN RACIST STRATEGIES IN THE SOUTH. YOU EXPLAIN THE PUSH IS ROOTED IN RACISM AND THE EFFORT IS A TROUBLING RESEMBLANCE DESIGNED TO PREVENT MINORITIES FROM WINNING SEATS HELD BY WHITE POLITICIANS. YOU'RE IN ALBUQUERQUE WE DON'T NEED TO GET HISTORICAL TO DISCUSS THE CONTEXT OF RACIST RUNOFF ELECTIONS. DISTRICT TWO, FOUR, SIX, EIGHT WERE OPEN ELECTIONS. DISTRICT SIX WAS THE MOST CONTESTED OF THE DISTRICTS ELECTION. IT LED TO RUNOFF BETWEEN JEFF AND COUNCILOR ROGERS. JEFF LOOKS LIKE ME AND YOU GOOD SIR. I HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR COUNCILOR ROGERS, BUT HERE ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE RUNOFF ELECTIONS WAS RACIST? I RECOGNIZE AGAIN THIS IS NOT A Q&A. I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR ANSWER. THANK YOU, SIR. >> ADEO FOLLOWED BY LEONARDO. >> GOOD EVENING, ALBUQUERQUE CITY COUNCIL. I'M HERE TO OPPOSE ANTI- DEMOCRATIC MEASURES THAT WOULD MAKE OUR DEMOCRACY LESS SECURE. THIS STILL HAS TIME I THINK THE VOTERS CERTAINLY EVERYONE HERE HAS BEEN PRETTY CLEAR. MAYBE WE DON'T LIKE RANK OR INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THOSE. 40% IS JUST NOT GOING TO CUT IT FOR EVERYONE. WE NEED TO INCREASE OUR STANDARDS FOR OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. NOT DECREASE THEM. YOU ALL HAVE BEEN ELECTED WITH 50% PLUS ONE. I HOPE WE CAN ALL KEEP IT THAT WAY. THANK YOU. >> LEONARDO FOLLOWED BY MRS. WARD. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, POLICY ADVOCATE WITH THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW MEXICO. WE OPPOSE D1. LIKE YOU SAID THIS IS ABOUT PRESERVING DEMOCRACY AND GIVING PEOPLE A CHOICE TO MAKE THEIR VOICE HEARD AS THEY SAID 50% IS HOW YOU WIN AN ELECTION. IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THIS IS THE BASIS WHICH WE CREATED THE CONSTITUTION AND OUR ENTIRE ELECTORAL SYSTEM AND CREATING A SYSTEM IN WHICH NEW MEXICANS DON'T GET TO EXERCISE THEIR FULL DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS TO ELECT REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH MAJORITY IS A VIOLATION OF OUR BASIC DEMOCRACY AT ALBUQUERQUE. I URGE YOU TO STICK TO WHAT ALBUQUERQUE RESIDENTS HAVE ALREADY SAID THEY WANT. 50% OF VOTERS DON'T GO TO THE BALLOT. IT'S A DENSE BALLOT. BY ALL ACCOUNTS WITH MAKING PEOPLE RESTATE THEIR OPINION EVERY FEW YEARS. THE 50% THRESHOLD IS THERE FOR A REASON. IT'S THERE FOR A GOOD REASON. THANK YOU. >> MRS. WARD FOLLOWED BY MIGUEL. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, SOMETHING MORE DEMOCRATIC THAN COUNCILORS PUTTING AN ELECTIONS RELATED ITEM ON THE BALLOT IS THE PEOPLE PUTTING AN ELECTIONS RELATED ITEM ON THE GENERAL BALLOT. IF I RECALL CORRECTLY THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE NUMBER WAS CHANGED FROM 40% TO 50% HOWEVER MANY YEARS AGO IT WAS. STRIKE ONE, THERE. STRIKE TWO IS WHY THIS IS GOING ON A GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT SINCE IT'S A CITY MATTER RATHER THAN THE REGULAR LOCAL ELECTIONS BALLOT IN 2025 WHICH DEALS WITH CITY ISSUES? STRIKE TWO. STRIKE THREE IS THIS REALLY REEKS OF ONE OR MORE COUNCILORS FANCYING HIMSELF OR HERSELF AS MAYOR AND TRYING TO DO AS MUCH TO GAIN THE STAIM -- SYSTEM AS POSSIBLE TO GET THAT 40%. PLEASE VOTE NO. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, CITY COUNCIL, ON BEHALF OF THE 1,000 FIREFIGHTERS THAT WORK IN THE ALBUQUERQUE AREA AND 700 THAT WORK FOR THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. WE URGE YOU TO NOT LET THIS GO TO THE VOTERS. I SAY THIS ON BEHALF BECAUSE ALL OF US WERE ELECTED AND REPRESENT US BY AN ELECTION OF 50% PLUS ONE. THE SIMPLE MAJORITY. WE DID NOT SURVEY OUR MEMBERSHIP BECAUSE THAT'S WHY WE WERE ELECTED. WE DO NOT SURVEY THINGS. WE SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT 12 YEARS AGO FOR A SIMPLE REASON. THE SIMPLE MAJORITY REQUIRING 50% PLUS ONE IS THE BEST WAY TO ISOLATE A LABOR FRIENDLY CANDIDATE VERSUS A NON-LABOR FRIENDLY CANDIDATE. WE LEARNED THIS -- TO BECOME MAYOR AND ATTACK COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. AND PREVENTING FIREFIGHTERS FOR GETTING BENEFITS FOR EIGHT YEARS. THIS IS AN ATTACK ON THE WORKING PEOPLE OF ALBUQUERQUE. WE URGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST IT. THANK YOU. >> UP NEXT WE HAVE LINDA FOLLOWED BY JOEL. JOEL FOLLOWED BY LUIS. LUIS FOLLOWED BY AGUSTINE. AUGSTINE FOLLOWED BY CHARLES. CHARLES FOLLOWED BY MASON. MASON FOLLOWED BY PERRY ON ZOOM. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON PROPOSAL ONE. I'LL SAY THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOTHING TO BENEFIT THE PEOPLE, THE VOTERS OR THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN BE AMENDED IN OR OUT OF THE BILL THAT CAN DAMPEN THE HARMFUL EFFECT AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST REPRESENTED BY THIS PROPOSAL. THE ONLY THING SUCCEEDS IS MANIPULATING ECOLLECTIONS WHICH MEANS MANIPULATING VOTERS ALL FOR PERSONAL GAIN. I BELIEVE COUNCILOR BACA SAID IT IN THE LAST MEETING THAT USING DEMOCRACY TO TAKE AWAY THE RULING MAJORITY IS NOT DEMOCRACY. I DARE TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER TO SAY THIS PROPOSAL'S GOAL IS TO USURP DEMOCRACY. THE PEOPLE OF ALBUQUERQUE DO NOT WANT THIS TODAY, THEY DO NOT WANT IT IN 2013 WHEN THEY VOTED TO INCREASE THE THRESHOLD TO 50%. IF THE PEOPLE WANT A MINORITY CANDIDATE THEY WILL VOTE BY MAJORITY OF THE VOTE. PLEASE VOTE NO. >> HERALD FOLLOWED BY CARTER. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I THINK PROPOSAL ONE IS A MISTAKE, I AGREE WITH THE INTENTION TO IMPROVE LOW TURNOUT ELECTIONS. I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A BETTER SOLUTION RANK CHOICE VOTING. RESEARCH SHOWS THAT RCV DOES NOT INCREASE THE MISTAKES THAT RENDERS A BALLOT UNCOUNTABLE. RANK CHOICE BALLOTS RESULTED IN FEWER ERRORS THAN CHOOSE ONE BALLOTS. DESPITE THIS AT THE LAST MEETING COUNCILORS BARELY CONSIDERED RCV AND WERE TOLD THAT VOTERS WEREN'T READY FOR IT. THAT WAS SURPRISING TO HEAR THAT HE DOESN'T THINK ALBUQUERQUE VOTERS ARE UP FOR SANTA FE AND LAS CRUCES ARE. ARE WE LESS CAPABLE THAN THOSE IN BOULDER, MINNEAPOLIS, AND ARE USING RCV. I BELIEVE THERE'S INCREASING DESIRE BY VOTERS TO ADOPT THIS SYSTEM. NOT HEARING THE MERITS IS NOT THE WAY. -- WE MAY SERIOUSLY DEBATE THE MERITS OF ALL OF THE SOLUTIONS. THANK YOU. >> UP NEXT WE HAVE CARTER FOLLOWED BY DAVID. >> COUNCILOR LEWIS, COUNCILORS, THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. COUNCILOR LEWIS'S OP-EDALLEGES BECAUSE RACISTS IN THE SOUTH WANTED TO KEEP AFRICAN-AMERICANS FROM WINNINGS, THAT RUNOFFICE ARE INHERENTLY RACIST. OF COURSE THEY'RE NOT. IF A GROUP OF TERRIBLE RACISTS AND WANT MAJORITY RULE, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ALL DEMOCRACY RACIST. IF A COUNCILOR BELIEVES RUNOFFICE ARE RACIST WITH A 50% THRESHOLD IT'S NO LESS RACIST AT 40%. IF YOU BELIEVE THEY'RE RAY RACIST LET'S GET RID OF RUNOFF. TAKING AWAY THE MAJORITY'S VOTES TODAY MEANS SUPPRESSING MINORITY VOTES. THE OPPOSITE OF THE DEEP SOUTH. EVEN THE DEEP SOUTH HAS CHANGED. -- WON HIS LAST TWO RUNOFFICE FOR SENATE IN GEORGIA AND HOPE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS IN THE NEXT SEGMENT. THANK YOU. >> DAVID FOLLOWED BY MOLLY. DAVID, PLEASE ACCEPT PROMOTION TO PANELIST. >> MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I OPPOSE P1. I CAN'T FIGURE OUT THE GADGETRY. MY CAMERA SAYS IT'S WORKING. >> WE CAN HEAR YOU. PLEASE CONTINUE. >> LET ME JUST SHARE AN INSIGHT -- CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> WE CAN HEAR YOU. PLEASE CONTINUE. >> I WORKED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN JIM BACA WAS MAYOR. BACA WON WITH A PLURALITY OF THE VOTE. COMING IN WITH LESS THAN 50% OF THE VOTE BACA DID NOT HAVE A STRONG MANDATE. IF YOU WATCH THAT CLOSELY IN THE MEDIA, IF YOU GOD FORBID TRIED TO LOBBY IT WAS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR BACA TO GOVERN. I THINK 50% GIVES YOU LEGITIMATE. GOING WITH 40% MAKES IT DIFFICULT. BACA HAD A BUNCH OF DEMOCRATS IN THE COUNCIL. I THINK THE MAJORITY IS THE WAY TO GO. RANK CHOICE VOTING IS IT WAY TO GO. IT WORKS IN LAS CRUCES, IT WORKS IN SANTA FE, IT WORKS IN ALASKA AND MAINE AND 48 OTHER CITIES. WE CAN DO IT. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. >> UP NEXT WE HAVE MOLLY FOLLOWED BY JULIE. >> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT. I'M A RESIDENT IN DISTRICT NINE. I THINK IT'S TELLING THAT THE MAJORITY PEOPLE STAYING LATE ARE SPEAKING AGAINST PROPOSAL ONE. AND MANY OF YOU AREN'T LISTENING. VOTERS AREN'T ASKING FOR THIS CHANGE, YOU ARE. VOTERS DID NOT BRING THIS FORWARD YOU DID. THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE VOTERS THIS IS ABOUT YOU. IT'S ONLY BEEN 11 YEARS SINCE THE VOTERS RESOUNDINGLY PUT THE 50% THRESHOLD IN PLACE. YES THERE'S RUNOFFS SINCE. YOU CONTINUOUSLY INSULT VOTERS BY SAYING RANK CHOICE IS TOO CONFUSING. TO SAY PEOPLE AREN'T SMART ENOUGH IS INCREDIBLE. I WISH PEOPLE WOULD PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THEM. I KNOW YOU WANT SUPPORT FOR PROPOSAL ONE BECAUSE YOU'RE UNHAPPY WITH HOW THE COUNCIL IS FUNCTIONING. BUT YOUR SEAT IS TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE NOT YOURSELF OR THE INTERESTS. IF YOU THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEA FULL BEFORE A CHARTER REVIEW TASK FORCE AND PROVE IT. >> JULIE FOLLOWED BY JOHN. >> COUNCILOR LEWIS, ALBUQUERQUE CITY COUNCIL, RESIDENTS OF ALBUQUERQUE, I'M A RESIDENT OF CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO. A WEST SIDE COMMUNITY MEMBER AND PAT HURLEY AND NEIGHBORHOOD LEADER. I'M CONCERNED WITH THE COUNCIL DESIRE TO REDUCE THE PERCENTAGE OF VOTES NEEDED FOR CAPPED DETERMINES TO WIN AT 50% TO 40%. REQUIRING LESS THAN A MAJORITY VOTE IS UNDEMOCRATIC. WORSE THIS APPEARS TO BE RUSHED. TO -- FROM 50% TO 40% WILL BE IN PLACE BEFORE THE NEXT CITY ELECTION WITH LIMITED PUBLIC INPUT. I ASK THE COUNCIL TO HONOR THE MANDATE OF THE VOTERS WHO OVER A DECADE AGO CHANGED THE PERCENTAGE OF VOTES NEEDED FROM 40% TO 50%. COUNCILOR LEWIS, OUR VOTERS HAVE SPEAKEN ON THIS ISSUE. THERE'S NO NEED TO GO BACK IN TIME, RATHER LET'S FOCUS ON GREATER INCLUSION. >> JOHN FOLLOWED BY JANICE. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, I AM REPRESENTING MYSELF AND CONSERVATION VOTERS NEW MEXICO. I'M A PROUD RESIDENT OF CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR. WE'RE HERE ONCE AGAIN TO GIVE COMMENT IN OPPOSITION TO P-24-1 WE BELIEVE THE IDEA OF CHANGING THE ERECOLLECTIONS GOES AGAINST ALL OF THE PRINCIPLES THAT IS THE FOUNDATION OF OUR DEMOCRACY. ALBUQUERQUE VOTERS DECIDED OVER A DECADE AGO TO UPHOLD ELECTION STANDARDS WITH 50% THRESHOLDS. THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THESE SEATS DO NOT HAVE A PRIMARY ELECTION PROCESS. THE 50% THRESHOLD MAKE SURE THEY HAVE A MAJORITY OF VOTERS BEHIND THEM. THIS SYSTEM IS WORKING. AT A TIME WHEN VOTERS ARE WITNESSING ATTEMPTS TO WEAKEN DEMOCRACY, ALBUQUERQUE SHOULD LOOK AT WAYS TO STRENGTHEN IT. OTHER CITIES HAVE IMPLEMENTED AND REDUCED COSTS WITHOUT REDUCING REPRESENTATION. THIS IS A VERY SIMPLE, VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND SYSTEM THAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ARE USING WITH MUCH SUCCESS. WE URGE YOU TO VOTE DOWN P-24-1 AND SUPPORT A TASK FORCE. >> JANICE FOLLOWED BY JUSTIN. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> WE CAN HEAR YOU. PLEASE PROCEED. >> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT TWO. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. I THOUGHT I WAS SIGNED UP FOR GENERAL COMMENT. IF I CAN HAVE A MINUTE AT THE END OF THIS PLEASE LET ME KNOW. IF NOT I UNDERSTAND. PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT P-24-1 TO CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT OF THE CITY CHARTER TO REDUCE THE PERCENTAGE OF VOTE FROM 50% TO 40%. I'M A FAN OF RANK CHOICE VOTING AND TO INCREASE THE PARTICIPATION OF VOTERS IN THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT CITY COUNCIL RECENTLY VOTED AGAINST RCV MODEL AND HOPE IT WILL BE UP FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THAT NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE. IF WE ALLOW CANDIDATES THAT DON'T HAVE MAJORITY RULE, WE'LL UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR SYSTEM. MAJORITY RULE IS BASIC RULES OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE AND DEFINES THE WINNERS. THIS WILL CONTRIBUTE TO DIVISIVENESS IN OUR FRACTURED CLIMATE. THANK YOU. IS IT OKAY IF I TACK ON ONE MINUTE FOR GENERAL COMMENT? I DON'T KNOW WHY I DIDN'T SEE MY NAME GOT CALLED. >>COUN. LEWIS: WAS SHE ON THE LIST FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT? >> OKAY. >> UP NEXT, WE HAVE JUSTIN FOLLOWED BY MOLLY. >> GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING, COUNCILOR LEWIS, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO SWAY YOUR VOTE TONIGHT BECAUSE I KNOW YOU WERE SWAYED WITH PUBLIC COMMENT WITH NOTABLE EXCEPTION. WHERE IS THE SUPPORT FOR THIS PROPOSAL AND ALL OF THE PROPOSALS P-2 THROUGH P-4. IN THE MEETINGS WE SEE NEARLY EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT SPOKEN ON THIS IS OPPOSED TO THEM. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THESE ARE THINGS THAT ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE ASKING FOR. EVERY PART OF IT REEKS OF A POWER GRAB TO TRY TO GET THE COUNCIL MEMBERS MORE POWER THAT THEY CAN WIELD. YOU CAN PUT THEM ON THE BALLOT, I BELIEVE THEY WILL LOSE. AT THE END WE WILL WASTED TIME ON THIS. WITH ONE EXCEPTION THAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY AGREE WITH COUNCILOR LEWIS THAT RUNOFFS ARE BAD. I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THIS CONVERSATION AFTER NOVEMBER ABOUT RUNOFF RANK CHOICE VOTING. >> MOLLY FOLLOWED BY GERALD. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I'M ALBUQUERQUE VOTER AND RESIDENT IN COUNCILOR GROUT'S DISTRICT. I'M SPEAKING OUT IN OPPOSITION TO P-24-1. USING DEMOCRACY TO WEAKEN OUR DEMOCRACY IS JUST NOT WHAT DEMOCRACY IS ABOUT. AT THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING I SHARED CONCERNS ABOUT THE PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSAL ESPECIALLY SINCE PUBLIC COMMENT AND FEEDBACK PORTIONS FOR THE MEASURES OCCURRED LATE IN THE EVENING AT TIMES DIFFICULT FOR PARENTS LIKE MYSELF TO PARTICIPATE. I WAS PLEASED TO SEE A MEASURE FOR TASK FORCE TO EVALUATE THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS ON TODAY'S AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION THAT WOULD NOT ONLY HAVE A BROADEN STAKEHOLDER INPUT BUT ALSO A SEPARATE DEDICATED COMMENT PROCESS. I BELIEVE THAT PROCESS WOULD ALLOW FOR A MORE THOROUGH VETTING OF THE PROPOSALS BEFORE THEY'RE CONSIDERED FOR A VOTE BY THE COUNCIL. I URGE THE COUNCIL TO PAUSE CONSIDERATION OF THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND MOVE PAST FORWARD TO ALLOW FOR A THOROUGH PROCESS IDEALLY WITH PUBLIC COMMENT AT TIMES THAT OUR COMMUNITY CAN PARTICIPATE AND HELP INFORM NEXT STEPS. VOTE AGAINST P-24-1. >> JOE FOLLOWED BY MATT. >> GOOD EVENING COUNCILOR LEWIS, COUNCILORS. I, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HERE, I'M STRONGLY OPPOSED TO DECREASING THE PERCENTAGE OF VOTES REQUIRED FOR ELECTED OFFICE. WITHOUT A MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS OUR OFFICIALS HAVE LESS CREDIBILITY AND LESS EFFECTIVE. AND CITIZENS WILL HAVE LESS ASSURANCE THAT OFFICIALS FEEL RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS. INSTEAD I URGE YOU TO DIRECT YOUR EFFORTS TO FINDING WAYS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF VOTERS AND CITIZENS INPUT. AND SPEND LESS TIME ON LOOKING AT THESE MEASURES TO INCREASE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYORAL DECISION MAKING. THANK YOU. >> MATT FOLLOWED BY ROSEMARY. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, CITY COUNCILLORS, I'M PROUD TO WORK IN COUNCILOR ROGERS'S DISTRICT AND LIVE IN COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN'S DISTRICT. I'M HERE TONIGHT LIKE MANY TO VOICE MY STRONG OPPOSITION TO P1. AND AFFIRM ALSO AND TO AFFIRM SUPPORT FOR TRIBAL CONSULTATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. IN TERMS OF P1 AND P2 AND MANY OF THE OTHER PROBLEMATIC AMENDMENTS TONIGHT, I THINK SPENDING TIME AND RESOURCES TRYING TO REDUCE THE THRESHOLD FOR SECURING PUBLIC OFFICES IS SADLY INDICATIVE OF WHERE WE ARE AS A FRACTURED SOCIETY. WITH VOTING RIGHTS AND ACCESS BEING SUBVERTED BY POLITICIANS ACROSS THE COUNTRY I HOPE CITY COUNCIL IS COGNIZANT POWER IS FLEETING. I WOULD HOPE ANYONE IN A POSITION OF POWER RECOGNIZES THAT YOUR TIME IN A POSITION MAY BE LIMITED BUT THE GOOD THAT YOU CAN DO WHILE YOU'RE IN IT IS NOT. PLEASE DO NOT STIFLE THE PEOPLE'S VOICE AND PLEASE VOTE AGAINST P1 AND P2. THANK YOU. ROSEMARY. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I'M A RESIDENT AND VOTER IN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO. LIKE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS, I ALSO THOUGHT I SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC RESOLUTIONS. IF THAT'S NO LONGER POSSIBLE PLEASE CHANGE YOUR WEBSITE INFORMATION BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE IN THE PAST. IN ANY CASE, I URGE YOU TO DEFER OR REMOVE THE MANY RESOLUTIONS YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT TO SEND A LAUNDRY LIST OF ALBUQUERQUE CITY CHARTER AMENDMENTS TO VOTERS THIS NOVEMBER. THIS APPEARS TO BE A REACTIVE RESPONSE TO THE CONCERNS OF SOME COUNCILORS WITH THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH MAYOR KELLER AND HIS ADMINISTRATION. AND POSSIBLY YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PEOPLE WHO YOU SHOULD BE SERVING. THE FIRST AND WORST CHANGE IS P-24-1 WHICH WILL ALLOW PUBLICLY ELECTION OFFICIALS AND COUNCILORS ELECTED BY LESS THAN A MAJORITY VOTE. THIS IS UNDEMOCRATIC IN THE EXTREME. AT LEAST TAKE TIME TO LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS FOR AVOIDING EXPENSIVE RENOFFS RANK CHOICE VOTING AND INSTANT RUNOFF. ALLOWING A MINORITY OF VOTERS TO ELECT THE MAYOR OR YOURSELF IS AN UNDEMOCRATIC STEP BACKWARD. IT APPEARS I RAN OUT OF MY TIME. >> THANK YOU. YOU DID. OUR FINAL SPEAKER CILA. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NEW MEXICO OPEN ELECTIONS AND NM VOTERS FIRST. I URGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL. ELIMINATING THE MAJORITY RULE IS UNACCEPTABLE IN A DUCK -DMOCRACY DEMOCRACY. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT A PORTION OF THE CITY. IF THIS IS NOT A PRIORITY FOR REPRESENTATION WHAT IS THE POINT OF ELECTIONS. IF OUR VOICES DO NOT MATTER NEITHER SHOULD YOURS. MOST ELECTIONS ARE WON BY 50% OF THE VOTES. YOUR AMENDMENTS DON'T PASS WITHOUT MAJORITY COUNCIL SUPPORT. WHY SHOULD YOUR SEAT BE DIFFERENT? IT'S UNETHICAL YOU GET TO DECIDE HOW YOU'RE ELECTED. THE PEOPLE OF ALBUQUERQUE AND THIS COUNTRY WILL ALWAYS DEFEND DEMOCRACY. EVEN IF THIS PASSES TONIGHT IT WON'T AT THE BALLOT BECAUSE THE PEOPLE SPOKE IN 2013. I URGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST THIS UNDEMOCRATIC CHANGE AND SUPPORT RANK CHOICE VOTING. COUNCILOR LEWIS, I KNOW YOU SAID YOUR VOTERS AREN'T READY BUT I ASSURE YOU THE PEOPLE OF ALBUQUERQUE ARE MUCH MORE CAPABLE THAN YOU THINK. >> MR. PRESIDENT, TWO FOLKS THAT WEREN'T -- I DIDN'T FIND THEM IN ZOOM INCLUDE MARISOL AND TERRY. IN CASE THEY ARE IN THE AUDIENCE. IF NOT, THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC COMON P1. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'LL GIVE TIME IF THERE ARE -- WERE THEY ON ZOOM? >> THAT WAS PEOPLE ON ZOOM THAT I WASN'T ABLE TO FIND. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COUNCILORS, THIS IS P1. MOVED AND SECONDED. WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE SPEAKERS. WE'LL GO TO OUR DISCUSSION ON THE BILL. I BELIEVE THERE'S A COUPLE OF PROPOSED FLOOR AMENDMENTS. WE'LL GO TO THAT. WE'LL GO TO COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. PAGE TWO STARTING ON LINE 19 AMEND SECTION FOUR. EFFECTIVE DATE IMMEDIATELY, THE CHARTER AMENDMENT DESCRIBED PROPSSITION SHALL TAKE EFFECT JANUARY 1, CHANGE 2025 TO 2026. MOVE THAT AMENDMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR ROGERS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT? I WILL CLOSE DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: MR. PRESIDENT. IF I CAN CLOSE. WE SPOKE ABOUT THIS AT THE LAST MEETING. I WOULD POINT OUT THAT P2 AND P3 ALREADY HAVE A 2026 EFFECTIVE DATE. IT MAKES ME INCREDIBLY UNCOMFORTABLE TO HAVE THIS VOTE THAT THIS BODY WOULD TAKE EFFECT THE COUNCIL ELECTION THAT WOULD BE HAPPENING NEXT YEAR. I THINK IT'S PRETTY NORMAL TO HAVE THESE KINDS OF CHANGES AFFECTED IN THE FUTURE NOT IMMEDIATELY. I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THIS WOULD GIVE OUT OF THE FIVE FOLKS THAT WOULD BE UP FOR ELECTION IF WE DECIDE TO RUN, IT WOULD GIVE QUITE A FEW OF US AN ADVANTAGE. I WOULD PREFER TO WIN FAIR AND SQUARE. THIS IS JUST MAKING THIS PIECE ONE CONSISTENT WITH P2 AND P3 AND HAVE AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JANUARY 1, 2026. >>COUN. LEWIS: IF THIS WERE TO GO BEFORE THE VOTERS ON THIS NEXT ELECTION I THINK IT MAKES SENSE IT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT IN THE NEXT CITY ELECTION. OR NOT INTO EFFECT. WHATEVER THE VOTERS DECIDE. I TRUST THE VOTERS ON THAT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? QUESTIONS? BECAUSE I COMMENTED, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE, COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN? >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I GUESS I WILL. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE IDEA THAT SOMETHING THAT PASSES THE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE IN JANUARY IS VERY RUSHED. AND IT DOESN'T GIVE FOLKS A LOT OF TIME TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS. AGAIN, I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS CLEARLY PROVIDES AN ADVANTAGE TO SEVERAL PEOPLE INCLUDING ME ON THIS COUNCIL IF THIS GOES INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY 1, 2025. I DON'T THINK THAT IS A FAIR WAY OF RUNNING ELECTIONS IN THE CITY. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT OUT TO 2026 SO THERE'S A BUFFER BETWEEN OUR PERSONAL ACTIONS AND THE BENEFIT WE WOULD GET FROM IT. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. CLOSING DISCUSSION. GO TO MADAM CLERK. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: NO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO. >> PASSES ON A 6-3 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR PEÑA. >>COUN. PEÑA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THIS IS AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. THIS IS ON PAGE ONE, LINE 20 STRIKE 40% AND REPLACE WITH NO. ON PAGE LINE PROVIDE THE NUMBER OF VOTES EQUAL OR EXCEEDS 40% OF THE ON PAGE TWO LINE STRIKE NO CANDIDATE RECEIVES 50% REPLACE WITH TWO OR MORE CANDIDATES. TIE FOR THE MOST VOTES RECEIVED. ON PAGE TWO LINE FIVE STRIKE TWO CANDIDATES. AND ON PAGE TWO LINE FIVE CANDIDATES WHO SIDE WITH. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. THIS AMENDMENT MAKES IT SO THAT WHATEVER CANDIDATE RECEIVES THE MOST VOTES FOR OFFICE WINS. THIS AMENDMENT REMOVES THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF VOTES RECEIVED FOR A CANDIDATE TO BE ELECTED. IT CHANGES THE RUNOFF TO BE ONLY BETWEEN A TIE BETWEEN TWO OR MORE CANDIDATES. WE'RE GOING TO ADD A TIME FRAME TO THIS AMENDMENT. I DON'T SEE THAT ON HERE. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR PEÑA, I BELIEVE BECAUSE COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN'S AMENDMENT JUST PASSED THAT IS ACTUALLY -- >>COUN. PEÑA: THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. >> ALSO, ONE CLARIFYING FACTOR. WE DID FIND A TECHNICAL CLEAN UP. A FEW MORE WORDS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE STRUCK. ON NUMBER TWO. IT SHOULD ALSO STRIKE TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST FOR THE OFFICE. >>COUN. PEÑA: OKAY. WE CAN ADD THAT TO THE RECORD. >> SO THE FINAL SECTION WOULD READ THOSE PERSONS CANDIDATES FOR MAYOR OR COUNCILOR AND RECEIVE THE LARGEST NUMBER OF VOTES CAST FOR THE OFFICE IN QUESTION ARE ELECTED. >>COUN. PEÑA: OKAY. I MOVE FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. >>COUN. ROGERS: MR. PRESIDENT, POINT OF ORDER. CAN I ASK THE AMENDMENT BE PUT ON THE SCREEN FOR THE PUBLIC? CAN SOMEONE GET IT TO GARRET SO WE CAN GET IT ON THE PUBLIC SCREEN? THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: MR. MORROW, WOULD YOU REVIEW THE -- WHAT THIS AMENDMENT AND HOW IT CHANGES THE CURRENT PROPOSED BILL? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, WHAT WOULD IT DO THE CHANGE OF THE CHARTER WOULD BE TO ELIMINATE MINIMUM THRESHOLD NUMBER OF VOTES. IT WOULD SIMPLY MEAN THE CANDIDATE FOR ANY PARTICULAR OFFICE THAT RECEIVES THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES WOULD PREVAIL. THE ONLY CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH A RUNOFF ELECTION WOULD OCCUR IS IN THE EVENT OF A TIE. >>COUN. LEWIS: CLARIFY THIS AS REMOVING -- THERE'S NO 40%, THERE'S NO 50%. THIS IS MOST VOTES. >> CORRECT. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. CAN YOU REPEAT THE CHANGE TO THE CHANGE THAT YOU SAID THAT ISN'T ON THE PAPER THAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME? >> YES, COUNCILORS. THE AMENDMENT THAT IS BEFORE YOU INADVERTENTLY LEFT THE WORDS TOTAL OF VOTES CAST FOR THE OFFICE. IT'S SLIGHTLY DUEPLICATIVE OF WHAT'S BEFORE US. IT SAYS AS AMENDED AND BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE COUNCIL. IT SAYS THOSE CANDIDATES FOR MAYOR OR COUNCILORS AND RECEIVED THE LARGEST NUMBER OF VOTES ARE ELECTED. THE ONE BEFORE YOU SAYS, OFFICE IN QUESTION ARE ELECTED TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST FOR THE OFFICE. IT'S A MISTAKE IN THE PHRASE. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: I'M SORRY. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE'RE TALKING. ON THE AMENDMENT ON THE BOARD IN FRONT OF US, WHAT CHANGES UNDER THE CHANGE THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING. >> CERTAINLY, COUNCILOR, IT'S UNDER NUMBER TWO. NUMBER TWO CURRENTLY READS STRIKE PROVIDE THE NUMBER OF VOTES EQUALS OR EXCEEDS 40% OF THE AND WE'RE AMENDING IT TO ADD TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST FOR OFFICE SO ALL OF THAT IS STRUCK. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: IT'S CLEAR TO ME NOW, MR. PRESIDENT. I HOPE IT'S CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS, THIS IS FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCILOR PEÑA. >>COUN. PEÑA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WHAT THIS SAYS IS IT CREATES PLURALITY. I CAN'T SPEAK THIS EVENING. THIS -- ON THE BILL FOR THE 50%, THIS IS ONE THING THAT I TALKED ABOUT FOREVER. I ACTUALLY -- WHEN WE WERE DOING THIS I HAD REAL RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE RUNOFF. THE WAY WE RUN ELECTIONS IN ALBUQUERQUE IS SUPPOSED TO BE NON-PARTISAN. SOMEBODY SPOKE AND SAID THE GOVERNMENT DOES THE DEMOCRACY 50-PLUS ONE. THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE THE PRIMARIES AND THE GENERAL ELECTIONS. IN THE PRIMARIES AS MANY PEOPLE CAN RUN AS WANT TO RUN AND YOU ACTUALLY HAVE WHOEVER RUN, SO IF THERE'S SEVEN AND THE PERSON GETS 28% THAT'S THE PERSON THAT IS THE NOMINEE. IN ALBUQUERQUE WE HAVE A NON-PARTISAN RACE. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SERVING -- ON SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS WE'RE HAVING IT SEEMS WE'RE DELINEATED BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. I THINK THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING WHAT WE DO IN ALBUQUERQUE BECAUSE WE'RE ALL HERE TO SERVE ALL OF OUR ALBUQUERQUE, NOT JUST REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, WE'RE HERE TO SERVE ALL OF OURS. THE MAJORITY OF OUR REGISTERED VOTERS IN DISTRICT THREE ARE DEMOCRAT, BUT WHEN I'M ELECTED I'M HERE TO SERVE THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS. I BELIEVE WE NEED MORE OF THAT IN OUR NATION. OUR ELECTIONS ARE VERY DIFFERENT. IF THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN MAYBE WE NEED TO START HAVING PARTISAN RACES AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE AN ELECTION BECAUSE EVERYONE HERE KEEPS SAYING IT'S UNDEMOCRATIC. I KNOW COUNCILOR LEWIS WROTE AN EDITORIAL OF WHAT I DISCUSSED AT THEALIST COUNCIL MEETING WE HAD. IF YOU WILL INDULGE ME FOR A SECOND. I'M GOING TO READ IT AGAIN. I HAD A TERRIBLE MIGRAINE AND I KNOW MY AUDIO WASN'T COMING OUT VERY WELL. THERE'S ONLY 10 STATES THAT USE RUNOFF ELECTIONS. THOSE TEN STATES HAPPEN TO BE IN THE SOUTH. NOBODY'S CALLING ANYBODY RACIST, BUT IT'S ROOTED IN RACISM. THIS ISN'T ANYTHING THAT ANYBODY HERE ON COUNCIL MADE UP. THAT COUNCILOR LEWIS MADE UP OR I MADE UP. THERE'S AN ARTICLE IN 2024 ABOUT RUNOFF ELECTIONS. THIS IS FROM ROCK THE VOTE. IT SAYS SOME ELECTIONS A CANDIDATE MUST WIN PLURALITY IN MOST VOTES AND THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTES EARN MORE THAN 50%. THAT'S MOST ELECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. IN RACES WITH MULTIPLE CANDIDATES IT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE 50%. SO THEY CAME UP WITH THIS. THIS IS WHERE IT SAYS IT'S ROOTED IN RACISM. THE HISTORY BEHIND STATE LAWS ARE ROOTED IN ATTEMPTS TO RETAIN WHITE POLITICAL POWER. THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR DESCRIBES HOW GEORGIA'S RUNOFF LAW CREATED IN THE MIDST OF CIVIL RIGHT MOVEMENTS IN THE 1960s WAS AN ATTEMPT TO PROTECT WHITE POLITICAL POWER IN A WHITE MAJORITY STATE BY REQUIRING MAJORITY OF OVER 50%. THE FEAR WAS IN A MULTICANDIDATE RACE WHERE THE VOTES WERE SPLIT. THE BLACK CANDIDATE COULD WIN PLURALITY IF WHITE CANDIDATES RAN. WHITE FACTIONS COULD UNITE TO SUPPORT ONE CANDIDATE AND REDUCE THE CHANCES OF WINNING FOR ANY CANDIDATE FAVORED BY BLACK COMMUNITY OR COMMUNITIES IN THE SOUTH. THIS IS HISTORY, FOLKS. AND SO HERE IT SAYS ARE THERE ANY REASONS WHY RUNOFF RELECTIONS ARE PROBLEMATIC. FEWER VOTERS CAST BALLOTS IN GENERAL ELECTIONS AND MORE WHITE PROMOTED FOR OFFICES. SO VOTERS ARE MORE AWARE AND MOTIVATED TO TURN OUT IN A GENERAL ELECTION. THIS IS TRUE OF DISTRICT THREE. DISTRICT THREE AND I'M SURE OTHER DISTRICTS ARE MARGINALIZED DISTRICTS WHERE WE HAVE LOW VOTER TURNOUT TO BEGIN WITH. WHEN I FIRST RAN IN 2013, ALL THE COUNCILORS AND I SAID THIS LAST TIME, WE HAD SIMILAR POPULATIONS. THERE'S A DEVIATION OF LIKE 4 TO 5%. WE ALMOST HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF POPULATION. BUT WE GET FINANCED BASED ON NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS. AND MY DISTRICT AT THE TIME I THINK THERE WAS ONLY 28,000 REGISTERED VOTERS. AND INDISTRICT -- THERE WAS 55,000 VOTERS WITH THE POPULATION ALMOST THE SAME. WITH THAT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT WE'RE HAVING 20%, WHEN WE HAVE A MAYOR ELECTION AND YOU HAVE 20%, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RUNOFF THE RUNOFF VOTER TURNOUT IN DISTRICTS LIKE DISTRICT THREE DROPOFF EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANTLY. BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE ENGAGED TO RUN AND GO OUT AND VOTE THE FIRST TIME WHEN YOU'RE ASKING PEOPLE IN COMMUNITIES LIKE THE ONE I SERVE TO COME OUT AGAIN AND TAKE TIME AWAY AND TO GO OUT AND DO THEIR DUTY ONE MORE TIME AND THEN THE FACT THAT WE ALL JUST HAVE EMBEDDED IN US THIS DISTRUST OF GOVERNMENT. IT REALLY MAKES IT DIFFICULT. WHEN COUNCILOR LEWIS TALKED ABOUT THE 40% AGAIN, MANY OF THE COMMENTS PEOPLE MADE -- I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY THE ROUTE THAT WE NEED TO GO. IT'S REALLY WE HAVE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION. I DON'T KNOW THAT I AGREE WITH THE TASK FORCE EITHER. I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE A REAL DISCUSSION THAT WHEN WE HAVE RUNOFF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, WE'RE ONLY -- IN TEN CITIES THE SOUTH HAVE RUNOFF. IN ADDITION TO THE LACK OF REPRESENTATION ACHIEVED IN RUNOFF IT GOES TO THE COST. I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO THE COST. IT SAYS ELECTIONS ARE EXPENSIVE TO ADMINISTER. IT SAYS WHEN RUNOFF ELECTIONS ARE NOT NOT ONLY UNNECESSARY, BUT THEY ARE UNDEMOCRATIC BY DESIGN. YOU KNOW, I PUT THIS IN. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WILL PASS OR FAIL. I JUST THINK THAT WE REALLY NEED TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AND MAYBE AT THE END OF THE DAY WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS HAVE PRIMARIES AND REALLY DELINEATE BETWEEN REPUBLIC AND DEMOCRAT. BUT, I THINK HERE IN ALBUQUERQUE I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT WE HAVE A NON-PARTISAN RACE. I THINK I APPRECIATE WORKING ALONGSIDE THE COUNCILORS I DO. WE DON'T HAVE THAT. WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE. AND WE TRY TO WORK TOGETHER TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THE DISCUSSION WAS CLOSED. THAT WAS THE CLOSE. >>COUN. ROGERS: POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE, MR. PRESIDENT. I TAKE EXTREME OFFENSE TO USING OUR PLIGHT TO -- TO JUSTIFY -- THANK YOU, GUYS. HE'S GIVING A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE, I WANT TO KEEP DECORUM AND ORDER. I TAKE PERSONAL OFFENSE TO USING MY PEOPLE'S PLIGHT AND VOTER RIGHTS TO JUSIFY CHANGE. IF WE TAKE RACISM INTO ACCOUNT WE GET RID OF ALL THIS. JUST MAKE IT THE MAJORITY OF WHOEVER WINS THE MOST VOTES FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE, PERIOD. I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THESE RULES WHEN I STARTED TO RUN BECAUSE I'M AN AVERAGE CITIZEN LIKE THE PEOPLE SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE. I'M NOT A POLITICIAN. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT RACISM AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WE WOULD BE GETTING RID OF ALL OF THIS MUMBO JUMBO. I'M HERE FOR THE REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS OR INDEPENDENTS. THANK YOU FOR THE POINT OF PERSONAL PREFERENCE YOU CAPACITY MAKE MY PEOPLE'S PLIGHT EASIER FOR YOU TO WIN. >>COUN. LEWIS: ANY OTHER POINTS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. >>COUN. PEÑA: YOU MADE MY POINT, EXACTLY, COUNCILOR ROGERS. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES IS IT GETS RID OF THE 50 AND GETS RID OF THE 40 AND SAYS WHOEVER THE MAJORITY IS. >>COUN. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO TO THE VOTE. THIS IS AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES ON A 6-3 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: BACK ON THE BILL AS AMENDED. THIS IS P1 AS AMENDED. AND SO FINAL DISCUSSION ON THE BILL. COUNCILORS, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE BILL AS AMENDED? COUNCILOR BACA. >>COUN. BACA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WE'VE GOT HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE SPEAK ON THIS BILL. EITHER IN PERSON ON ZOOM OR EMAILS. IT'S NEARLY UNIVERSAL THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS. VOTERS ARE SPEAKING TO YOU RIGHT THOU. I SUSPECT THAT COME OCTOBER IF THIS PASSES THAT WILL BE THE OUTCOME OF THAT. WE'LL HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME, MONEY AND ENERGY FOR SOMETHING THAT'S FUNDAMENTALLY NOT DEMOCRATIC. I'M SORRY. IF YOU'RE USING VOTERS AND THE SYSTEM TO TAKE AWAY VOTERS SAY, THAT'S NOT DEMOCRACY. PERIOD. WITH THAT, THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. IN ADDITION TO WHAT COUNCILOR BACA SAID I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT WE HAVE HEARD NUMEROUS TIMES FROM NUMEROUS PEOPLE THAT WE REALLY LIKE TO SEE A TASK FORCE THAT LOOKS AT CHARTER REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED IN OUR CHARTER. I AGREE WITH THOSE PEOPLE THAT REACHED OUT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THERE IS PROPOSAL HERE TONIGHT THAT WOULD ALLOW THAT. AND SO, I WILL REMIND THIS BODY THERE'S A MECHANISM THAT WE CAN USE TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE CHARTER THAT DO NOT START HEARINGS AT 9:49 PM AND THE THIRD ONE AT 6:35 P.M. AND GIVING PEOPLE THREE MINUTES TOTAL FROM ALL THREE OF THOSE MEETINGS TO HAVE THEIR INPUT OF THIS ISSUE AND REALLY DO THINK A CHARTER TASK FORCE IS WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR AND IT'S WHAT WE SHOULD GIVE THE PEOPLE. >>COUN. LEWIS: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS. WE'RE ON P1 AS AMENDED. COUNCILOR PEÑA. >>COUN. PEÑA: MR. PRESIDENT, I JUST WANTED TO ASK THE STAFF AGAIN. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN'S AMENDMENT. THIS ACTUALLY DOESN'T OCCUR FOR THE NEXT MAYORAL ELECTION. THIS IS THE FOLLOWING MAYOR? >>COUN. LEWIS: I'LL LET THEM ANSWER THAT, COUNCILOR PEÑA. IT WOULD TAKE EFFECT AT THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL ELECTION AFTER 2025? >> IT WOULD BE AFTER 2025. CORRECT. IT WOULDN'T GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL JANUARY 2026. IT WOULD BE THE 2027 CITY COUNCIL. >>COUN. LEWIS: OTHER DISCUSSION. WE'LL CLOSE DISCUSSION. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES ON A 6-3 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCIL WILL TAKE 30-MINUTE BREAK. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE BACK. WE ARE IN FINAL ACTIONS. WE'RE GOING TO ITEM D. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO TO ITEM D. WE'RE GOING TO JUST -- THE R-BILLS THAT CORRELATE WITH THE P BILLS BECAUSE THEY'RE RELATED AND THERE'S SOME TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THOSE BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES TO THE PROPOSITION BILLS WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH ALL THE PROPOSITION BILLS FIRST. ONE THROUGH FOUR AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THE CORRELATING RESOLUTION BILLS IMMEDIATELY AFTER. THAT WILL BRING US TO ITEM C. THIS IS PROPOSITION TWO. COUNCILOR GROUT. >>COUN. GROUT: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. P2 IS ADOPTING A PROPOSITION TO BE SENT TO THE VOTERS AT THE 2024 GENERAL ELECTION. PROPOSING TO AMEND ARTICLE FIVE CHARTER REGARDING PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK. I MOVE A DO PASS. >>COUN. LEWIS: SECOND BY COUNCILOR BASSAN. THAT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. THIS IS P2. LET ME JUST -- AS I DID WITH THE FIRST ONE WITH P1. THERE IS JUST A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS BILL AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW AND THE CURRENT CHARTER THE WAY IT STANDS RIGHT NOW. CURRENTLY, IT HAS TO DO WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK. THE HIRING IS APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR AND CONFIRMED WITH TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE COUNCIL. THE PROPOSED AS AMENDED CHANGE THAT STANDS BEFORE US TONIGHT REGARDING HIRING IS A HIRING COMMITTEE TWO FROM THE MAYOR AND TWO FROM THE COUNCIL. IT PUTS THE COUNCIL INVOLVED IN THE HIRING PROCESS. FOR REMOVAL, CURRENTLY AS THE CHARTER READS, REMOVAL IS FOR CAUSE BY THE MAYOR PLUS SIX VOTES OF COUNCIL. WITH CAUSE DETERMINED BY THE INTERNAL AUDIT INVESTIGATIONS. AS PROPOSED BEFORE US TONIGHT, THAT CHANGE WOULD BE A FOR CAUSE BY THE MAYOR PLUS SIX VOTES OF THE COUNCIL WITH CAUSE DETERMINED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. THE ONLY CHANGE ON REMOVAL IS A DEFINITION OF THE CURRENT WAY THAT WE HAVE OUR -- THEIRS IS NO LONGER AN INTERNAL AUDIT. THIS IS REALLY A TECHNICALITY OF CHANGE AS FAR AS REMOVAL. TO DEFINING HOW THAT REMOVAL TAKES PLACE. THAT'S PROPOSITION NUMBER TWO. THAT'S THE CHANGE FROM CURRENT CHARTER TO WHAT'S BEFORE US TONIGHT. AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. COUNCILORS, ACTUALLY -- WE HAVE SPEAKERS. WE'LL GO TO THE SPEAKERS. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS LISA FOLLOWED BY DAVID. >> I APOLOGIZE I WAS A LITTLE UNPREPARED. I WAS -- THE -- I HAVE QUESTIONS. THE ALBUQUERQUE CITY CLERK IS THE CUSTODIAN -- I'M SORRY THANK YOU, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. IT SAYS ON THE WEBSITE THAT THEY CONDUCT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACCEPT BIDS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC ACCEPT SERVICE TO PROCESS SUMMONS AND SUBPOENA AND THEY DEAL WITH ALL THE REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC RECORDS THAT GOES TO THE CITY CLERK, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS. THEY WORK UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR BECAUSE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY IT'S BEING PROPOSED -- I JUST MAYBE MISSED IT. WHY IS IT BEING PROPOSED TO MOVE THEM FROM UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TO THE CITY COUNCIL? THAT MIGHT GO A WAYS -- I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S BEING SAID IN CITY COUNCIL OR IF I'M MISSING THEM OR IF THERE'S SUBCOMMITTEES. IT WOULD HELP TO GO A LONG WAY WITH IF THE PUBLIC KNEW WHY THE CHARGE -- CHANGES WERE BEING MADE. >> DAVID FOLLOWED BY DOROTHY. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS. I WAS THE CITY ATTORNEY OF FROM 1989 TO 1993. I ALSO CHAIRED THE 1998 CHARTER REVISION TASK FORCE. THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE CHARTER IS 50 YEARS OLD THIS YEAR. IT HAS AS ITS MAIN FEATURE A SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE BODY AND THE EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODY. THAT HAS BEEN THE CASE FOR 50 YEARS. P2 PUTS THE COUNCIL DEEPLY INTO THE HIRING AND FIRING PROCESS AS MR. PRESIDENT IT SETS THE COUNCIL INVOLVED IN THE HIRING PROCESS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY CLERK. AS A PERSON THAT HAD THE JOB FOR FOUR YEARS I WOULD NOT APPLY FOR THIS POSITION. THE HIRING APPEARS TO BE A GRUELLING AND POLITICAL POPULARITY CONTEST. AND IT RISKS WHAT THE LAWYER IS SUPPOSED TO DO WHICH IS PRIMARILY TO KNOW YOUR CLIENT AND KNOW WHO REPRESENTS THE CLIENT. THIS MIXES THAT. I THINK THE TIME IS NOW TO RELOOK AT THE CHARTER AND HAVE A TASK FORCE. I'LL SPEAK TO THAT ON THAT BILL. >>COUN. LEWIS: WOULD YOU MIND IF I ASKED YOU. WHO IS YOUR CLIENT WHEN YOU WERE THE CITY ATTORNEY? >> WHEN I WAS THE CITY ATTORNEY I WAS APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR AND CONFIRMED BY THE COUNCIL. THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE WAS HIGH CLIENT. I KNEW WHO THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE WAS BY WHO GAVE ME THE INSTRUCTION. IT WAS THE LAW OF THE CITY AS PASSED BY THIS COUNCIL AND AS INSTRUCTED BY THE MAYOR. WHICH MEANS THAT BOTH BODIES HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE THAT RESULT. >>COUN. LEWIS: IS CITY COUNCIL YOUR CLIENT? >> THE CITY COUNCIL SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING HAS ALWAYS HAD INDEPENDENT COUNCIL LIKE MR. MORROW. >>COUN. LEWIS: IF THAT COUNCILOR WORKED UNDER YOUR OFFICE? >> NO, INDEED. THEY ARE SEPARATE. THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ITS OWN COUNSEL, AND THE IMPORTANT THING AT LEAST IN MY EXPERIENCE WAS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL'S COUNSEL WORKED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ACHIEVE THE RESULTS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THE CLIENT, WHICH IS THE CORPORATE BODY CALLED THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. >>COUN. LEWIS: YOU DIDN'T SEE YOURSELF AS CITY COUNCIL BEING THE CLIENT? >> NO, SIR. THE CITY COUNCIL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE CITY COUNCIL WAS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE CITY. >>COUN. LEWIS: NOT YOUR CLIENT. WHAT ABOUT WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL IS SUED? IT'S NOT YOUR CLIENT? >> ABSOLUTELY. >>COUN. LEWIS: IT WAS YOUR CLIENT. >> BUT THE CITY COUNCIL WAS THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. IT'S THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. THERE'S NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THAT WHICH IS THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE WHICH IS THE CORPORATE BODY. IT'S MUCH LIKE A CORPORATION WITH WHICH WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR. YOU HAVE A BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT RUNS THE BUSINESS OF THE -- AND SETS THE GOALS AND HIRES AND FIRES THE CEO. BUT THE CEO ACTUALLY AS A PRACTICAL MATTER MAKES THE DAY TO DAY DECISIONS THAT WE HAVE IN THIS CHARTER. >>COUN. LEWIS: THERE'S LAWS PASSED BY THIS COUNCIL THAT ARE OFTENTIMES HAVING TO BE DEFENDED IN COURT. AS A CITY ATTORNEY, YOU WOULD DEFEND THOSE LAWS IN COURT, CORRECT? >> ABSOLUTELY. >>COUN. LEWIS: EVEN IF THE MAYOR DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE LAW OF THE LAND, THE LAW OF THE CITY ALBUQUERQUE, YOU WOULD STILL REPRESENT THAT LAW THAT WAS PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL? >> YES. THE CITY ATTORNEY'S JOB IS TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. >>COUN. LEWIS: IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW YOU REPRESENT THE MAYOR AND HOW YOU REPRESENT THE COUNCIL? >> MR. PRESIDENT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IT IS ONE CORPORATE ENTITY. IT IS THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. AND SPEAKS WITH ONE VOICE. AND THAT VOICE -- >>COUN. LEWIS: I THINK THAT DOES ANSWER IT. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT. I THINK THAT DESCRIBES IT. I THINK A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN PREVIOUSLY HOW YOU WERE DESCRIBING IT. YOU WOULD BE THE CITY ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE LAW OF THE CITY WHICH ARE ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND ALONG WITH THE MAYOR AND NO DISTINCTION REALLY BETWEEN WHETHER YOU WORK FOR THE MAYOR OR THE CITY COUNCIL, CORRECT? >> YEAH. I'M AFRAID WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THIS 30-SOME YEARS SINCE I'VE BEEN IN THIS IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE SEEN TWO VERY DIFFERENT ENTITIES AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER. THAT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT NEVERTHELESS THE ROLE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY IS TO REPRESENT THE CORPORATE ENTITY CALLED THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU. MR. MORROW, IF YOU WOULD EXPLAIN THAT TOO. DO YOU WORK INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES I ABSOLUTELY DO. WHEN YOU AS INDIVIDUAL COUNCILORS COME TO ME FOR LEGAL ADVICE, I DO SPEAK TO YOU DIRECTLY AND PRIVILEGE CONTEXT. I ALSO WORK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ON QUITE A NUMBER OF ISSUES. WE'RE IN FREQUENT COMMUNICATION. >>COUN. LEWIS: DOES THE CITY ATTORNEY, ACCORDING TO OUR SET UP, DOES THE CITY ATTORNEY HAVE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHETHER THEY REPRESENT THE MAYOR OR MORE REPRESENT THE COUNCIL? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THE CITY ATTORNEYS ORDINANCE DOES SAY THAT YOU REPRESENT -- PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE BOTH TO THE MAYOR AND TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO THE CITY ATTORNEY IS THE COUNCIL'S CITY ATTORNEY, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANKS. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DOROTHY FOLLOWED BY MELANY. MELANY FOLLOWED BY LEONARDO. LEONARDO FOLLOWED BY LINDA. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT. COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M HERE -- HERE TO OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT. AS WELL, NATION WIDE WE'VE SEEN REALLY HORRIFIC ASSAULT ON CITY CLERKS, CITY ATTORNEYS, THE BUREAUCRATS, THE OFFICIALS THAT MAKE OUR CITY GOVERNMENT OR CITY GOVERNMENT POSSIBLE. THE PARTISAN ATTACKS HAVE DRIVEN AWAY PUBLIC SERVANTS FROM THIS WORK. AND ANY TO THE CHANGES THAT EXPOSES THEM TO PARTISAN ATTACKS WILL JUST MAKE IT HARDER FOR THE CITY TO RECRUIT AS THE SPEAKER JUST SAID. TO RECRUIT THE HIGHEST QUALITY ATTORNEYS AND EMPLOYEES THAT THE CITY DESERVES. THIS IS TRULY A CHALLENGE THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE, IT SHOULD BE MADE THROUGH TASK FORCE. AND FOR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE INVOLVED. NOT TO FORCE THE PEOPLE TO LEARN ABOUT THIS AND VOTE ABOUT THIS IN A FEW WEEKS TIME. THANK YOU. >> LINDA STAR. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS, AND PRESIDENT. I AM AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL OF -- AND I FEEL LIKE IT IS A POWER PLAY TO GET BACK AT THE MAYOR AND BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE MAYOR IS DOING THINGS. AND I THINK IT'S ADDING TO THE BUREAUCRACY. I THINK IT IS NOT FOR THE CITY TO -- IT'S NOT THE CITY COUNCIL'S RESPONSIBILITY. THANK YOU. >> MR. PRESIDENT, MARISOL IS NOT IN ZOOM. THAT CONCLUDES COMMENT ON P2. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY, COUNCILORS, WE'RE ON THE BILL. THIS IS P2. I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS. WE'LL OPEN THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION. >>COUN. GROUT: MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO MOVE A FLOOR AMENDMENT. I WORKED WITH ADMINISTRATION THIS LAST WEEK THEY SENT EMAILS OF THINGS THEY LIKE TO COMPROMISE ON. I WORKED DIRECTLY WITH OUR CAO. AND WE CAME UP WITH FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. I CAN READ THE WHOLE THING IF YOU WOULD LIKE. WE CAN PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN. OVERALL, WE WOULD BE CHANGING THE COMMITTEE FROM WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW TO HAVING THE CAO AND THE DIRECTOR OF COUNCIL SERVICES ON THE COMMITTEE AND THEY WOULD IN TURN PICK SOMEONE FROM -- A THIRD MEMBER THAT HAS BACKGROUND IN HUMAN RESOURCES OR BE AN ATTORNEY WITH RELEVANT EXPERIENCE. ON LINE TWO, LINE 13 WE'RE GOING TO STRIKE THE MAYOR WITH THE COMMITTEE APPROVAL AND REPLACE WITH THE COMMITTEE SHALL SEND A LIST CONSISTING OF AT LEAST THREE CANDIDATES TO THE MAYOR WHO, ON PAGE TWO LINE 20, AFTER REELECTION INSERT IN THE EVENT OF A VACANCY, CHANGE ON LINE 20 ON PAGE TWO AS WELL CHANGE IT FROM 90 DAYS TO 180 DAYS. ON LINE 22, INSERT A SECTION, IF A VACANCY OCCURS THE MAYOR MAY APPOINT AN INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY FOR UP TO 180 DAYS. ANY EXTENSION FOR -- ANY REQUEST FOR EXTINATION BEYOND 180 DAYS MUST BE SUBMITTED AS EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION AND APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL. THE CITY ATTORNEY MAY ONLY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BY THE MAYOR WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COUNCIL. PAGE THREE LINE FOUR, STRIKE TWO MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS AND REPLACE WITH A CAO, DIRECTOR OF COUNCIL SERVICES AND INDEPENDENT THIRD MEMBER. THIS IS ACTUALLY A MIRROR FOR WHAT WE ARE PUTTING FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. THIS GOES DOWN AND REPLACES EVERYTHING FOR THE CITY CLERK. THE EXPLANATION, AND IT'S EXACTS -- EXACTLY THE SAME WORDING. THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO CREATE A HIRING ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK COMPOSE ODED OF REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE COUNCIL SERVICES, AND ADMINISTRATION, AND INDEPENDENT REPRESENTATIVE. THIS IS FOR THE CONFIRMATION AND REMOVAL. AND ESTABLISHES THE TIME FRAME FOR THE INTERIM. I'D LIKE TO OFFER THAT AS AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. >>COUN. LEWIS: AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE THAT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR BASSAN. COUNCILORS, ANY QUESTION ON AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE? I ASK THE CAO TO -- YOU WORKED ON THIS WITH COUNCILOR GROUT, DOES THAT MEAN IF WE PASS THIS AMENDMENT TONIGHT WITH -- WOULD THE ADMINISTRATION SPEAK OUT IN FAVOR OF THE PUBLIC VOTING ON THIS IN THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER? >> MR. PRESIDENT, A FEW ITEMS -- I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. THIS CURRENT AMENDMENT INCLUDES LANGUAGE STILL THAT AS YOU KNOW FROM MY COMMUNICATION WITH ALL OF YOU, WE CAN'T SUPPORT THAT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE MAYOR TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO TERMINATE BASED ON CAUSE. THE -- WE COMMUNICATED THAT EARLIER TODAY TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR. THE ITEMS EARLIER IN THIS AMENDMENT WE DID WORK TOGETHER TO ENSURE WE IMPROVED THE LANGUAGE SO THAT RELATED TO THE HIRING PROCESS IN RECOGNITION OF THE DISCUSSION THAT IS OCCURRED ABOUT THE ENTERPRISE AND ENSURING THE POSITION DO HAVE SOME CONCURRENCE WITH THE COUNCIL. WE HAVE GREAT CONCERN ABOUT THE SITUATION IN WHICH THE MAYOR DOES NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO -- MAYOR OR ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO REMOVE THE CITY ATTORNEY OR CITY CLERK FROM THEIR POSITION WITHOUT THE ACT OF THE COUNCIL AS WELL. THIS HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT WE HAVE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK THAT IS WORKING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO UPHOLD THOSE ITEMS WITHIN THE CHARTERS AS STATED. AND FOR US TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACT WHEN WE NEED TO. RELATED TO REMOVAL. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. IF THIS AMENDMENT WERE TO PASS TONIGHT, I THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOME OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT POSSIBLY COULD GIVE THE MAYOR THE ABILITY TO HAVE A SEPARATE AMOUNT OF POWERS TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE THE CLERK OR THE ATTORNEY AS WELL. IF WE WERE TO PASS THAT TONIGHT, ALONG WITH THIS, WOULD THAT BE A BALLOT PROPOSAL THAT THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD SUPPORT IN NOVEMBER? >> MR. PRESIDENT, I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS WHEN WE KNOW WHAT HAS PASSED AND WHAT IT IS. I HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR IN OUR COMMUNICATION THAT WE BELIEVE THE CHARTER AMENDMENT TASK FORCE IS THE RIGHT WAY FOR US TO DO. THERE'S SO MANY THINGS AND OPPORTUNITIES WE HAVE TO IMPROVE ON THE CHARTER. I THINK MR. CAMPBELL SPOKE WELL TO THE FACT THERE ARE MANY THINGS WE CAN CAN ADDRESS THROUGH THE CHARTER AMENDMENT COMMITTEE AND REVIEW COMMITTEE. I BELIEVE THAT IS OUR NUMBER ONE STATEMENT ON ALL OF THIS IS THAT WE WOULD BE BETTER SERVED THAT WAY. >>COUN. LEWIS: AGAIN, THAT'S ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. COULD VERY WELL PASS THAT AS WELL AT SOME POINT OR EVEN TONIGHT. YOU UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT WE'RE NEGOTIATING IN GOOD FAITH, YOU KNOW, BY EVEN JUST ASKING IF EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR ON THIS -- IF YOU WOULD STILL BE IN FAVOR OF IT AND YOU CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. YOU UNDERSTAND WHY IT WOULD BE -- IT WOULD NOT BE RECEIVED AS BEING ABLE TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO TAKE. COUNCILORS, OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT TO P2. COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. I GET PROBABLY AT LEAST ONCE A DAY SOMEONE REACHES OUT THAT THEY'RE VERY UPSET ABOUT A CITY EMPLOYEE AND THEY WANT THEM REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. MY ANSWER HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT IS NOT THE CITY COUNCIL'S PURVIEW. OUR JOB IS LAND USE PLANNING ZONING, AND BUDGET APPROPRIATION. WE DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN HR MATTERS. HAVE I BEEN TELLING PEOPLE SOMETHING THAT WAS INCORRECT? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. BY ORDINANCE THE COUNCIL IS TO NOT GET INVOLVED IN PERSONNEL MATTERS. THAT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE COUNCIL. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THIS AMENDMENT SEEMS TO BE GETTING US REALLY INVOLVED IN PERSONNEL MATTERS. I HAVE NOT HAD THE UNHAPPY SITUATION OF HAVING SOMEONE WANT EITHER YOU OR MR. CLERK REMOVED BUT THIS WOULD GIVE CITY COUNCIL PURVIEW OVER HR MATTERS -- AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? >> COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN, I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE THE AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF ME ANYMORE. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: WOW. >> THE PREVIOUS VERSION, THE VERSION POSTED ON MIRRORED THE PRIOR CHARTER PROVISION TO CORRECT INSPECTOR GENERAL INSTEAD OF OFFICE OF AUDIT OR WHATEVER IT WAS PREVIOUSLY. I HAVE NOT REVIEWED THIS. I DON'T KNOW WHICH PROVISION. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: IT DOES SEEM TO ME TO BE SAYING THAT REMOVAL FOR THOSE TWO POSITIONS REQUIRES A VOTE OF CITY COUNCIL. >> CORRECT. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IS TRUE IN THE CURRENT CHARTER. THE REMOVAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK REQUIRES THE VOTE OF CITY COUNCIL, TWO-THIRDS VOTE. THAT'S NOT A CHANGE. THE ONLY CHANGE IS REMOVING THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FROM THE EQUATION. IT SAYS -- >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: CURRENTLY, THE MAYOR CAN'T FIRE YOU WITHOUT COMING TO THE CITY COUNCIL? >> CORRECT. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: HOW IS WHAT IS BEFORE US IN THIS AMENDMENT WHICH I JUST SAW NOW DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S IN THE CHARTER NOW? >> IN THE CURRENT CHARTER, YOU NEED DETERMINATION OF CAUSE TO BE MADE BY THE OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT AUDIT OR WHATEVER IT WAS CALLED BEFORE. THERE'S ACTUALLY ALMOST A THREE-STEP PROCESS TO TERMINATE THE CITY CLERK OR THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT THE MAYOR HAS TO BE INITIATED AND TERMINATION FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND VOTE BY TWO-THIRDS. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: DOCTOR SENGEL YOU SAID YOU CAN'T SUPPORT THE REMOVAL LANGUAGE. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY? >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN, THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT WE HAVE CHANGED THE SELECTION PROCESS ON THE FRONT SIDE. ON THE FRONT END OF THE CURRENT PROCESS, WE USE AN OPENED AND COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR THE ATTORNEY AND THE CITY CLERK. THE COMPROMISE THAT WE MADE WAS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TODAY AS WRITTEN STATES IT WOULD BE A COMMITTEE OF TWO PEOPLE FROM CITY COUNCIL AND TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE. SO A COMMITTEE OF FOUR THAT WOULD RECOMMEND OR NOMINATE CANDIDATES TO BE SENT TO THE MAYOR. AND THE MAYOR WOULD BRING THAT TO THE COUNCIL FOR CONFIRMATION. THIS RESOLUTION NOW HAS A COMMITTEE -- NOMINATING COMMITTEE AT THE BEGINNING WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN THE CURRENT CHARTER WHICH THE CHARTER SAYS IT'S AN OPEN SEARCH PROCESS COMPETITIVE TO HIRING PROCESS WITH THE MAYOR'S SELECTION. WE'VE INSERTED THE COUNCIL IN THE NOMINATING PROCESS AT THE BEGINNING. SO WHAT WE ARE COMPROMISING WITH THE INTENT TO SAY THAT THEN ON THE REMOVAL LANGUAGE THEN THE MAYOR WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE FOR CAUSE AND THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE RIGHT WITH TWO-THIRD VOTE. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. SO THE CONCERN IS, AGAIN, JUST SEEING THIS NOW, UNDER THE PROPOSAL THAT'S BEFORE US NOW ON THE SCREEN, THIS BODY WOULD HAVE A SAY IN CHOOSING A CITY ATTORNEY AND IN CHOOSING THE CITY CLERK AND WE WOULD AGAIN HAVE A SAY IN REMOVING THE CITY ATTORNEY OR CITY CLERK? I PERSONALLY PREFER THE ORIGINAL VERSION WHERE WE'RE NOT INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS OF CHOOSING SOMEONE TO THE ADMINISTRATION. THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION. >>COUN. LEWIS: POINT OF CLARIFICATION. THE CURRENT CHARTER AS WELL AS THE CURRENT PROPOSED BILL THAT'S BEFORE US RIGHT NOW DOES NOT MAKE ANY CHANGE TO THE REMOVAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY OR THE CITY CLERK. OTHER THAN DEFINING THE NEW OFFICE. AND NEITHER DOES THE AMENDMENT, I BELIEVE, THAT'S BEING PROPOSED RIGHT NOW. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. MORROW? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THE AMENDMENT DOES CHANGE THE DISMISSAL PROCEDURE TO REMOVE FOR CAUSE AND PARTICIPATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. THAT PIECE IS REMOVED ON THE AMENDMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS REQUESTED IS THAT -- THERE'S NO INDEPENDENT ABILITY FOR THE MAYOR TO REMOVE THE CLERK OR CITY ATTORNEY RIGHT NOW OR IN THIS AMENDMENT. BUT THE ADMINISTRATION IS REQUESTING THAT. I'M NOT SURE IF IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OPINION ON THAT, PROBABLY. I WOULDN'T EVEN ASK YOU BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. >> I AGREE IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO ANSWER THAT. >>COUN. LEWIS: I THINK IT'S BORDERLINE APPROPRIATE OR NOT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS PROPOSITION. AGAIN, FOR CLARITY, THE PROPOSITION MAKES NO CHANGE TO THE FIRING OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIC TECHNICAL LANGUAGE OF THE ORIGINAL PROPOSITION. THE AMENDMENT MAKES A SLIGHT CHANGE. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THE ORIGINAL AS PROPOSED DOES MAKE A CHANGE TO CLEAN UP THERE'S NO OFFICE OF INTERNAL AUDIT INVESTIGATION, THE AMENDMENT REMOVES THE FOR CAUSE REQUIREMENT BUT KEEPS IT NEEDS THE MAYOR PLUS TWO-THIRDS OF COUNCIL TO REMOVE THE CITY CLERK AND CITY ATTORNEY. >>COUN. LEWIS: GOTCHA. COUNCILOR GROUT. >>COUN. GROUT: COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN, THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN IN YOUR iPAD ALL AFTERNOON, JUST SO YOU KNOW. >>COUN. GROUT: THANK YOU. I HAVE A JOB. >>COUN. GROUT: I KNOW YOU DO. >>COUN. LEWIS: FOR CLARIFICATION, THE AMENDMENT CHANGES THE CURRENT PROPOSED FROM TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE COUNCIL, TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE MAYOR AND PUTS THAT IN THE HANDS OF THE CAO AND DIRECTOR OF COUNCIL SERVICES. >> CORRECT. AND THOSE TWO SELECT A THIRD MEMBER WITH A LEGAL OR HR BACKGROUND. >>COUN. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. COUNCILORS, OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTION ON THE AMENDMENT? THIS IS AMENDMENT ONE TO P2. COUNCILOR GROUT TO CLOSE. >>COUN. GROUT: IN THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE, I HOPE THAT YOU WILL PASS THIS. THANK YOU. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: NO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO. >> IT FAILS ON A 2-7 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: WHAT WAS THE VOTE COUNT? >> I HAD TWO INDIVIDUALS FOR IT, AND SEVEN AGAINST. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: I WANT TO SUBMIT FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. TO 24-2. AND THIS AMENDMENT BEGINS -- I CAN READ ALL OF IT. BEGINNING ON PAGE TWO LINE FOUR STRIKE ARTICLE FIVE SECTION 4E1 AND TWO AND INSERT THE FOLLOWING. THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL BE SELECTED AND APPOINTED THROUGH AN OPEN AND COMPETITIVE HIRING PROSCONDUCTED BY IT MAYOR WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE TWO-THIRDS OF THE ENTIRE COUNCIL. THIS WORKS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND PART TWO CITY ATTORNEY APPOINTMENT SHALL BE A TERM THAT COINCIDES WITH THE TERMS -- I'M SORRY -- COINCIDES AND TERM NATDS WITH THE TERM OF THE MAYOR UNLESS REMOVED PROVIDED HEREIN. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TERM OF THE MAYOR AFTER REELECTION THE MAYOR SHALL HAVE 90 DAYS TO REAPPOINT THE POSITION OF CITY ATTORNEY. THIS MIRRORS FOR CITY CLERK BEGINNING ON PAGE THREE LINE ONE, STRIKE ARTICLE FOUR -- I'M SORRY, FIVE, SECTION 4F1 AND 2. INSERT THE SAME VERBIAGE AS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR BASSAN. I THINK THIS IS GOING TO NEED SOME -- >>COUN. CHAMPINE: THE EXPLANATION IS TO KEEP THE EXISTING APPOINTMENT PROCEDURES THAT EXIST IN THE CHARTER TODAY IN WHICH THE MAYOR APPOINTS THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF SIX COUNCILORS. ELIMINATING THE PROPOSAL UTILIZING A HIRING COMMITTEE -- ELIMINATES THE PROPOSAL FOR THE HIRING COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK IT REQUIRES THE MAYOR TO MAKE THIS 90 DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION. AS IT EXISTS IN THE CHARTER AND CITY CLERK AND CITY ATTORNEY WOULD COINCIDE WITH THE MAYOR UNLESS REMOVED. >>COUN. LEWIS: I GOOD GUESS MY QUESTION -- MY QUESTION WOULD BE IT MAKES NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT CHARTER. WHAT WOULD BE THE CHANGE TO THE CURRENT CHARTER WITH THIS AMENDMENT? >> CERTAINLY, COUNCIL CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I MAY RELY ON MS. RONQUILLO. IT ADDS THE 90-DAY REQUIREMENT TO APPOINT A CITY ATTORNEY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MAYOR'S TERM. IT ALSO INCLUDES THE TERM COINCIDES AND TERMINATES WITH THE TERM OF THE MAYOR AND MAKES THE APPOINTMENT. IT CLARIFIES THAT LANGUAGE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE REAPPOINTED. AND THAT'S WHERE IT ENDS. >>COUN. LEWIS: THE REAPPOINTMENT AT THE END OF THE TERM OF THE MAYOR NEEDED TO BE REAPPOINTED BEFORE THE COUNCIL. OTHER THAN THAT I DON'T SEE A CHANGE TO THE CHARTER WHICH IN A SENSE WOULD BE NO REAL NEED FOR THE BALLOT PROPOSITION. I WOULDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE PUTTING THIS ON THE BALLOT. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: PERSONAL POINT OF ORDER. I WORKED WITH MS. RONQUILLO ON THIS. I THINK SHE CAN EXPLAIN IT BETTER. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, MR. MORROW'S SUMMARY WAS ACCURATE AS WELL AS COUNCILOR CHAMPINE'S REGARDING WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES. IT WOULD IN LARGE PART GO BACK TO THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER WITH RESPECT TO THE APPOINTMENT PROCEDURES IN WHICH THE MAYOR APPOINTS A CITY ATTORNEY AND THE ITSECLERK WITH THE ADVICE OF THE SIX COUNCILORS. THE TERMS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CLERK WOULD REMAIN AS THEY ARE TODAY AND THEY WOULD COINCIDE WITH THE TERM OF THE MAYOR UNLESS THEY'RE REMOVED. THIS ELIMINATES THE PROVISION TO UTILIZE HIRING COMMITTEE. AND ADD THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO MAKE THIS WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE MAYOR'S ELECTION. >>COUN. BASSAN: IN ADDITION TO WHAT EVERYONE SAID, YES, THIS AMENDMENT PUTS THINGS BACK TO THE WAY THEY ARE IN THE CITY CHARTER WHICH I REALIZE SEEMS TO NEGATE WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE BALLOT PROPOSAL, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MEDICAL EXAM AMENDMENT THAT COUNCILOR CHAMPINE AND I ARE GOING TO BE MOVING IT CHANGES THE TERMINATION STANDPOINT WHICH NEEDS TO GO ON THE BALLOT AS PART OF THE BALLOT PROPOSAL. I THINK YES, THIS IS SEPARATE BECAUSE IT'S GOING BACK TO THE WAY IT IS FOR THE HIRING PROCESS BECAUSE I KNOW IN OUR DISCUSSIONS AND WHAT I FEEL, YES, I BELIEVE THE EXECUTIVE OF THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE SHOULD BE THE ONE TO INTERVIEW AND SELECT AND HIRE AND THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE ABLE TO AGREE AND APPOINT THROUGH TWO-THIRDS OF THE MAJORITY. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO TERMINATION THAT'S ANOTHER STORY AND ON A SEPARATE AMENDMENT. I LOOK FORWARD TO DISCUSSING THAT. WE DIDN'T WANT TO PUT THAT TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY'RE SEPARATE ALTHOUGH ON THE SAME PROPOSAL. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE. I WOULD SUPPORT THIS IF THE SPONSORS WERE WILLING TO EITHER USE THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE CURRENT PROPOSED P2 OR I WOULD ALSO SUPPORT THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS USED IN COUNCILOR GROUT'S AMENDMENT DESIGNATING THE DIRECTOR OF COUNCIL SERVICES AND THE CAO. I OFFER THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. IF THE SPONSORS WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I'M NOT OPEN TO THAT. I THINK I'M NOT. I'M WILLING TO TAKE MY NAME OFF AS A SPONSOR OF THE AMENDMENT IF COUNCILOR CHAMPINE WANTS TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD. I THINK WHAT WE HAVE FOR FINDING A CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK SHOULD FALL UPON THE EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE MORE CONTROL AND AUTHORITY AND OPINION WHEN IT COMES TO THE POTENTIAL TERMINATION OF ANY OF THESE ROLES. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT? AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. TO P2. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: MR. PRESIDENT, I APPRECIATE THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. AGAIN, I COULDN'T SUPPORT THAT. I THINK THAT OUR MAYOR IS ELECTED TO RUN THE CITY. AND HE'S BASICALLY -- IT'S BEEN SAID HE BUILDS HIS CABINET TO HELP HIM RUN THE CITY AS HE SEES. I THINK THIS FALLS ON THE DUTY OF THE COUNCIL THAT WHEN HE APPOINTS SOMEBODY OR PREN PRESENTS OR SUGGESTS SOMEBODY TO US ITS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO VET THAT PERSON PROPERLY. IF SOMEONE IS PRESENTED TO BE THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT AS THIS COUNCIL WE ASK QUESTIONS AND DO BACKGROUND AND WE DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND EITHER APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE, IF WE DISAPPROVE IT SAYS THE MAYOR HAS TO COME WITH SOMEBODY ELSE. I BELIEVE THIS SETS UP A GOOD CHECKS AND BALANCES AND STILL GIVES US THE CITY COUNCIL A SAY IN WHO THAT PERSON IS AS IN THE FORM OF A CHECKS AND BALANCES. IT ALLOWS THE MAYOR TO DO WHAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO DO. IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEPARATE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE EITHER CURRENT COUNCILORS OR CURRENT MAYORS OR CURRENT ATTORNEYS OR CLERKS TO REMEMBER IT'S ABOUT THE POSITION NOT THE PERSON WHEN YOU'RE MAKING THIS DECISION. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS. >>COUN. LEWIS: AMENDMENT TWO TO P2. MADAM CLERK. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO. >> PASSES ON AN 8-1 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'LL GO TO AMENDMENTS. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: I HAVE A SECOND AMENDMENT. THIS IS AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE. AND TO THE PROPOSAL IT BEGINS ON PAGE TWO LINE 22, STRIKE ARTICLE FIVE SECTION 4E3 AND INSERT THE FOLLOWING. THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL BE -- HAVE AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY SPECIFYING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE EMPLOYMENT INCLUDING PROVISION OF MRUR EARLY TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT. THE MAYOR MAY -- THE COUNCIL MAY TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT WITH NOTICE TO THE MAYOR AND CITY ATTORNEY BY AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS PLUS ONE OF THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNCIL. THIS IS MIRROR FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK. CITY CLERK IS BEGINNING ON PAGE THREE LINE 15 ARTICLE FIVE SECTION 4F3. BASICALLY THE EXPLANATION OF THIS AGAIN AS WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE IS THE CITY CLERK AND ATTORNEY HAVE AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND I BELIEVE THIS IS WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT LET THE MAYOR DO HIS JOB WHEN HE'S ELECTED TO FIELD HIS CABINET BUT AT THE SAME TIME YOU NEED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF CHECKS AND BALANCES. IT ALLOWS FOR THE PERSON WHO IS THERE TO BE LOYAL TO BOTH SIDES. IT COMES TO QUESTION WHO THEY REPRESENT, IF THE MAYOR HAS THE ABILITY TO TERMINATE, SO SHALL THE COUNCIL IF IT DEEMS NECESSARY. I THINK BY THE MAYOR'S VOTE PLUS FIVE IS GOOD. WITH THE COUNCIL YOU NEED TO CONVINCE SIX OTHER COUNCILORS IF YOU DON'T AGREE OR DON'T IF HE WILL THE PERSON IS DOING THEIR JOB. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT'S AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE. MOVED AND SECONDED. COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. COUNCILOR CHAMPINE DID A GREAT JOB OF MAKING SURE THERE'S ALSO THE DESCRIPTION OF THAT. WE DID NOT FULLY AGREE ON THIS AMENDMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. THAT WOULD BE TO STRIKE WITH AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL FOR BOTH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK. THE REASON FOR THIS IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE MAYOR SHOULD BE ABLE TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY CLERK AT ANY TIME. I BELIEVE THE MAYOR'S URVIEW AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT ABILITY TO HIRE AND FIRE SOME OF THESE PEOPLE. THAT'S THE IDEA OF AN UNCLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE. YOU DON'T BECOME AN UNCLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE WITHOUT KNOWING THAT'S A POTENTIAL THAT CAN HAPPEN. I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL BUT BE INTACT THAT THE COUNSEL CAN TERMINATE WITH SEVEN VOTES. IT'S GOING TO TAKE A SMALL MIRACLE TO REMOVE THAT POSITION. IF THAT WERE THE CASE THAT PERSON NEEDS TO GO. I FEEL THIS PROVIDES THE CHECKS AND BALANCES WITHOUT OVERSTEPPING IN SOME OF THE REGARD WHEN IT COMES TO THE HR ISSUES. I DO MOVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: THIS AMENDMENT IS MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY TO REMOVE PLUS FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL CORRECT? EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THE AMENDMENT? >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, YES, WE'RE AMENDING BOTH SECTIONS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK TO ALLOW THE MAYOR TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME. AND THE COUNCIL MAY TERMINATE THIS AT ANY TIME UPON AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS PLUS ONE. >>COUN. LEWIS: DISCUSSION ON THIS AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT THREE? COUNCILOR ROGERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I HAVE A QUESTION, WHAT HAPPENS IF THE CITY ATTORNEY WANTS TO END THE AGREEMENT? DO THEY HAVE TO TO HAVE A PROVISION OF THE COUNCIL? >>COUN. LEWIS: I DON'T BELIEVE SO. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR ROGERS, THE CITY ATTORNEY IS FREE TO QUIT AT ANY TIME. AS IS THE CITY CLERK. >>COUN. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR CHAMPINE. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I DON'T THINK I CAN SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN UP I BELIEVE IS A GOOD CHECKS AND BALANCE OF WHAT'S GOING ON. NOT ONLY WITH THE HIRING BUT THE TERMINATION. JUST THE SAME AS YOU SAID, COUNCILOR BASSAN, OF THE GETTING SIX OTHER PEOPLE IF YOU BELIEVE THE CITY ATTORNEY OR CITY CLERK NEEDS TO BE REMOVED IT ALMOST, YOU KNOW, IMPOSSIBLE. I THINK IF THE MAYOR WANT TO REMOVE THEM THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE AN AFFIRMATIVE JUST SO THE MAYOR ISN'T RUNNING ROGUE AND FIRING FOR ANY UNJUST REASON. BY RUNNING IT PAST COUNCIL IT AFFIRMS THAT HE IS OR SHE IS DOING -- IS REMOVING FOR JUST CAUSE. I THINK IT'S WRITTEN UP WELL AND IT GIVES BALANCE TO BOTH AND GIVES POWER AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO BOTH SIDES. >>COUN. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE CLOSE DISCUSSION? COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WANT TO ASK AN ATTORNEY -- I GUESS NOT OUR CITY ATTORNEY. IF WHAT WAS JUST DESCRIBED HAPPENS, IF THE MAYOR WENT ROGUE AND LET THE CITY ATTORNEY OR THE CITY CLERK GO WITH SOME CAUSE THEY WOULD STILL HAVE ALL THE REMEDIES OF AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT RIGHT? THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO APPEAL THAT OR SUE OR WHATEVER THE REMEDY IS WHEN YOU LET SOMEBODY GO FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON? >> COUNCILOR LEWIS, COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN, YES, THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD BE AFFORDED EMPLOYMENT PROTECTIONS DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF IT. DEPENDING ON AWHAT THE NATURE OF THE AGREEMENT THOSE PROTECTIONS COULD CHANGE. CERTAINLY, AT THE VERY LEAST THE MAYOR WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM TERMINATING SUCH AN ATTORNEY FOR ANY UNLAWFUL REASON. THERE WOULD BE RECOURSE FOR EMPLOYMENT RESOURCES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR ROGERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I JUST WANT TO ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION. THIS MEANS IT COULD BE FOR CAUSE OR NOT FOR CAUSE THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO OR THE MAYOR CAN TERMINATE THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT? >> NARRATOR: MR. PRESIDENT, . >>COUN. BASSAN: THE MAYOR WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW UNDER OUR HR GUIDELINES. YOU CAN'T JUST SAY I DON'T LIKE THE COLOR OF YOUR SHIRT. YOU CAN'T EXPECT NOT TO HAVE LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS ON THAT. >> JUST BECAUSE I HAVE EMPLOYMENT LAW EXPERIENCE, THIS IS AT WILL STATE AND PEOPLE CAN BE FIRED FOR ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON INCLUDING I DON'T LIKE THE COLOR OF YOUR SHIRT UNLESS THE REASON IS UNLAWFUL SUCH AS DISCRIMINATORY OR YOU'RE A WHISTLE BLOWER. THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN BE FIRED AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON. >>COUN. ROGERS: MS. KEEFE, ARE WE BEING SUED BY OUR CHIEF OF POLICE BECAUSE WE FIRED HIM WITHOUT CAUSE? >> NO. THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY THE EXACT NATURE OF THAT LAWSUIT. >>COUN. LEWIS: QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS? THIS IS AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE ON P2. ALL RIGHT. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: NO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO. >> THAT FAILS ON A 4-5 VOTE. SDMRL BACK ON THE AMENDMENT . >>COUN. LEWIS: BACK ON THE AMENDMENT. COUNCILOR CHAMPINE. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I BELIEVE -- WE WROTE SOMETHING THAT'S FAIR. I WAS LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT'S EASY, SIMPLE. SOMETHING THAT'S FAIR THAT GIVES THE MAYOR THE AUTHORITY TO DO HIS JOB THAT HE'S ELECTED TO DO AND GIVES A GOOD SENSE OF CHECKS AND BALANCES WITHIN THIS GOVERNING BODY. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: I'LL TAKE THAT AS A CLOSE. THIS IS CLOSE TO AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES ON A 7-2 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE BACK ON P2 AS AMENDED. WE'LL GO TO DISCUSSION ON THE BILL AS AMENDED. UNLESS THERE'S OTHER AMENDMENTS. >>COUN. ROGERS: MR. PRESIDENT, AN AMENDMENT. FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR TO P-24-2. ON -- ONE PAGE TWO LINE 22 STRIKE ARTICLE FIVE SECTION 4E3 AND INSERT THE FOLLOWING. THE CITY ATTORNEY MAY BE REMOVED BY THE MAYOR FOR CAUSE, THE CITY ATTORNEY MAY ALSO BE REMOVED WITH AN AFORMATIVE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS PLUS ONE OF THE COUNCIL AFTER CAUSE HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. AFTER -- STRIKE ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 4F3 AND INSERT THE FOLLOWING. THE CITY CLERK MAY ME REMOVED FOR CAUSE. MAY BE REMOVED WITH AFFIRMATIVE VOTE TWO-THIRDS PLUS ONE AFTER CAUSE HAS BEEN DETERMINE BY INSPECTOR GENERAL. THE REASON FOR THE AMENDMENTS IS THE CITY CLERK WOULD ALLOW THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK TO BE REMOVED FOR CAUSE. IT'S THE SAME BY EITHER THE MAYOR OR THIS BODY. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: SECOND BY COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, FROM OUR STAFF, BASED OFF WHAT WE JUST PASSED BEFORE, AND NOW THIS IS NOW REPLACING THOSE SAME EXACT LINES WHICH ONE WILL SUPERSEDING THE OTHER. THEY'RE CONFLICTING. ONE GETS RID OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, ONE ADDS CAUSE AND ONE DOESN'T. ONE ADDS THE I.G. AND ONE DOESN'T. WHICH WILL SUPERSEDE IF THIS PASSES? BECAUSE THEY WILL CROSS EACH OTHER OUT. >> THE LAST AMENDMENT PASSED WOULD BE THE PREVAILING AMENDMENT. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I REACHED OUT TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL LAST WEEK BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE IF ANYBODY REACHED OUT TO ASK. WHAT DOES THAT DIVISION THINK ABOUT THEIR NEW POTENTIAL ROLE IN THEIR RESPONSIBILITY OF DETERMINING CAUSE? A LOT OF INFORMATION CAME OUT OF THAT CONVERSATION. CAUSE IS NOT DEFINED. THAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, IG IS SUPPOSED TO INVESTIGATE FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE THAT'S COMPLAINT BASED. SURE, IF SOMEBODY COMPLAINS TO THE IG, IF IT'S ONE OF US OR SOMEBODY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OR IF IT'S THE MAYOR -- BUT THE IDEA IS TO ME THE IG IS NOT ACTUALLY GRANTED IN THE CHARTER AS WRITTEN THAT INTERNAL AUDIT AND INVESTIGATION. THE OFFICE OF INTERNAL AUDIT AND INVESTIGATION WHICH NO LONGER EXISTS, AT FIRST I THOUGHT IG SEEMS LIKE A GOOD FIT. THAT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE INVESTIGATING FRAUD WASTE AND ABUSE. WHAT WOULD BE BETTER TO DETERMINE CAUSE THAN IF SOMEBODY COMMITTED SOME FRAUD WASTE OR ABUSE. THERE'S OTHER REASONS FOR CAUSE. NOW, YOU'RE GETTING TO IG WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN INVESTIGATIVE BODY DOING THESE AND CONDUCTING WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION ON A TERM THAT'S NOT REALLY CLEARLY DEFINED AND/OR SOMETHING THAT IS AN HR ISSUE RATHER THAN FOCUSING ON FRAUD, WASTE OR ABUSE. I SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT IF WE WOULD STRIKE-OUT AFTER CAUSE IT'S DETERMINED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. THE REASON WE STRUCK THAT OUT WHEN WE WERE HAVING DISCUSSIONS EARLIER FOR THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT THAT WE PASSED WAS ALSO BECAUSE NOTHING SHORT OF A SMALL MIRACLE TO GET SEVEN OF US. IF SEVEN OF US AGREED TO REMOVE A POSITION FROM OFFICE, THERE'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT CAUSES THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO SEND THIS TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. IF THAT REMAINS IN HERE AND THAT AMENDMENT PASSES, I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE THIS COUNCIL, MYSELF WITH THE EXCEPTION, I'VE DONE THAT WITH THE ORDINANCE UPDATES. SOMEBODY ELSE, I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO DO IT. WE NEED TO AMEND THE IG ORDINANCE TO BE SURE TO BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT THEIR NEW GOAL IS AND WHERE THAT LIES WITHIN THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND WE HAVE TO DEFINE CAUSE. MAYBE WE SHOULD DEFINE CAUSE. ALTHOUGH MAYBE IT'S AN UNDENIABLE TERM BECAUSE IT'S SO BROAD. THAT'S A CONVERSATION FOR ANOTHER DAY. TO DO CAUSE DETERMINES BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CAUSES A NEW KIND OF HEARTBURN BASED ON WHAT THAT OFFICE IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. >>COUN. LEWIS: I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD DO. I'M NOT SURE IF I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT OR NOT. ORIGINALLY, I THINK THERE WAS A SENSE OF WE NEEDED TO PUT FOR CAUSE. LEAVE FOR CAUSE IN THERE. AND YET THERE WAS THIS DISCREPANCY OVER AN OFFICE THAT DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE AND HOW THAT WOULD WORK IN OUR CURRENT SYSTEM. MR. MORROW DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ADDRESSING SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BROUGHT UP THAT COUNCILOR BASSAN DESCRIBED AND MAYBE YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESOLVE THERE. AT LEAST IN THE DISCUSSION. I THINK ULTIMATELY WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT RIGHT NOW. BUT THAT WE COULD COME BACK AND GIVE CLARITY TO CAUSE IN THAT REGARD. MR. MORROW. >> MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, PART OF THAT DISCUSSION WAS AT THIS POINT THIS IS SIMPLY THE P-BILL VOTION OF THINGS. THIS WOULD NEED TO GO TO VOTERS IF IT WAS PASSED BY VOTERS, TO ECHO WHAT WAS EXPRESSED BY COUNCILOR BASSAN, IT WOULD BEHOOVE TO ADDRESS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE CLARITY AND IT'S WITHIN THAT ORDINANCE TO BE AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO DEFINE FOR CAUSE AND EXPAND ON SOME OF THE REASONS THAT WOULD JUSTIFY BOTH FOR CAUSE AND OTHER COMMENTS LIKE WHERE A COMPLAINT COULD ARISE FROM. THESE ARE ALL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS NOT LEGAL ONES. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU DON'T WANT CAUSE DETERMINATIONS ON THE DETERMINATION BASED ON A SINGULAR COMPLAINT FROM THE PUBLIC, LET'S SAY, AN IPRA REQUEST. THERE WOULD BE OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNCIL TO ADDRESS THESE THROUGH POLICY AT A LATER DATE DEPENDING ON THE WILL OF THE VOTERS AND THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL. >>COUN. LEWIS: THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ADD FOR CAUSE AND ALSO ALMOST DO WHAT THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT THAT COUNCILOR BASSAN SUGGESTED EARLIER WHICH WOULD BE TO GIVE THE MAYOR AN INDEPENDENT ABILITY TO DO THAT. COUNCILOR ROGERS THEN COUNCILOR GROUT. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WOULD DEFINITELY BE OPEN TO REMOVING THE AS DETERMINED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IF I STRIKE THAT THEN THIS -- PROCEDURE-WISE, IF WE STRIKE THAT THEN WE DON'T NEED AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT? >>COUN. LEWIS: ARE YOU PROPOSING TO AMEND YOUR OWN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE FOR THE CAUSE AS DETERMINED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL? IS THAT THE PROPOSED MOTION? >>COUN. ROGERS: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT MY COLLEAGUE COUNCILOR BASSAN -- >>COUN. LEWIS: SHE WANTS THE OPINION OF COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO LEAVE IN CAUSE, FROM WHAT I'M HEARING. I ALSO THINK IT'S NOT A BAD THING. THE CITY ATTORNEY MAY BE REMOVED WITH TWO-THIRDS PLUS ONE OF THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COUNCIL FOR CAUSE. PERIOD. >> IT SAYS AFTER CAUSE HAS BEEN DETERMINED. >>COUN. BASSAN: OKAY. BUT I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO DO AN AMENDMENT. I THINK THIS IS YOUR AMENDMENT. YOU CAN TELL THEM TO TAKE THAT OUT. >>COUN. LEWIS: YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST CROSS OUT FOR CAUSE ALTOGETHER BECAUSE THE ONLY REASON WE DETERMINE FOR CAUSE -- WE HAVE TO HAVE A DETERMINE FOR CAUSE WHICH WAS THE ISSUE FOR THE CHARTER. >>COUN. ROGERS: THAT'S THE BIGGEST PURPOSE HERE. I AGREE, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT. WE HAD THE SAME CONVERSATION WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND WHAT DOES CAUSE MEAN. FOR ME, THAT'S MY BIGGEST POINT. THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME PROCESS FOR THAT. I UNDERSTAND WE DON'T HAVE THAT, BUT THE FIRST SENTENCE IS CITY ATTORNEY MAY BE REMOVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR FOR CAUSE. I'D LIKE TO KEEP THAT IN THERE AND I'M AMENDING MY OWN AMENDMENT TO STRIKE BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. >>COUN. LEWIS: BUT WE'RE LEAVING FOR CAUSE? WITH NO DEFINITION OF HOW THAT CAUSE IS DETERMINED. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES, LIKE OUR COUNCIL ADVISED, IF IT GOES TO THE VOTERS WE'LL HAVE TIME TO PROCESS THAT. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'LL DEFINE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S CRITERIA FOR CAUSE. IF WE TAKE THAT OUT. GO AHEAD, MR. MORROW. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR ROGERS, I DO THINK THAT DOES CHANGE A LITTLE BIT OF MY ANALYSIS. BECAUSE BY HAVING IT AS EXISTING GOING TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IT PROVIDED AN ORDINANCE AND DIRECTION TO INDICATE WHERE CAUSE CAN BE DETERMINED AND HOW CAN BE DETERMINED WHEN IT'S JUST GENERALLY FOR CAUSE. I'M THOUGHT SURE HOW CITY COUNCIL GETS TO DETERMINING THAT. >>COUN. ROGERS: MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO GO TO THE ADMINISTRATION. AND ASK IF IT'S NOT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WHO IN THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE COULD DETERMINE CAUSE FOR TERMINATION? >>COUN. LEWIS: DR. SENGEL, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A CRACK AT THAT? >> MY UNDERSTANDING, HAVING HAD EMPLOYEES FOR 25 YEARS, IS THAT THERE'S CASE LAW THAT DEFINES PLENTY OF CASE LAW THAT DEFINES CAUSE IN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. ALTHOUGH THERE'S NO DEFINITION WRITTEN DOWN FOR CAUSE, THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP AND TERMINATION FOR CAUSE IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN EFFECTIVELY LITIGATED IN MANY CASES. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. I KNOW THIS ISN'T -- WE'RE SPEAKING ON A SPECIFIC ISSUE RELATED TO THE CITY CLERK AND CITY ATTORNEY. I THINK IF YOU WANT -- I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY COULD SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT FOR CAUSE IN EMPLOYMENT LAW IS DEFINED AS. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT -- DO YOU WANT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO WEIGH IN ON THAT? >>COUN. ROGERS: MR. PRESIDENT, FOR THE CLARITY FOR MY UNDERSTANDING, I THINK I WOULD DEFER TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY WITH HELP FROM COUNCIL. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR ROGERS, I CAN HELP A LITTLE. THERE'S PLENTY OF CASE LAW OF WHAT IS AND NOT CAUSE. NORMALLY CAUSE IS BY THE DECISION MAKER. IF YOU HAD A PROVISION THAT SAID THE CITY COUNCIL MAY VOTE TWO-THIRDS PLUS ONE FOR CAUSE IT'S UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO DETERMINE WHAT CAUSE IS. THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL. >>COUN. LEWIS: BUT THERE'S BEEN SOME DIFFICULTY DETERMINING THE CRITERIA AND HOW THAT FOR CAUSE AND RECENTLY EXPERIENCED THAT. THIS IS THE REASON FOR THAT DEFINITION AND CLARIFICATION. CLARIFY YOUR MOTION AS IT STANDS. >>COUN. ROGERS: THE PURPOSE OF MY AMENDMENT IS TO MAKE SURE THERE'S CAUSE. >>COUN. LEWIS: ARE WE PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT? >>COUN. ROGERS: MR. PRESIDENT, I THINK MY AMENDMENT IS STILL THE SAME. WE JUST STRIKE EVERYTHING AFTER THE WORD COUNCIL. LET'S PAUSE. THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES, FOR HELPING THE NEW COUNCILOR THROUGH THIS. MY MOTION IS TO STRIKE BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. >>COUN. LEWIS: AND LEAVE FOR CAUSE. COUNCILOR CHAMPINE. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. COUNCILOR, THIS IS WHAT WE THOUGHT ABOUT IN MY AMENDMENT EARLIER. THE JUST CAUSE OF THE CAUSE IS THE MAYOR AND FIVE COUNCILORS. JUST CAUSE IS SEVEN COUNCILORS. THERE'S YOUR CAUSE. YOU HAVE TO GET SEVEN PEOPLE TO SAY THAT IS JUSTIFIABLE TO TERMINATE THIS PERSON. THIS IS WHY WE ELIMINATED THAT TERM IS TO MAKE IT SIMPLE AND CLARIFY IT SO IT'S EASIER NOT LEFT UP TO A LOT OF INTERPRETATION AND CHANGING AND NOBODY CAN ANSWER A QUESTION WITHOUT -- SO AS MUCH AS I APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENT I THINK WE'RE REPEATING THE SAME THING THAT WAS JUST PASSED BY THIS COUNCIL. I COMMEND THE APPROACH, BUT I THINK THE OTHER AMENDMENT ADDRESSED THIS IN A MORE CLEARER FASHION. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE DISCUSSING A CLARIFIED AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR. AS PROPOSED AS MOVED BY COUNCILOR ROGERS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT AMENDMENT? COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. IT'S ONE QUESTION. I THINK I GOT THE ANSWER TO THIS. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY IF WE PASS THE AMENDMENT BEFORE US, WE LOSE THE FIRST SENTENCE ON THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT. THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL HAVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT INCLUDING TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND EXPIRING AT THE END OF THE CURRENT MAYOR'S TERM? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR? [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: NO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO. >> THAT FAILS. >>COUN. LEWIS: I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. >> IT FAILS ON A 2-7 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: FAILS ON A 2-7 VOTE. WE'RE BACK ON THE BILL AS AMENDED. ANY DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS ON THE BILL AS AMENDED? COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THAT WAS ALL JUST AS CLEAR AS MUD. THERE WERE SO MANY QUESTIONS AND SOME OF THEM, ALTHOUGH I'M SURE I MISSED THE, IS HOW SHOULD WE HIRE FOLK, HOW SHOULD WE FIRE FOLKS, WHAT IS CAUSE, WHO SHOULD MAKE A CAUSE DETERMINATION, SHOULD THEY HAVE CONTRACTS, DOES THE MAYOR HAVE INDEPENDENCE ON HOW THIS ALL HAPPENS, HOW DOES THE COUNCIL GET INVOLVED. I THINK EVERY SINGLE THING IN THIS PROPOSAL WAS JUST QUESTIONED AT SOME POINT. I'M NOT EVEN CLEAR THAT I UNDERSTOOD ALL OF IT. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION TONIGHT AND THERE'S LOT OF AMENDMENTS ON THE FLOOR. I POINT OUT AGAIN THAT WE HAVE A CHARTER TASK FORCE PROPOSAL BEFORE US LATER THIS EVENING. THAT SEEMS LIKE A REALLY GOOD PLACE TO GET ALL THOSE QUESTIONS ACTUALLY ANSWERED RATHER THAN HAVING THIS FINAL DISCUSSION UP HERE WITH LOTS OF DIFFERENT IDEAS AND LOTS OF CONFUSION. AGAIN, PEOPLE HAVE ASKED FOR A TASK FORCE TO THINK THROUGH THESE IDEAS AND THESE ISSUES AND NOT HAVE ALL THOSE QUESTIONS STILL UP IN THE AIR AT THE END OF THE MEETING. THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE BECAUSE I'M LISTENING TO WHAT THE COMMUNITY HAS TO SAY. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. NO OTHER DISCUSSION. I'LL CLOSE BRIEFLY. THERE ARE NO MOTOR -- OTHER AMENDMENTS ON THE FLOOR. ALL THE OTHER AMENDMENTS WERE VOTED ON AND CLARIFIED. NOW WE HAVE A BILL AS AMENDED. AND I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT FAILS ON A 4-5 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE GOING TO P3. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, AS WE'VE EXPLAINED ON THE P BILLS HAVE ACOMPANYING RESOLUTION. WE DISCUSSED WE'LL HAVE THE RESOLUTIONS LATER, HOWEVER P2 FAILS. IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER WITHDRAWING R-48. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR BASSAN. COUNCILOR GROUT. >>COUN. GROUT: I WOULD LIKE TO RECONSIDER -- >>COUN. LEWIS: WE GOT A MOTION TO RECONSIDER P2. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR GROUT, I BELIEVE YOU'RE NOT ON THE PREVAILING SIDE ON THIS MATTER. >>COUN. BASSAN: MY APOLOGIES. MR. PRESIDENT, I MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOTION AND SECOND BY COUNCILOR CHAMPINE TO RECONSIDER. THIS BILL IS BACK ON THE TABLE. IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. AND IF THERE'S ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF -- >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, WE NEED TO HAVE A VOTE ON THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER. >>COUN. LEWIS: MADAM CLERK. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES ON A 5-4 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE BACK ON P3. I'M SORRY -- P2. AS AMENDED. AND I WOULD OFFER TO COUNCILOR ROGERS IF YOU WANT TO REINTRODUCE THAT AMENDMENT, OR I WOULD DO IT. I'LL LET YOU DECIDE. WE NEED A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE AMENDMENT. OKAY. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOTION -- >> SOMEBODY ON THE PREVAILING SIDE OF THIS WHICH ALSO THE AMENDMENT FAILS. SOMEBODY THAT VOTED AGAINST COUNCILOR ROGERS AMENDMENT NEEDS TO MOVE TO RECONSIDER THAT. COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT. >>COUN. LEWIS: I MOVE TO RECONSIDER COUNCILOR ROGERS'S AMENDMENT WHICH IS AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR. IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. IMMEDIATEM CLERK. [ ROLL CALL ] . >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: NO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES ON A 5-4 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR ROGERS, WE'VE MOTIONED TO RECONSIDER. DO WE NEED TO MOVE THE AMENDMENT? COUNCILOR ROGERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE MY AMENDMENT 4P-24-2. >> AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. THE PIECE ABOUT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STILL REMOVED FROM WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING? >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR ROGERS. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT'S MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR GROUT. DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT? MR. MORROW, YOU WANT TO GIVE A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THIS BILL. AS IT WOULD BE AMENDED BY AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR HAVING BEEN MOVED ONCE AGAIN, ALLOWS THE MAYOR TO REMOVE THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR CAUSE AND ALLOWS THE MAYOR TO REMOVE THE CITY CLERK FOR CAUSE. IT ALSO ALLOWS THE CITY COUNCIL WITH AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS PLUS ONE TO REMOVE THE CITY CLERK AND THE CITY ATTORNEY ALSO FOR CAUSE. FOR CAUSE IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS, ANY AMENDMENTS TO THAT AMENDMENT? ACTUALLY I'M NOT GOING TO ASK THAT. OTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR ROGERS TO CLOSE. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: MADAM CLERK. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: NO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES ON A 5-4 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: DOES THAT NEED SIX? THAT WAS THE AMENDMENT. NOW WE'RE BACK ON THE BILL AS AMENDED? ANY DISCUSSION ON THE BILL AS AMENDED? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, JUST TO JUMP INTO -- BECAUSE OF YOUR QUESTION. IF WE'RE MOVING ON THE BILL AS AMENDED THAT DOES NEED SIX VOTES. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT'S CORRECT. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT FAILS ON A 5-4 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE ON P3. >> COUNCILORS -- NOTHING REGARDING P2 AS, AS I MENTIONED THERE'S A COMPANION RESOLUTION THAT IS NO LONGER ABLE TO BE PASSED. IT MAY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT R-48 BE WITHDRAWN. >>COUN. LEWIS: I MOVE TO WITHDRAW R-48. THAT'S SECONDED. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: NO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO. >> THAT PASSES ON A 6-3 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY, WE'RE MAKING SAUSAGE HERE. P3. COUNCILOR PEÑA, WANT TO MOVE THIS? >>COUN. PEÑA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. P3 IS ADOPTING PROPOSITION TO BE SENT TO THE VOTERS AT THE 2024 ELECTION PROPOSING TO AMEND ARTICLE FIVE OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE REGARDING PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS AND APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF CHIEF OF POLICE AND FIRE CHIEF. I MOVE A DO PASS. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR CHAMPINE. >> ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? >> WE ONE SPEAKER. IT IS RUDOLPH ON ZOOM. GO AHEAD, SIR. >> THIS IS A WEIRD SITUATION POLITICALLY. WE ALL KNOW THAT THE CHIEF OF POLICE HAS THE POLICE BEHIND HIM. FIRING POLICE IS THE HARDEST THINGS TO DO FOR A MAYOR BECAUSE YOU WON'T GET RE-ELECTED BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE MOST VOTES BETWEEN APD FAMILY DECIDES WHO IS GOING TO BE THE NEXT MAYOR. WITH THIS RESOLUTION YOU CAN ACTUALLY HELP THE MAYOR BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONES TAKING ALL THE HARD HATE FROM APD. I DON'T KNOW WHY -- [ INAUDIBLE ] >>COUN. LEWIS: YOU CAN HAVE THE TIME REMAINING. >> OKAY. IT'S NECESSARY. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE BILL. DISCUSSION P3. I BELIEVE -- COUNCILOR CHAMPINE AND COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. LEWIS: BEFORE WE DO THAT. LET'S GIVE QUICK CLARITY, THE CURRENT CHARTER AND THE BILL AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW -- THIS IS PROPOSAL THREE THAT HAS TO DO WITH CHIEF OF POLICE AND FIRE CHIEF AND DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS. THEY'RE NOMINATED BY THE MAYOR AND CONFIRMED BY FIVE VOTES OF THE COUNCIL. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW MAKES NO CHANGE TO THAT, THE HIRING. REMOVAL AS IT STANDS ON THE CHARTER IS FOR CAUSE OF THE SIX VOTES OF THE COUNCIL. THE MAYOR HAS NO SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ON REMOVAL OPPORTUNITY CHARTER. THIS THE MAYOR CAN TERMINATE FOR CAUSE ON THIS PROPOSAL AND THE COUNCIL CAN TERMINATE FOR CAUSE WITH SEVEN VOTES. IT DOES SAY THE CAUSE IS DETERMINED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. THAT'S THE GIST OF IT. COUNCILOR CHAMPINE OR COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. TO P4-2-3. STRIKE ARTICLE FIVE SECTION 4D1 AND INSERT THE FOLLOWING THE POLICE CHIEF, FIRE CHIEF SHALL HAVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY SPECIFYING TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT SPECIFYING EARLY TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT. THE MAYOR MAY TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME WITH AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL MAY TERMINATE WITH NOTICE TO THE MAYOR AND CHIEF OF POLICE OR CHIEF OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BY AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS PLUS ONE OF THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COUNCIL. THE EXPLANATION AND REASON FOR THIS COINCIDES WITH THE CLERK AND CITY. IT'S TO HAVE AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BUT ALSO GIVES THE MAYOR THE ABILITY TO HIRE HIS PEOPLE AND IT GIVES A GOOD CHECKS AND BALANCES TO BOTH THE COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION AS FAR AS TERMINATION. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: MR. MORROW, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AMENDMENT AND THE BILL CURRENTLY IS NOT AMENDED, WOULD YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DO TO THE CURRENT PROPOSED. >> I'M GOING TO DEFER TO MS. RONQUILLO. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, IN THE CHARTER TODAY, THE POLICE CHIEF OR FIRE CHIEF CAN BE REMOVED FOR CAUSE BY A VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COUNCIL. IT CHANGED THAT TO SAY THAT THEY MAY BE REMOVED FOR CAUSE WITH AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS PLAUS ONE AFTER CAUSE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY INSPECTOR GENERAL. THIS AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU WOULD INSTEAD REPLACE THAT LANGUAGE WITH EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BEING IN PLACE FOR THE CHIEF AND FIRE CHIEF WHICH INCLUDES EARLY TERMINATION AND EXPIRES AT THE END OF THE MAYOR TERM. THE MAYOR CAN TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME WITH FIVE VOTE FROM THE COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL CAN TERMINATE WITH A VOTE OF SEVEN. >>COUN. LEWIS: DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS ON THIS? COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD LIKE TO MOTION TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT ONE. TO STRIKE AFTER THE MAYOR MAY TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME, STRIKE WITH AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, AND REPLACE WITH FOR CAUSE. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. DISCUSSION ON THAT AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT? COUNCILOR PEÑA, DO YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THAT? >>COUN. PEÑA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I ASK ADMINISTRATION WHERE THEY'RE AT WITH THE AMENDMENT. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR PEÑA, I'M SORRY -- I'M READING TO MAKE SURE I'M GETTING IT ACCURATE. I BELIEVE THAT WITH THAT AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT STRIKING THE COUNCIL VOTE FOR THE MAYOR AND ADDING FOR CAUSE, DIRECTLY ALIGNS WITH THE PREVIOUS WORK WE DID TOGETHER TO FIND RESOLUTION FOR THIS LANGUAGE TO WORK. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY CONCERN WITH HAVING AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WHICH IS REALLY WHAT THAT CHANGES FROM THE CURRENT VERSION. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS, OTHER DISCUSSION? SPONSORS TO -- COUNCILOR BASSAN, THIS IS AM AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE ON P3. COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I DON'T WANT TO BE THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: MADAM CLERK. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: BACK ON THE BILL AS AMENDED. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE BILL? I'LL CLOSE. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: MR. PRESIDENT, THAT WAS THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: I'M SORRY, WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE AMENDMENT. WE'RE BACK TO AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. COUNCILOR CHAMPINE OR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE AS AMENDED. COUNCILOR CHAMPINE TO CLOSE. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: BACK ON THE BILL AS AMENDED. QUESTIONS ON THE BILL AS AMENDED? I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES ON A 6-3 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT PROPOSITION NUMBER THREE PASSES. 6-3. ITEM G. P4. ADOPTING PROPOSITION TO BE SENT TO THE GENERAL ELECTION AMEPPEDING ARTICLE OF THE CHARTER OF CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE FOR SEPARATIONS OF POWER UNDER THE CHARTER. ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? >> NO, MR. PRESIDENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. WE'LL GO TO DISCUSSION, AMENDMENTS. I BELIEVE COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN HAS AN AMENDMENT. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I'M GOING TO MOVE FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. WHICH IS ON PAGE THREE STARTING ONLINE EIGHT AMEND SECTION FOUR AS FOLLOWS. SECTION FOUR EFFECTIVE DATE PROPIZATION EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. THIS WILL TAKE EFFECT ON JANUARY -- CHANGE 2025 TO 2026 AS CERTIFIED BY THE VOTERS. I MOVE THAT AMENDMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT'S MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR BASSAN. CHANGING THE EFFECTIVE DATE. I THINK THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. WE'RE SIMPLY DOING WHAT -- THIS COMMITTEE HAS EXISTED FOR A LONG TIME. AND IT'S -- THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE CAN'T FORM THIS COMMITTEE VERY QUICKLY. IT HASN'T BEEN APPOINTED IN A LOT OF YEARS. AND I THINK IT'S ALREADY BEEN EFFECTIVE. I THINK JUST CODIFYING IT AND PUTTING IT FOR THE VOTERS IS GOOD GOVERNMENT. I DON'T SEE ANY GOOD REASON TO DELAY THIS. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DEWITH OUR ELECTIONS. IT HAS TO DO WITH SIMPLY MAKING A LONGSTANDING COMMITTEE WORK. I WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO SUGGEST IT SHOULD BE DELAYED IN THAT WAY. OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION OR WE CAN DO THAT OR GO TO COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN TO CLOSE. SDMRF THANK YOU, . >>COUN. CHAMPINE: THANK YOU WHERE MR. PRESIDENT. I THINK THE GOOD GOVERNMENT IS THERE HAVE FOUR PROPOSITIONS TO CHANGE OUR CHARTER. THE OTHER THREE HAVE EFFECTIVE DATES OF JANUARY 1, 2026. I SEE NO REASON TO HAVE THIS ONE BE THE DIFFERENT ONE. WE HAVE A LOT OF CONFUSION AS YOU CAN SEE AS EVIDENCED BY THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT. HAVING AT LEAST SOME CONSISTENCY AROUND EFFECTIVE DATES MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. >>COUN. LEWIS: [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO. >> THAT FAILS ON A 4-5 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WILL MOVE FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. THIS IS ON -- I'M SORRY, STRIKE THE FOLLOWING ON PAGE TWO BEGINNING ONLINE 23 AS FOLLOWS. THIS IS TO STRIKE THE IF TWO PERSONS APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR OR COMMITTEE MEMBER RESIGNED, THE COUNCIL SHALL MAKE THE NEXT APPOINTMENT. I MOVE THAT AMENDMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: SECOND BY COUNCILOR ROGERS. AGAIN, I JUST PULLING THIS UP AND FOLLOWING IT. STAFF WANT TO GIVE CLARIFICATION ON THIS AMENDMENT? >>COUN. LEWIS: I UNDERSTAND. WE STRIKE THE REQUIREMENT IF TWO PEOPLE RESIGN WITHIN A YEAR PERIOD. I GET IT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT? >>COUN. LEWIS: AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. P4. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: I WILL CLOSE ON THAT. YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS STRIKES ME AS PROBLEMATIC ON BOTH SIDES. BECAUSE I'VE HAD RECENTLY JUST STARTED A NEW COLLABORATIVE WITH THE COUNTY AND WE HAD SOMEONE RESIGNED. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING I FORESAW AND NOT SOMETHING AGAINST US AS OUR APPOINTMENT OPPORTUNITY. I THINK THERE'S THINGS THAT GO BEYOND OUR CONTROL. ALLOWING THAT TO PENALIZE US OR THE MAYOR SEEMS A LITTLE PROBLEM MATTEDIC. I LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ALLOW FOR THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN PEOPLE ARE PROVIDING THEIR SERVICES FOR FREE ON ANY TYPE OF BODY LIKE THIS. I THINK REMOVING THAT LANGUAGE MAKES IT FAIR FOR EVERYBODY. >>COUN. PEÑA: MR. PRESIDENT, I THINK THE ADMINISTRATION HAS A COMMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE CLOSED WITH COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. GO AHEAD, MS. SENGEL. >> MR. PRESIDENT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR PEÑA. THIS IS THE ITEM THAT LAST WEEK WE DISCUSSED. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW COUNCILOR PEÑA DID ASK US TO WORK WITH COUNCIL STAFF. I THINK WE AGREED THAT STRIKING THIS LANGUAGE WITH THE CLAUSES BEFORE THAT IT ALLOWS FOR US TO HAVE THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND ENSURE THIS COMMITTEE IS WORKING AND BENEFITS BOTH OF US FOR THIS SPECIFIC CLAUSE TO BE STRUCK SO THAT AS STATED BY COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN, OFTENTIMES WE'RE UNABLE TO CONTROL WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE RESIGNS. >>COUN. LEWIS: DO YOU AGREE WITH THE AMENDMENT? WHEN THIS AMENDMENT COMES ON THE BALLOT, WHILE THE ADMINISTRATION SPEAK IN FAVOR ABOUT BALLOT PROPOSITION NUMBER FOUR? >> MR. PRESIDENT, AS I SAID BEFORE, THE ENTIRETY OF THE PACKAGE OF ALL OF THE DIFFERENT THINGS WE HAVE TO CONSIDER, THERE'S A LOT THAT HAS GONE BACK AND FORTH. WE BELIEVE THIS SEPARATION OF POWER IS A FINE ITEM BECAUSE IT DOES REITERATE EXACTLY WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE IN PLACE FOR THE CITY. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT PROPOSITION FOUR. THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE IN FAVOR WITH THIS AMENDMENT OF PROPOSITION NUMBER FOUR? >> YES. WE CAN BE GOOD WITH THAT. >>COUN. PEÑA: MR. PRESIDENT. I DIDN'T HEAR THAT CLEARLY. ARE YOU IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT OR NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT? >> MR. PRESIDENT, WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT STRIKING THE 365 DAYS CLAUSE. >>COUN. LEWIS: YOU'RE IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT AND WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION AS AMENDED IF WE'RE TO AMEND THIS? ALL RIGHT. SINCE WE OPENED DISCUSSION AGAIN, COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN TO CLOSE. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WILL CLARIFY SOMETHING THAT WAS ASKED OF ME. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I WAS TOLD THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO USE THE ORIGINAL BILL AS THE BASIS FOR THIS. IN THE AMENDED BILL IT SAYS 60 DAYS OF A VACANCY. WE LEFT IT 45 BECAUSE WE BASED IT OFF THE ORIGINAL. THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE ANYTHING EXCEPT REMOVING THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS TWO PEOPLE REZIN -- RESIGN WITHIN 365 DAYS THE OTHER BODY MAKES THIS DECISION. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: MADAM CLERK. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER AMENDMENT? >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: I DO, THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THIS IS FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR. THIS IS ON PAGE TWO LINE 20 ADD THE FOLLOWING AFTER ONE MEMBER, 30 DAYS PRIOR TO AN APPOINTEE TERM EXPIRING IMMEDIATELY UPON THE CITY CLERK BEING NOTIFIED THAT A PERSON IS RESIGNED PRIOR TO THE REGULAR EXPIRATION OF THEIR TERM THE CITY CLERK SHALL NOTIFY THE APPOINTING BODY. THIS IS TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING NOTIFIED BY THE CLERK THAT OUR TIME IS TICKING. WE NEED TIME TO FIND SOMEONE. I MOVE THAT AMENDMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR ROGERS. ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND THE ARTICLE -- I'M NOT DOING THAT RIGHT NOW. AT THE BOTTOM IT STILL HAS IN THERE IN THE PART WE STRUCK OUT WITH THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: I WAS TOLD YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO USE THE BASIS AS THE ORIGINAL BILL. WE WERE TOLD THE FIRST AMENDMENT WASN'T GOING TO CHANGE. IT CHANGES THAT AND WE'RE ONLY CHANGING THE PART UNDERLIEDENNED. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR BASSAN, WHAT COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN EXPRESSED IS CORRECT. THIS IS ONLY CHANGING THE PART REGARDING THE CITY CLERK PROVIDING NOTICE TO EACH BODY. >>COUN. LEWIS: DOES THIS AMENDMENT NEED TO BE CHANGED AT ALL? >> NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: THIS AMENDMENT PASSED WOULD NOT STRIKE THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE ON THE -- THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE ABOUT IF THEY FAIL TO APPOINT? >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, IF I MAY -- MR. PRESIDENT, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SAYING PROBABLY BASED OFF OF WHAT WE JUST DID RIGHT BEFORE THIS IS GOING TO WORK OUT. I WOULD THINK THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE TO BE VERY CLEAR ON THE SECOND PORTION OF THIS TOWARD THE BOTTOM, IT SHOULD STOP AND WE SHOULD STRIKE-OUT IF TWO PERSONS APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR AS A COMMITTEE MEMBER RESIGN WITHIN 365 DAY PERIOD THE COUNCIL SHALL MAKE THE NEXT APPOINTMENT. -- I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE SPONSOR IS OKAY WITH DELETING THAT FROM THIS AMENDMENT BEFORE WE PROCEED BECAUSE -- >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR BASSAN. I'M TOTALLY FINE WITH THAT. THAT IS HOW I THOUGHT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO IT. I WAS INFORMED DIFFERENTLY. FOR SUPER SURENESS, IT WOULD BE DELETING THOSE TWO LINES. WE ONLY WANT THE LINE THAT SAYS 30 DAYS PRIOR TO AN APPOINTEE TERM EXPIRING OR IMMEDIATELY UPON NOTIFIED THAT THE PERSON RESIGNED. THE CITY CLERK SHALL NOTIFY. PERIOD. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, THE COMMENT ABOUT AMENDING BASED OFF OF THE ORIGINAL BILL IS CORRECT. THE LARGE PARAGRAPH AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS AMENDMENT IS INTENDED TO SHOW THE CHANGE IN CONTEXT SEE HOW IT FITS IN THE BIG PICTURE. IT'S NOT REQUIRED. IT WAS INTENDED TO BE HELPFUL. IT WAS NOT IN THIS CASE. THE COUNCIL STAFF CAN DELETE THAT BIG PARAGRAPH AND YOU'LL BE LEFT WITH NUMBER ONE ON PAGE TWO LINE 20. AND THAT IS ALL THAT WILL APPEAR ON THE AMENDMENT AND THAT'S WHAT YOU WILL BE VOTING ON. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT. AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR AS CLARIFIED. COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR RESOLVING THAT. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. IS 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THE APPOINTING TERM ACCEPTABLE? THAT ENOUGH TIME? WE DID A 60, A 90, A 180, 270 ON OTHERS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHILE WE'RE CHANGING THINGS A LITTLE BIT WE'RE COVERING THE BASES. >> YOU'RE RIGHT, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DIFFERENT DAYS EVEN IN THIS ONE. 30 DAYS NOTICE ON THIS MATTER IS FINE FOR THE CITY CLERK TO GIVE TIME FOR THE APPOINTMENT AND FOR EACH OF THE BODIES. THE 60-DAY IS IN REFERENCE TO 45 DAYS YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY AMENDED THAT TO 60 DAYS. NOW THAT PARAGRAPH IS STRUCK IT WON'T MATTER. BECAUSE YOU MADE THAT AMENDMENT. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. WE HAVE 60 DAYS TO APPOINT, 30 DAYS BEFORE A VACANCY. THE CLERK IS GOING TO NOTIFY YOU BASED ON THAT. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, THE AMENDMENT WE JUST PASSED PRIOR TO THIS SAID IF THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL FAILS TO NAME A REPLACEMENT WITHIN 45 DAYS OF VACANCIES, AND WE WERE TOLD WHATEVER WE PASSED TONIGHT SUPERSEDES WHATEVER GOT PASSED BEFORE. NOW WE HAVE A WHOLE NEW PROBLEM ON OUR HANDS. WE WERE JUST TOLD A LITTLE WHILE AGO WHATEVER IS THE LAST AMENDMENT TO BE CREATED. SO, NOW WE'RE AT 45 DAYS. NOW IF WE CHANGE THIS TO SAY 60 DAYS, WE NEED TO DO A RECONSIDERATION OF THE OTHER ONE TO SAY 60 ON THAT WHICH REALLY ACTUALLY IS MAYBE NOT 60 IF YOU WANT IT TO GO BACK TO WHAT WAS AMENDED PREVIOUSLY. I WILL DEFER TO THE SPONSOR, BUT THESE DON'T MATCH WHAT WE DID BEFORE BECAUSE NOW THIS IS WHAT SUPERSEDES. >>COUN. LEWIS: HOW CAN WE RESOLVE THAT WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THIS AMENDMENT OR CLARITY OF THIS? >> MR. PRESIDENT, I WILL ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY WHAT WAS DONE IN THE PAST AMENDMENT AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A CORRECTION WE CAN DO THAT TOO. IF YOU LOOK BACK TO THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS JUST PASSED THAT ELIMINATED THE 365 DAY TWO RESONATION LANGUAGE, IT ONLY SAYS TO STRIKE-OUT THAT LANGUAGE AND AGAIN IT IS SHOWING IT IN A PARAGRAPH IN CONTEXT. IT WILL SHOW YOU WHERE THAT BELONGS. THE AMENDMENT PARAGRAPH IN CONTEXT INCLUDES THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE THAT WAS INTRODUCED, WHICH IS HOW WE GENERALLY DO THAT. IT DID NOT MAKE A CHANGE TO THE NUMBER OF DAYS FOR THE REPLACEMENT TO BE IN PLACE. WE WILL STILL HAVE THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS VOTED ON AND APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL AT A PRIOR MEETING TO MAKE THAT 60 DAYS. >>COUN. LEWIS: DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT AS CLARIFIED BY OUR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? URGE YOUR SUPPORT. DO YOU URGE OUR SUPPORT? >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: I URGE YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE FOUR LINES AT THE TOP OF THE AMENDMENT. THE REST IS FOR DESCRIPTIVE PURPOSES ONLY. WE'RE VOTING ON PAGE 20 -- UPON THE CITY CLERK BEING NOTIFIED A PERSON HAS RESIGNED PRIOR TO THE REGULAR EXPIRATION OF THE TERM THE CITY CLERK SHALL NOTIFY, PERIOD. THAT IS WHAT IS BEFORE US. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: MADAM CLERK. [ ROLL CALL ] >> THIS IS FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES ON AN 8-1 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: PASSES. WE'RE BACK ON THE BILL AS AMENDED. OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE BILL? I'LL CLOSE. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES ON A 7-2 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT COMPLETES ALL THE ONE THROUGH FOUR PROPOSITION BILLS. WE HAVE THREE OF THE RESOLUTIONS THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH. THESE ARE ALL GOING TO BE -- I'M ASSUMING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AMENDED AS WE SHOULD REFLECT THE AMENDMENTS MADE -- >>COUN. PEÑA: MR. PRESIDENT, WE FORGOT AN AMENDMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'LL DEAL WITH THEM ONE BY ONE. WE'RE ON 48. >> MR. PRESIDENT, YOU HAVE TO DO A MOTION. ON P4 THERE WAS ONE MORE AMENDMENT. SOMEBODY FROM THE PREVAILING SIDE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER? P4 AS AMENDED. >>COUN. LEWIS: YOU ARE SAYING WE HAVE A NEW AMENDMENT TO P4. >>COUN. PEÑA: I DID. IT WAS PUT ON THE iPADS AT 4:30. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE HAD OPPORTUNITIES FOR AMENDMENTS. WE HAD DISCUSSION. WE JUST VOTED TO RECONSIDER. THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW. RECONSIDER P4. IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED BY WHO? BY COUNCILOR BACA. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES ON AN 8-1 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR PEÑA. >>COUN. PEÑA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THIS WOULD BE FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR OR FIVE? FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR. WITHOUT READING THIS ENTIRE AMENDMENT, THIS IS AN EQUITY AMENDMENT. THE EXPLANATION FOR THE AMENDMENT IS PROPOSES TO ALLOW SALARY INCREASE TO -- I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE EXPLANATION MAKES IT SOUND OKAY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GIVING SALARY INCREASES. ANYWAY, THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO ALLOW SALARY INCREASES FOR INCUMBENTS ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY INCREASE FOR THE OFFICES TO BE APPROVED BY THE VOTERS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT EXPLAINS IT CORRECTLY. RIGHT NOW CURRENTLY THE WAY IT IS ONCE WE'RE ELECTED WE HAVE A SALARY COMMISSION WHO DOES DETERMINE WHAT OUR SALARIES ARE. AND IT HAPPENS TO FALL ON ODD YEARS AND OF COURSE THE COUNCIL GOES INTO BEING ELECTED THE NEXT GO ROUND. I ACTUALLY HAVE THE AMENDMENT TO 2026 SO IT DOESN'T AFFECT ANY CURRENT COUNCILS. IT WILL BE FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL. WHOEVER GETS ELECTED. ONCE THE COMMISSION APPROVES IT THEN IT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE COUNCILORS THAT HAVE TENURE AND THEY'LL BE ON FOR TWO YEARS WHERE NEW COUNCILORS CAME IN AND THEY ARE HAVING THE INCREASE FROM THE COMMISSION OR NON-INCREASE. SOMETIMES THEY DON'T GIVE AN INCREASE. WHATEVER THE DETERMINING FACTORS FROM THIS BOARD OR COMMISSION WOULD AFFECT ALL THE COUNCILORS AT THE SAME TIME. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL IS DECIDING. THIS GOES INTO EFFECT THE NEXT ELECTION. URGE YOUR SUPPORT. I CAN ASK THE ADMINISTRATION. >>COUN. LEWIS: I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR BASSAN ON THE AMENDMENT. AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR. POINT OF CLARITY, I GUESS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE -- I GUESS IF IT'S GERMANE TO THIS, THIS GERMANE TO THIS PROPOSITION? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, IT DOES CHANGE SOME OF THE SUBJECT MATTER AS PROPOSED IN THE P4. SPECIFICALLY, IT DOES INCORPORATE A TITLE CHANGE WHICH IS NOT PROVIDED NOTICE BASED ON THE AGENDA. IT WOULD -- IF THIS COUNCIL CHOSE TO CONSIDER THIS AMENDMENT, AS PART OF P4, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PASSED AT A FUTURE DAY SO THAT THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT COULD BE COMPLIED WITH AND THE AGENDA CAN BE POSTED. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR BACA. >>COUN. BACA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. YOU KNOW, EACH COUNCIL DISTRICT HERE IS APPROXIMATELY THE SAME SIZE AS THE CITY OF SANTA FE. WE'RE DEALING WITH HOMELESSNESS, APD, HOUSING, POTHOLES, THESE ARE COMPLEX JOBS. IT'S ALWAYS RUBBED ME A LITTLE WRONG THERE'S NOT EQUITY IN HOW WE'RE BEING COMPENSATED FOR OUR TIME ON THESE POSITION. THEY MAY BE CONSIDERED PART-TIME BUT THEY SHOULD BE FULL-TIME. I'M ABSOLUTELY IN FAVOR OF BRINGING THIS BACK INTO EQUITY. I WOULD EVEN GO SO FAR AS TO MAKE A MOTION FOR AMENDMENT THAT IT STARTED IN 2025 AS OPPOSED TO 2026. SOMETHING THAT WON'T AFFECT ME BUT BRINGS US INTO EQUITY QUICKER. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I AGREE WITH THIS. I AGREE -- THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE. I'M SORRY, MR. PRESIDENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR BACA, YOU MAKING A MOTION TO AMEND THE START DATE? THE EFFECTIVE DATE? IS THAT AN AMENDMENT TO COUNCILOR PEÑA'S AMENDMENT. OKAY SO THE AMENDMENT TO COUNCILOR PEÑA'S AMENDMENT IS A CHANGE -- THAT WOULD CLARIFY PUTTING THE START DATE OF JANUARY 1, 2025. EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THAT AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, WHAT COUNCILOR BACA'S AMENDMENT WOULD DO IS INSTEAD OF AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JANUARY 2026, IT'S JANUARY 2025. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: WAIT. YOU NEED A SECOND. SECOND BY COUNCILOR BASSAN. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES ON AN 8-1 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT PASSES. WE'RE BACK ON THE AMENDMENT. COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT -- I AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT AND OPINIONS THAT COUNCILOR PEÑA MENTIONED. I DON'T AGREE WITH PUTTING THIS ON AS A CHARTER AMENDMENT WITH THIS. I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE THAT CHANGE AS A COUNCIL WHEN WE GET BACK. I'D BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU AND THE OTHERS HOPEFULLY. I THINK IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE THAT WE FIX THAT. IT IS INAPPROPRIATE THAT YOU HAVE VETERAN COUNCILORS THAT ARE MAKING HALF OF WHAT NEW COUNCILORS MAKE AND THAT IS GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE WHILE TO IRON OUT. I WILL BE HAPPY TO WORK ON THIS LATER BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO WORK HERE. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR ROGERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN WHY THE CURRENT -- WHY IT'S WRITTEN THE CURRENT WAY? >>COUN. LEWIS: MR. MORROW. >> CERTAINLY, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR ROGERS, THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION THAT NO LAW SHALL WE ENACTED TO GIVE COMPENSATION TO THE OFFICER DURING TERM OF OFFICE. THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME INDICATION THAT IT WOULDN'T BE LAWFUL. >>COUN. ROGERS: MR. PRESIDENT. THAT BRINGS UP A WHOLE OTHER QUESTION. IF WE AMEND OR APPROVE THIS TO GO TO VOTERS AND ATTACH THIS WE WOULDN'T BE WITHIN STATE LAW? >> I THINK THERE WOULD BE LIKELY CHALLENGES. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: IT WOULD BE CITY LAW BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT WOULD BE OPEN TO A CHALLENGE OF WHAT THE STATE WOULD ALLOW? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, CORRECT. >>COUN. PEÑA: MR. PRESIDENT, I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS -- >> NO, SIMILAR INTERPRETATION. IF THE COUNCIL WERE TO PASS THIS IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A CHALLENGE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION. THERE ARE SOME ARGUMENTS THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY MAKE. IF THE COUNCIL WERE TO PASS THIS I DEFEND IT. THERE'S ARGUMENTS IN TERMS OF THE PLACEMENT OF THE PROVISION AND WHETHER IT APPLIES TO MUNICIPALITIES. THERE'S ATTORNEY GENERALS THAT PUTATIZE TO THIS POSITION. GOING BACK TO COUNCILOR ROGERS'S QUESTION THE REASON WHY THE SALARY COMMISSION SALARIES ARE IMPLEMENTED THE WAY THEY ARE IS TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND THE CURRENT CHARTER. I DISCUSSED WITH COUNCILOR PEÑA OVER THE WEEKEND THERE'S ARGUMENTS WE CAN MAKE IF THE COUNCIL WANTED TO PASS THIS AMENDMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: I'M AGREEABLE TO IT. I THINK WE SHOULD BE AWARE THAT IT DOES PUT THE PROPOSITION FOR TO AN AUGUST MEETING. WOULD IT COMPROMISE OUR TIMELINE IN ANY WAY? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THE TIMELINE PRESENTED FOR P BILLS WAS TO ENSURE THAT THE COUNCIL COULD PASS COMPANION RESOLUTIONS. IF THIS WERE TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE AUGUST 5th MEETING, THAT WOULD PUT THE COMPANION RESOLUTION INTO SOME DEGREE OF QUESTION. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. BECAUSE OF THE RESOLUTION THAT HAS TO GO ALONG WITH IT. IT WOULD DO THAT BUT IT WOULD ALSO PUT INTO QUESTION THE PROPOSITION ON THE BALLOT AS WELL. I THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER THAT AS WELL. OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS AS AN AMENDMENT TO P4? COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT. I'M ONE OF THE COUNCILORS THAT DID MAKE ABOUT HALF OF WHAT THE OTHER COUNCILORS WOULD BE MAKING. IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE MORE IN LINE WITH THE THREE-QUARTER TIME JOB. I DO HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT IT BEING ON THIS P BILL AND HAVING IT BE ON THE BALLOT WITH SOMETHING ELSE THAT PERHAPS RISKS BOTH OF THEM. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE US SPEND SOME TIME LIKE COUNCILOR BASSAN SUGGESTED THINKING THROUGH HOW TO FIX THIS PROBLEM OF PAY INEQUALITY ON COUNCIL. CERTAINLY, NOT SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE NEED TO RUSH THROUGH TONIGHT AND PUT OUR CITY AT RISK OF YET ANOTHER LAWSUIT. I WON'T BE SUPPORTING, BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR SANCHEZ. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WASN'T SURE IF YOU WOULD SEE MY HAND RAISED. YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T DO THIS JOB FOR THE CAMPEN -- COMPENSATION. I DID IT TO SERVE THE PUBLIC AND DO THE RIGHT THINGS FOR THE PUBLIC. I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE VOTE IS GOING. I WANTED TO MAKE THE STATEMENT. I'M NOT DOING THIS JOB FOR COMPENSATION. IT WORRIES WE'LL HAVE PEOPLE DOING THIS JOB FOR COMPENSATION. THAT'S MY STATEMENT. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: OTHER DISCUSSION? THE INTENT IS SIMPLY TO -- I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE INTENT. IT IS SIMPLY TO GIVE EQUITY ON THE COUNCIL IN THAT REGARD. IT'S ALL ABOUT START TIMES AND THAT. YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY, I THINK THAT'S FAIR. I AGREE WITH IT. BACK TO -- IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION WE'LL GO BACK TO COUNCILOR PEÑA TO CLOSE ON THE AMENDMENT. SDMRP I URGE YOUR . >>COUN. PEÑA: URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: NO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> FAILS ON A 3-6 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: BACK ON P4 AS IT WAS AMENDED PREVIOUSLY. BACK ON THE P4. ANY QUESTIONS ON DISCUSSION OF P4? [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. -- >>COUN. BASSAN: I WANT TO CHANGE TO A YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: START THAT AGAIN. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES ON A 6-2 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE GOING TO R-47. IT IS OUR STAFF THAT HAS THE CORRECT LANGUAGE ON EVERYTHING THAT NEEDED TO BE AMENDED? IS IT PRINTED OUT OR JUST NEED A QUICK EXPLANATION? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I BELIEVE R-47 IS IN THE IN iPAD. I BELIEVE THERE'S AN AMENDMENT. -- >> COUNCILOR, I CAN LET THE SPONSOR EXPLAIN WHAT THE AMENDMENT DOES. IT CAN LIVE SEPARATELY. >>COUN. LEWIS: WHY DON'T WE DEAL WITH HOW IT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED. FIRST. AND IS THAT BEFORE US? DO WE HAVE A COPY OF THAT? >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, DURING THIS MEETING I KEPT UP WITH THE CHANGES BEING MADE TO ALL THE P BILLS AND MAKING A CLEAN VERSION OF THE RESOLUTION SO THAT WOULD ACTUALLY GET BEFORE THE VOTERS REFLECTS THE CHANGES IN A CLEAN AND UNDERSTANDABLE FORMAT. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE VOTING ON THE RESOLUTION FOR P1 AND IT REFLECTS EXACTLY WHAT WAS AMENDED IN P1? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. AND COUNCILOR ROGERS HAS AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. MY AMENDMENT -- >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT -- >>COUN. LEWIS: JUST A MOMENT. DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT AMENDMENT? OKAY. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, FIRST WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO VOTE ON THE BILL AND HAVE A SECOND. >>COUN. LEWIS: I THINK I DID THAT. I MOVE THE BILL. SECOND BY COUNCILOR GROUT. AND NOW I MOVE THE AMENDMENT TO REFLECT AS IT WAS -- AS P1 WAS AMENDED. I NEED A SECOND ON THAT. SECOND BY COUNCILOR GROUT. ANY QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE? MADAM CLERK. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: I'M SORRY -- I WALKED TO THE RESTROOM. WHICH AMENDMENT ARE WE ON? >>COUN. LEWIS: WE AMENDED P1. THE RESOLUTION IS NOW REFLECTING THE LANGUAGE FROM P1. THAT IS THE AMENDMENT WE MOVED AND SECONDED FOR THIS RESOLUTION. MADAM CLERK. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: LET'S GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE'LL GO TO COUNCILOR ROGERS. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS MONICA FOLLOWED BY ASHLEY. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE ALREADY DID THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS. ON THE RESOLUTION. GO AHEAD, I'M SORRY. >> ASHLEY FOLLOWED BY JOEL. JOEL FOLLOWED BY LUIS. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE REAL QUICK. I KNOW THAT THE P BILL HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BASICALLY. AND THIS IS JUST A RESOLUTION ON WHAT THE ACTUAL WORDING OF THE RESOLUTION IS GOING TO BE. IN THERE, IT MENTIONS THAT THE WORDING IN THERE SEEMS NEUTRAL. IT TALKS ABOUT AMENDING EVERYTHING IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS. I WOULD ASK IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS AND YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO WATER DOWN THE VOTING ABILITY OF OUR VOTING PUBLIC HERE, THAT THE ACTUAL QUESTION REFLECT THAT. IT REFLECT THE REALITY OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. YOU'RE TRYING TO DETEARIATE THE AMOUNT OF THRESHOLD. IT SHOULD REFLECT TO SAY IT WOULD DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF MEMBERSHIP REQUIRED TO DO THIS OR THAT IT WOULD MINIMIZE IT OR DETERIORATE IT. IT SHOULD NOT SAY IT'S GOING TO MODIFY IT. I UNDERSTAND THAT'S A LANGUAGE BARRIER. A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE ARE FIXATED ON THE FIRST QUESTION THEY SEE THERE. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU, SIR. >> LUIS FOLLOWED BY AUGUSTINE. AUGUSTINE FOLLOWED BY CARTER. CARTER ON ZOOM. >> COUNCILORS, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH RUSHING THROUGH THIS AND MAKING HUGE CHANGES WITHOUT REALLY STUDYING IT IS FRANKLY THAT THERE'S JUST A TON OF MISINFORMATION. COUNCILOR PEÑA WHO I LOVE AND RESPECT VERY MUCH AND I KNOW WOULD NEVER DO THIS INTENTIONALLY STAYING ONLY TEN STATES HAVE RUNOFFS. THAT'S TRUE AT THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL. AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL IT'S ALMOST EVERY SINGLE STATE IN THE COUNTRY. JUST LOOKING IT UP THE STATES I KNOW PERSONALLY, COLORADO, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO. AND LOOKING UP A FEW OTHERS, AND PICKING UP THE INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING STATES WHERE MUNICIPALITIES DO IT. THERE'S AT LEAST 34 STATES. I HAVE NOT SCRATCHED THE RESEARCH OTHERS. EVERY OTHER STATE DOES IT WITH MUNICIPAL RACES. THERE'S NO PRIMARY SYSTEM. THE WAY IT WAS AMENDED, WE WILL NOW HAVE THE LEAST DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY IN THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE A THRESHOLD OF 30 OR 40%. THE IDEA THAT SOMEBODY CAN WIN WITH 20% IS A REAL AFRONT TO DEMOCRACY. I REALLY HOPE YOU RECONSIDER THIS AS YOU GO THROUGH THE RESOLUTION PROCESS. AND FINALLY, I JUST WANT TO ADD WE DO REQUIRE 50%. EVEN IN THE POLITICAL ENDORSEMENT COLLECTIONS. SOME OF US MAY NOT, BUT LIKE IN CHURCH, CORPORATION OR NON-PROFIT, WHAT THE ORGANIZATION DOES TO ELECTED LEADERS IS NOT RELEVANT TO HOW WE RUN OUR DEMOCRACY. THIS IS A HUGE STEP BACK. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR ROGERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: I MOVE FLOOR AMENDMENT ONE TO R-24-47. THIS ADDS NEW SECTION. RENUMBERING THE SUBSEQUENT SECTION TO ADD VOTER EDUCATION. THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL ALLOCATE FUNDS AS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE VOTER EDUCATION PROGRAM REGARDING PROPOSITION P-24-1. AND THE EDUCATION PROGRAM SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS INFORMATION RESOURCES COLLABORATION WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS. THIS IS TO HELP US EDUCATE THE VOTERS WHAT P-24 WANTED. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: SECOND. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, JUST AS A NOTE OF CLARIFICATION THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. >>COUN. LEWIS: FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO HAS BEEN MOVED. COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, DO WE CURRENTLY EDUCATE VOTERS FOR OTHER CITY-WIDE BALLOT MARCHES? -- MEASURES? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR BASSAN, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. >>COUN. BASSAN: THANK YOU. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION, COUNCILOR BASSAN. I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO START DOING. >>COUN. LEWIS: I THINK IT WOULD NEED TO BE MORE THAN THIS. AT LEAST FURTHER CLARIFIED. IF WE LEFT THIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ADMINISTRATION IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE THE CAMPAIGN EMAIL THEY SENT OUT ON SUNDAY THAT WAS MAYBE EDUCATING PEOPLE ON THESE BILLS, BUT VERY MUCH TELLING EVERYBODY ON THEIR CAMPAIGN LIST TO EMAIL US ALL WEEKEND WITH THEIR OPPOSITION TO IT. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU MAKE THAT IN A WAY THAT'S FAIR OTHER THAN JUST POSTING EXACTLY WHAT THE PROPOSITIONS ARE WHICH WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO THAT. THERE'S A WHOLE PROCESS FOR REQUIRING EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON PEOPLE'S BALLOTS. SPECIFICALLY, CLEARLY, WHICH IS WHY WE GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS OF P1 AND R-47S. TO GET THESE AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE. AND WE POST THEM. AND WE GO THROUGH THE REQUIRED PROCESS TO DO THAT. I JUST DON'T SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS BEING HELPFUL. ALTHOUGH, I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? DO YOU WANT TO CLOSE? WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER. OKAY. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I DID WANT TO CHIME IN AND SAY WE DO VOTER EDUCATION ON THE BONDS. WE -- DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PUBLISHES BOOKS WITH THE BOND CYCLE. AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE DONE VOTER OUTREACH CAMPAIGNS IN THE PAST. VERY GENERAL ABOUT THE UPCOMING ELECTION. THERE IS SOME PRECEDENCE FOR VOTER EDUCATION CAMPAIGN. WE LOOK -- WE AWAIT THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION. >>COUN. LEWIS: DOES THE CITY ADVOCATE? IS IT AN ADVOCATION TYPE -- NOW I'M THINKING OF WE ALL WANT PEOPLE TO VOTE ON THE BOND SO THE CITY IS FUNDING VOTE ON THESE BONDS. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT TO DO HERE. ARE WE SIMPLY, I GUESS FOR THE CLERK, ARE WE SIMPLY POSTING WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON THEIR BALLOT? >> I THINK THE -- COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I FOUND THE BOND BOOKS TO HAVE GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT EACH PROJECT IS. I THINK OUR PROJECTS IN THE PAST FROM MY RECOLLECTION VOTER EDUCATION PROJECTS ADVOCATED FOR THERE'S UPCOMING MUNICIPAL ELECTION PLEASE VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: BUT I KNOW THE MAYOR'S OFFICE IS GOING TO ADVOCATE FOR THE BONDS. THAT HAPPENS ALONG WITH THAT. AGAIN, ANYTHING FURTHER THAN JUST THROUGH THE CLERK'S OFFICE PUBLISHING AND EDUCATING FOLKS ON WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON -- ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT. I THINK WE ALREADY DO THAT. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT AND PUT SPECIFICS IN EACH OF THOSE INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS. CLEAR, CONCISE, AND IMPARTIAL. THEY SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR LANGUAGES DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY CLERK. THEY ARE TO EDUCATE ABOUT THE PROPOSITION NOT TO ADVOCATE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. THEY SHOULD PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR VOTERS TO ASK QUESTIONS, RECEIVE ANSWERS FROM KNOWLEDGEABLE OFFICIALS. ONLINE RESOURCES INCLUDE DEDICATED WEB PAGE ON THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE WITH FAQs VIDEOS, LINKS TO RESOURCES AND COLLABORATING WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, PARTNERING WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING THOSE REPRESENTING MINORITY AND UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS TO ENSURE WIDESPREAD INFORMATION AND ENGAGEMENT. WE'RE BEING VERY PRESCRIPTIVE OF WHAT WE WANT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TO DO. I PLEDGE TO WORK CLOSELY TO PILOT THIS AND THIS BECOME A NORM FOR VOTER EDUCATION. >>COUN. LEWIS: LET'S SAY IT SAYS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS. WHICH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS? COMMON CAUSE, TEA PARTY. THAT CAN OPEN UP SO MANY THINGS. IT TURNS IT POLITICAL, EITHER WAY. COUNCILOR CHAMPINE. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I JUST NEED CLARIFICATION, WHO IS -- IT SAYS THE COUNCIL ALLOCATES FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING, WHO IS GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTING IT? I RECEIVED THREE EMAILS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ADVISING OF THIS COUNCIL TONIGHT ADVISING ME TO NOT VOTE YES TO IT. I MEAN, ARE WE GOING TO ASK THE ADMINISTRATION TO DO THIS? ARE WE GOING TO DO IT? >>COUN. ROGERS: JUST TO CLARIFY -- YOUR QUESTION IS WHO IS GOING TO PROVIDE THE FUNDING. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: WHO IS GOING TO DO THE EDUCATION? >>COUN. ROGERS: THE CITY OFFICE. -- CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. >>COUN. LEWIS: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR PEÑA. >>COUN. PEÑA: MR. PRESIDENT, I THINK WHAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING AT IS WE RECEIVED THAT EMAIL. I LIKE TO ASK BOTH THE COUNCIL ATTORNEY AND CITY ATTORNEY, I THOUGHT IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A SLIPPERY SLOPE WITH THAT EMAIL THAT WE RECEIVED. IT WAS KIND OF A CALL TO ACTION TO COME TO COUNCIL TO NOT SUPPORT SOME OF THE P BILLS. I JUST WANTED TO TO KNOW, WHEN DO WE DROSS THAT THRESHOLD? I THINK IT REALLY OPENED THE DOOR TO SAY IF THIS COUNCIL DECIDES THE MAYOR IS DOING SOMETHING CAN WE DO A CALL TO ACTION FOR PEOPLE TO GO TO HIS OFFICE TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS INCORRECT OR ANYWAY. IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. I THINK WHAT COUNCILOR ROGERS IS TALKING ABOUT IS EDUCATION, RIGHT. GO OUT AND VOTE. THESE ARE THE PROPOSITIONS. IT SEEMS TO BE OKAY. I JUST REALLY WONDER, I THINK SUCH AN -- BECAUSE OF THE EMAIL WE GOT THIS WEEKEND. I DON'T KNOW IF MR. MORROW, OR MS. KEEFE. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR PEÑA, I DID NOT SEE THAT EMAIL. IT DIDN'T GO DO ME. CERTAINLY THE MAYOR'S OFFICE CAN ASK PEOPLE TO LOBBY THE COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL CAN LOBBY THE MAYOR. THERE'S NO BARRIERS TO THAT. >>COUN. PEÑA: MR. PRESIDENT, MR. MORROW. I'M SURE IT'S OKAY. BUT IT SEEMED LIKE A SLIPPERY SLOPE. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR PEÑA, WHAT KEEFE SAID IS CORRECT. I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN. AND THE CONCERN IS EXPLICITLY RELATED TO THINGS ON THE BALLOT. I DON'T HAVE IT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF ME. THERE ARE PROHIBITIONS ON USING CITY RESOURCE FOR LOBBYING THINGS THAT GO ON TO THE BALLOT. THAT'S WHERE THE DISTINCTION IS. RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN THE MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION. EVENTUALLY THINGS THAT PASSED GO TO THE BALLOT, IT'S AT THAT POINT USING CITY RESOURCES FOR OR AGAINST SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT BECOMES MORE CHALLENGING. THERE'S A 90-DAY PROHIBITION BUT DON'T QUOTE ME DIRECTLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. THIS IS AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. R-24-47. WE'LL CONTINUE IN DISCUSSION. COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. FIRST I JUST WANTED TO SAY I DIDN'T GET THAT EMAIL. IF THE MAYOR IS SENDING EMAILS TO COUNCILORS I'D LOVE TO BE INCLUDED. SECONDLY, I GUESS MY POINT ON THIS EDUCATION AND I HEAR THE CONCERNS, BUT I'VE GOTTEN SO MANY EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS FROM FOLKS THAT REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY TO DO HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. THERE'S CONFUSION IF WE PASS THIS IT'S AUTOMATICALLY PASSED. FOLKS DON'T UNDERSTAND IT'S GOING OUT TO A VOTE. I THINK THAT PARTICULARLY ON THE LIST AS COUNCILOR ROGERS, PUBLIC FORUMS ARE VITAL. I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW MANY PEOPLE I HAVE SPOKEN TO THAT WERE MISINFORMED. I THINK HAVING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF WHOEVER, IT WOULD BE A REALLY IMPORTANT PART OF PEOPLE'S KNOWLEDGE ON HOW THIS WORKS. I ADMIT BEFORE THESE I DIDN'T KNOW HOW THIS WORKED. I'M NOT SURE WHY WE EXPECT EVERYONE ELSE IN THE CITY TO UNDERSTAND HOW PROPOSITIONS LIKE THIS WORK. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT -- FOR ME THE PUBLIC FORUMS WHERE PEOPLE GET TO REALLY ASK SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, SEEMS LIKE A REALLY GOOD IDEA. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'LL END THE DISCUSSION HERE. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO DOING SIMILAR TO THE WAY THE CLERK'S OFFICE DOES THE BOND. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS AMENDMENT SAYS. I THINK IT'S WAY BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THAT. AND WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK, I BELIEVE, AND CLARIFY THAT TO THE CLERK BETWEEN NOW AND NOVEMBER OF WHAT WE LIKE THEM TO DO AS FAR AS PUBLISHING. I DON'T KNOW IF HE NEEDS THAT DIRECTION TO BE ABLE DO THAT. OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT? COUNCILOR ROGERS TO CLOSE. >>COUN. LEWIS: MR. PRESIDENT, THANK YOU. COUNCILOR ROGERS, THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT RELATED TO THIS WHEN WE USE THE COMMUNICATION THAT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IT'S BROUGHT UP AND I HAVE EMAIL IN FRONT OF ME IT'S AN EMAIL THAT HAS A LINK TO THE LEDGE STAR SO EACH OF THE BILLS POSTED WAS AVAILABLE FOR FOLKS TO SEE IT. IT'S JUST TO MAKE SURE THEIR VOICE IS HEARD AND CONTACT AND SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT TO GET THEIR POSITION ON THE MATTERED. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. WE HAVE TOOLS AND THE CITY CLERK'S EDUCATION TOOLS HE CAN USE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE CAN BE SEPARATE FROM WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I'VE HAD MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE ACTUALLY WITH PUBLIC ELECTIONS FOR BOTH ELECTED BODY INDIVIDUALS AND BOND ELECTIONS. WHEN YOU DIFFERENTIATE AN EDUCATION CAMPAIGN, AN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN AND BE DISTINCT WHERE IT'S AN EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ASKING PEOPLE TO SHOW UP AND HAVE THEIR VOICE HEARD HAS PASSED AG INTERPRETATION WHEN WE ASKED. JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE SUPPORTING INDIVIDUALS AND KNOWING THAT THEY HAD EVERYTHING ON THE BALLOT AND ENSURING THEY HAD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BESIDES JUST A PUBLIC POSTING ON A WEBSITE BECAUSE OFTENTIMES FOLKS DON'T ONLY LOOK FOR INFORMATION ON ONE PLACE. >>COUN. LEWIS: I THINK YOU'RE GIVEN A DESCRIPTION OF THE KIND OF EMAILS YOU ALL SEND OUT AND YOU'RE GIVEN DESCRIPTION OF THE EMAIL ON SUNDAY. YOU FAILED TO MENTIONED THAT IT MENTIONED DEMOCRAT STATE LEGISLATORS IN OP-ED, IT WAS ABSOLUTELY IN OPPOSITION. AND TO GET PEOPLE TO COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL MEETING TO EXPRESS THEIR OPPOSITION. I ASSUME THAT'S SENT TO THE MAYOR'S CAMPAIGN LIST AND LISTS THAT ARE GATHERED BY PEOPLE THAT CALL CITY HALL AND HAVE QUESTIONS AND LEAVE THEIR EMAIL. I RECEIVED THOSE. I'M NOT ON THE LIST. I DIDN'T GET IT. BUT I GOT EMAILS FROM CONSTITUENTS ASKING IF IT'S APPROPRIATE. THEY THOUGHT IT WAS COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE. WHETHER IT'S LEGAL OR NOT. IF YOU DID THAT REGARDING THESE BILLS, IF YOU DID THE SAME THING, IF YOU DID IT 90 DAYS BEFORE THE ACTUAL BALLOT INITIATIVES THEN IT'S ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL. AND I DON'T TRUST THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. AGAIN, JUST TOO MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT. I THINK THERE'S A CLEAR PATHWAY TO GIVE IT TO THE CLERK AND HAVE HIM PUBLISH IT WAY THE WAY HE WOULD. THE BONDING QUESTIONS THAT GO ON THE BALLOT. AND EVERYTHING ELSE WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO FOR AN ELECTION. COUNCILOR ROGERS TO CLOSE. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WOULD SAY I HEAR THE DISTRUST THAT EXISTS BETWEEN -- CAN WE TRUST THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO DO THE RIGHT THING. I THINK THAT'S THE ROOT OF THE TREPIDATION THAT I'M HEARING FROM MY COLLEAGUES. I WOULD CAUTION THAT WE CAN'T COMPROMISE VOTER EDUCATION BECAUSE WE DON'T TRUST THE ADMINISTRATION AND TO NOT WEAPONIZE THE EDUCATION. I WOULD SAY VERY STRONGLY TO THE ADMINISTRATION, IF THIS DOES PASS WE WORK TOGETHER TO COME UP WITH THAT EDUCATION AND OUR BODY WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THAT. AND WE WOULD NOT WEAPONIZE EDUCATION. BECAUSE THIS IS THE ROOT OF WHY WE WOULD NEED EDUCATION. IT WOULD HELP VOTER TURNOUT IF PEOPLE UNDERSTAND AND DIDN'T FEEL DISENGAGED FROM THE PROCESS BECAUSE IT IS CONFUSING EVEN WE HAD PROBLEMS AT THIS BODY AMENDING AND MOVING AND DOING THE THINGS FOR THE PROPOSITION. I WOULD JUST URGE TO TAKE THAT LEAP OF FAITH WITH ME AND PROVIDE THE VOTER EDUCATION THAT OUR COMMUNITY DESPERATELY NEEDS. EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T TRUST THEM. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO P4. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: NO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO. >> THAT FAILS ON A 3-6 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE BACK AS AMENDED. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE RESOLUTION? [ ROLL CALL ] >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE AN AMENDMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: I'M SORRY. COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: I HAVE AN AMENDMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO R-47. >>COUN. BASSAN: I'D LIKE TO MOVE AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE. AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE. THIS IS A TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO CLEAN UP AND CLARIFY WHAT HE JUST PASSED BEFORE AND WHAT IS REQUIRED BY OUR STAFF. THEY ASKED TO DO THIS. BEGINNING ON PAGE TWO LINE 17 THROUGH PAGE 3. R-47 SHALL READ. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR BASSAN, THIS AMENDMENT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LEWIS. >>COUN. BASSAN: IT HAPPENED WHEN I STEPPED OUT? >> THIS IS PASSED. >>COUN. BASSAN: MY APOLOGIES. >>COUN. LEWIS: THIS IS P4. IT'S BEEN AMENDED ONCE. I'M SORRY. THIS IS R-24-47. IT'S BEEN AMENDED ONE TIME. IT WAS TRIED TO BE AMENDED TWICE. THAT FAILED, CORRECT? YOU'RE RIGHT. >> YOU THE INITIAL AMENDMENT THAT YOU MOVED. AND WE HAD COUNCILOR ROGERS AMENDMENT THAT SHE MOVED. >>COUN. LEWIS: SO IT'S BEEN AMENDED ONCE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON RIGHT NOW. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT FAILS ON A 5-4 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: RESOLUTION 47 PASSED. ALL RIGHT. 48 WAS WITHDRAWN. ONE MOMENT. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 49. CORRECT? COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO 1:30 THIS MORNING. WE HAVE THE IDO WHICH I HOPE WE GET THROUGH BECAUSE WE OWE IT TO THE PEOPLE. WE HAVE MANY OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. I DON'T WANT TO WASTE TIME EXTENDING THE RULES AGAIN AS WE MOVE CLOSER. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: I'M ALL FOR WORKING LATE AND GETTING IT DONE. WE HAD SO MANY PEOPLE COME DOWN AND TALK AND WANT TO BE HERE FOR IDO AMENDMENTS. IF WE'RE HERE AT 1 O'CLOCK THE PUBLIC IS NOT SEEING IT. WE'RE TECHNICALLY FULFILLING THE DUTY, BUT THE SPIRIT OF OUR DUTY, WE'RE NOT DOING THAT. I DON'T MIND DOING THAT. 130 TO TALK IDO IS NOT DOING SERVICE TO CONSTITUENTS. >>COUN. LEWIS: OTHER DISCUSSION? [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: PASSES -- YES. PASSES 6-3. RESOLUTION 49. ADOPTING PROPOSITION FOR NEXT ELECTION IN THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE CONCERNING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CHARTER IN THE FORM OF QUESTION DESIGNATES CLAUSE FOR SUCH QUESTIONS ON THE BALLOT. MOTION AND SECOND FOR COUNCILOR GROUT. I MOVE FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. >>COUN. GROUT: SECOND. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED. THAT'S TO REFLECT THE CHANGES FROM P3. >> COUNCILORS, THERE ARE A COUPLE CLEAN UP AMENDMENTS INTENDED TO MATCH UP. THE ONE JUST PULLED UP ON THE SCREEN IS NOT AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THE BILL SAYS NOW. THERE'S A SEPARATE AMENDMENT THAT IS SPONSORED BY COUNCILOR BASSAN THAT TIDIES UP THE LANGUAGE. MR. CORNELIUS I EMAILED IT TO YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE SHOULD BE ONE AMENDMENT THAT REFLECTS EVERYTHING IN P3, CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN? >> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT'S UP THERE. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT'S AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. WHAT'S REFLECTED ON THE SCREEN. AND IT REFLECTS EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE PASSED ON P3. THAT IS KURBTH. QUESTIONS ON AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE? [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. -- >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT 49? COUNCILORS, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE DID WITH THE RESOLUTION TO P1. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE -- THAT OUR STAFF WILL REFLECT THIS AMENDMENT OF AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE AS REFLECTING EXACTLY WHAT WE CHANGED IN P1. THAT'S UP NOW. R47 AND AMENDMENT ONE REFLECTIVE OF P3? >> THIS IS R-49 WHICH REFLECTS PREVIOUSLY WHAT WAS DONE WITH P3 ACROSS SEVERAL MEETINGS. >>COUN. LEWIS: THIS IS AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. ANY DISCUSSIONS? [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS ? >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. COUNCILOR ROGERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU. I THINK I KNOW HOW THIS GOES. I'M GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY. MY AMENDMENT IS TO ADD VOTER EDUCATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL JUST THE SAME AS BEFORE. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: SECOND. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTION ON THE AMENDMENT? SAME EXACT AMENDMENT AS BEFORE. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: NO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO. >> THAT FAILS ON A 3-6 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: BACK ON THE BILL THIS IS R-49 AS AMENDED. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS ON R-49? [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES ON A 6-3 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE ON THE LAST RESOLUTION RELATE D TO THE PROPOSITIONS. THIS IS RELATED TO P4. IT'S R-50. I MOVE DO PASS. MOTION AND SECOND FOR DO PASS. THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS GOING TO BE THE AMENDMENT THAT REFLECTS EVERYTHING THAT WAS CHANGED TO P1. TO MIRROR THAT. DO WE HAVE THAT? DO YOU WANT TO PUT IT UP? THIS IS STAFF WRITING AN AMENDMENT THAT REFLECTS THE CHANGES TO P1 THAT HAS TO BE REFLECTED EXACTLY LIKE THAT INTO R-50. I MOVE THE AMENDMENT. SECONDED BY COUNCILOR GROUT. ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT? AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. MADAM CLERK. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE CALLING FOR VOTE OR OPENING FOR DISCUSSION. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: I DON'T HAVE DISCUSSION. I WAS TRYING TO SEE WHAT WAS ON THE SCREEN. I HAVE TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO READ IT. IF YOU PUT IT PACK ON THE SCREEN I CAN VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: YOU GOT A MOTION. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT MOTION PASSES. THAT'S AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. COUNCILORS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR AMENDMENTS? CLOSE DISCUSSION. GO TO I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. [ ROLL CALL ] >> I'M SORRY. THAT'S THE CLOSE OF THIS BILL? >>COUN. LEWIS: WE JUST CLOSED THE BILL. >>COUN. ROGERS: MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE MORE AMENDMENTS IN MY PACKET. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. >>COUN. LEWIS: THERE ARE AMENDMENTS THAT NEED TO BE PROPOSED. I'M LOOKING FOR COUNCILORS TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS AT THE TIME OF DISCUSSION OF THE BILL. OPEN THAT UP AGAIN FOR DISCUSSION. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE MY FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR FOR R-24-50. I'M SORRY. AMENDMENT 2. TO ADD VOTER EDUCATION. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BACA: SECOND. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR BACA. DISCUSSION ON FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO? >>COUN. PEÑA: MR. PRESIDENT, I JUST HAVE A COMMENT. I HAVE A COMMENT. WE'RE ALL VOTING -- NOT ALL OF US, BUT SOME OF US ARE VOTING IN OPPOSITION OF COUNCILOR ROGERS. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I SUPPORT WHAT SHE'S TRYING TO DO. BUT MR. WATSON DID SAY THEY DO VOTER EDUCATION. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S SUFFICIENT FOR US TO DO ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO IS MY RATIONALE FOR VOTING AGAINST IT. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: AMENDMENT TWO. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCILOR ROGERS TO CLOSE. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I APPRECIATE THAT, COUNCILOR PEÑA. I THINK I'M JUST DRIVING HOME THE POINT TO OUR AUDIENCE THAT THIS BODY IS NOT FOR VOTER EDUCATION. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. MOVED AND SECONDED. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: NO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO. >> THAT FAILS ON A 3-6 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENTS? WE'LL CLOSE DISCUSSION. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THAT AMENDMENT WAS ONLY GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH IF IT HAD PASSED ON THE P BILL. SINCE THERE'S NO MOTION ON THE P BILL THERE'S NO REASON TO MOVE IT. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. I'M ASSUMING THAT IF YOU HAVE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'LL SAY IT, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE IN THE BOOK OR NOT. I'LL GIVE YOU TIME TO DO THAT. IF YOU GOT AMENDMENTS YOU HAVE TO PROPOSE THEM. YOU HAVE TO MOVE. ALL RIGHT. NO OTHER AMENDMENTS. DISCUSSION IS CLOSED. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. THIS IS R-50 AS AMENDED. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES ON A 7-2 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: I THINK THAT CONCLUDES OUR PROPOSITION BILLS AS WELL AS THE RESOLUTIONS. WE'VE RETIRED ALL OF THOSE. WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO THE BILLS RELATED TO THE IDO. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE GOING DIRECTLY TO THE IDO BILLS. THAT'S GOING TO BE ITEM N. IT'S O-13 IS THE FIRST ONE WE'RE DEALING WITH. IT'S COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, O-13 IS ACOPTING CITY WIDE TO THE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE SECTION 14-15 TO THE 2023 ANNUAL UPDATE. I MOVE A DO PASS. >>COUN. GROUT: SECOND. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOTION AND SECOND. COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT I'D LIKE TO MOVE. AMENDMENT B1. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE HAVE SPEAKERS. WE'LL GO TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS PATRICIA FOLLOWED BY JANE. >> I FINALLY LEARNED HOW TO SEARCH TO SCROLL THROUGH THE IDO RED LINE DRAFT TO REVIEW THE FOOTNOTED EPC CONDITIONS SMALL AREA. THERE ARE 159 FOOTNOTES. SOME OF THE GOOD THINGS, NO TO DUPLEXES IN R-1. NO TO BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS , NO CHANGES IN FRONT YARD WALLS, YES TO REVISION OF OUTDOOR AND LIGHTING, YES TO PRESUBMITED TRIBAL MEETINGS. SOME OF THE BAD CHANGES, REMOVING PRESUBMITTAL MEETINGS. CHANGING DEFINITION OF ADJACENT. REMOVING DEFINITION OF CANNABIS MICROBUSINESS. AND SEVERAL CHANGES FROM CONDITIONAL TO PERMISSIVE. CHANGING LOCALLY UNWANTED LAND USES, FROM CONDITIONAL TO PERMISSIVE IS NEVER A GOOD IDEA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> JANE FOLLOWED BY LORETTA. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, MULTIPLE IDO PROPOSALS EFFECTIVELY AND INTENTIONALLY DISINFRANCH CHIEZ NEIGHBORHOOD AND VOICES. REDEFINING THE TERM ADJACENT TO EXCLUDE A PROPERTY DIAGONALICALLY ACROSS AN INTERSECTION BUT NEAR THE DEVELOPMENT. REMOVING OR CREATING OBSTACLES TO MEETINGS OR RELIEVING THE CITY FROM THE RESPONSIBILITIES TO ENSURE THEY OCCUR. MAKING EXISTING CONDITIONAL USES AND CONTROVERSIAL OR INADEQUATELY CONSIDERED NEW USES PERMISSIVE. REMOVING THEM FROM THE PUBLIC PROCESS. THESE INCLUDE OVERNIGHT SHELTERS, DUPLEXES AND ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS. REWRITING DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS THAT BELONG IN THE CPA PROCESS OR QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS. THIS CRITICISM APPLIES TO THE AMENDMENT AS THEY HAVE BEEN DEFEATED OR WITH DRAWN PREVIOUSLY THEY SHOULD ALL BE DEFEATED AGAIN. THANK YOU. >> LORETTA FOLLOWED BY GARY. >> THE HNE OPPOSES REMOVAL OF REQUIREMENTS AND ALSO DOES NOT SUPPORT THE DUPLEXES IN THE R1. AND WHEREAS THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE IS FACING A CRISIS OF HOMELESSNESS AND CATASTROPHIC HOUSING SHORTAGE DUE TO THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE NEGLECT OF DEALING WITH THESE ISSUES BEFORE THE PANDEMIC, AND WHEREAS ININCREASING COST OF RENTING OR PURCHASING THE HOME HAS BECOME AN UNTENABLE FOR MANY NEIGHBORHOODS DUE TO MANY ISSUES SUCH AS THE NO RENT CONTROL ALLOWED AIR B&B BY THE WAY -- WE NEED A MORATORIUM IN THAT AND INVESTORS LACK OF LIVING WAGE AND WHEREAS THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE NEEDED IN THE PAST AND MORE TODAY MEET THE SUPPLY NEEDS BY CREATION OF PERMANENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND NEEDS TO PROTECT SERVING EXISTING CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS. AND DUPLEXES ALREADY EXIST IN HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS AS CONDITIONAL AND ALLOWED UNDER R2 ZONES. THANK YOU. >> GARY FOLLOWED BY PAUL. >> THANK YOU. I'M A PLANNING COMMISSIONER ADDRESSING YOU IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY. I THANK THE LUPZ FOR VOTING UNANIMOUSLY NOT TO MAKE TALL YARD WALLS PERNISZIVE CITY WIDE. ALL FRONT YARD WALLS IMPEDE POLICE PATROLS AND FIRST RESPONDERS. VIEWED FENCING IS FILLED IN DAMAGING EYES ON THE STREET. A NEW IDEA HOWEVER IS TAKEN SHAPE THAT MIGHT END THE ANNUAL STRUGGLE. IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL. THAT'S BECAUSE MOST OF THE CITY WAS DEVELOPED WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL PRINCIPLE OF THREE FOOT MAXIMUM WALLS. IN A FEW SMALL AREAS TALLER WALLS MAY BE CULTURAL OR HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE. THEY COULD BE IDENTIFIED IN THE COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA ASSESSMENT. WHEN THAT HAPPENS YOU CAN CONSIDER A SMALL MAPPED AREA. OR YOU CAN ADD THAT TO THE CHARACTER PROTECTION OVERLAY. PLEASE DON'T APPLY A STANDARD THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR A SMALL FRACTION FOR THE CITY TO THE ENTIRE CITY. PLEASE DON'T -- PLEASE REVIEW OPPOSITION DON'T CHANGE THE RULES CITY WIDE. THANKS. >> PAUL FOLLOWED BY DERRICK. DERRICK FOLLOWED BY CARLOS. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THANK YOU. I URGE THE COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THE CHANGES TO THE IDO FOR OUTDOOR AND SIGHT LIGHTING. I'M HERE FOR THE NEW MEXICO DARK SKY CHAPTERER. LET'S BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REDUCING LIGHT POLLUTION. ONLY LIGHT WHERE IT'S NEEDED AND THE AMOUNT NEEDED. WE AT NEW MEXICO DARK SKY ENDORSE THE CHANGES AND REGULATING ARTIFICIAL LIGHT AT NIGHT. PLEASE SUPPORT THE LIGHTING AMENDMENTS. >> CARLOS FOLLOWED BY JEN. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, I'M HERE TO ASK YOU TO PASS THE AMENDMENT ALLOWING DUPLEXES NEAR TRAFFIC CORRIDORS. THE CITY ESTIMATES WE NEED OVER 30,000 AFFORDABLE HOMES. THAT NEEDS DID NOT RISE OVERNIGHT. THIS IS RESULT OF DECADES OF RESTRICTIVE GOVERNMENT REGULATION. TWO-THIRDS OF ALBUQUERQUE IS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. NO MARKET FOR THAT LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION CAN BE CONSIDERED FREE MARKET. OUR HOUSING DOES NOT RESPOND. RECOGNIZING THIS CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY INCLUDING MINNEAPOLIS AND PORTLAND HAVE DONE AWAY WITH SINGLE FAMILY ZONING AND SEVERAL STATES HAVE DONE THIS STATE-WIDE. INCLUDING MONTANA AND CALIFORNIA. THIS BILL -- THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT THAT. IT STATES FOCUS ON THE MOST EFFECTIVE TRANSIT CORRIDORS. SEVERAL COUNCILORS INTEREST IN THE RACIST HISTORY OF LAWS, I THINK ZONING LAWS WOULD BE INTERESTING. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU. >> JANE FOLLOWED BY JOANNE. JOANNE FOLLOWED BY CRYSTAL. CRYSTAL FOLLOWED BY TYLER. TYLER FOLLOWED BY RENEE. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I'M FROM DISTRICT FOUR. I LIKE TO SPEAK TO COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT OPPOSE THE DUPLEX AMENDMENT IN THE LUPZ MEETING. ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO HAVE NO AFFECTED PARTS IN YOUR DISTRICT I ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE FOR IT. THIS IS ABOUT THE MOST INCREMENTAL AND MEASURED ZONING CHANGE THAT HAS A CHANCE TO HAVE ANY EFFECT. WE CAN TRY THIS POLICY AND REALISTIC INCREMENTAL CONTROLLED MANNER. NONE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE IN OUR BACKYARD. THE DISTRICTS WHOSE BACKYARDS ARE AFFECTED ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS YOU CHANGE NOTHING IN YOUR DISTRICT. YOU RETAIN THE TRUST OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS YOU GET TO SEE HOW IT PLAYS OUT IN DISTRICTS THAT WANT IT. THEY WANT IT BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT DENSITY MEANS STRONGER COMMUNITIES AND FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITIES AND THE ENTIRE CITY WILL BENEFIT FROM THE INCREASED HOUSING SUPPLY AND LOWER PRICES AND INCREASE PROPERTY VALUE ASSOCIATED TAX REVENUE AND MORE DENSITY. IT'S A WIN-WIN AND WITH NO EFFECTS BUT MORE MONEY. THANK YOU. >> RENEE FOLLOWED BY ELIZABETH. >> GOOD EVENING. I LIVE ON THE WEST SIDE. I AM WITH THE WEST SIDE COALITION. WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE IDO AMENDMENTS. JUST LIKE PATTY WILSON SAID, IT WEST SIDE COALITION DOES SUPPORT WHAT ICC LETTER THAT THE B AMENDMENTS NOT BE PASSED AND I WANT TO FOCUS ON SPECIFICALLY ON PRESUBMITTAL FACILITATED MEETINGS. THOSE ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS. NOT TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THAT BECAUSE WE RELY ON THOSE FACILITATED MEETINGS. PRESUBMITED BEFORE THEY SUBMITTED BECAUSE THEREFORE THEY DO IT'S PRETTY MUCH A DONE DEAL. DO NOT CHANGE ANY OF THE LANGUAGE FOR PRESUBMITTAL. AND ALSO ON ADJACENCY. DEFINITIONS, DO NOT CHANGE THAT BECAUSE THAT REALLY DOES AFFECT ALBUQUERQUE'S ABILITY TO APPLY NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS NEXT TO OUR MAJOR OPEN SPACE. IT DOES ALLOW PROJECT SITES TO GO TO EPC IF IT'S ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE. DO NOT CHANGE ADJACENCY DEFINITION OR THE PRE-SUBMITTED MEETING. WONDERFUL TO COMMENT. THANK YOU. >> ELIZABETH FOLLOWED BY MATILA. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT. TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT WILL SHOW THAT THE CITY IS MAKING PROGRESS BY UNDERSCORING THE CITY'S COMMITMENT TO EFFICIENT TRIBAL CONSULTATION. IT WILL EXPEDITE THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR QUICKER PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND MOST IMPORTANTLY IT WILL UNLOCK ADDITIONAL FEDERAL RESOURCES. IN A RECENT GAO REPORT EXACTLY 22 DIFFERENT FEDERAL AGENCIES WERE CANVASSED THE NAME OF THE REPORT IS ADDITIONAL FEDERAL ACTIONS NEEDED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. 19 THROUGH 22. THE POINT BEING THAT IF YOU HAVE A TRIBAL CONSULTATION PROCESS WHICH CONGRATULATIONS THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE DOES, IT HAS AN OFFICE OF EQUITY, AND IT ALSO HAS A TRIBAL LIAISON OFFICER, AND RIGHT NOW THE WAY THAT OFFICE APPEARS TO BE SET UP MIRRORS THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE GAO. GOOD WORK. PASS THE AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. >> LATEARO FOLLOWED BY EVELYN. EVELYN FOLLOWED BY DIANRA. >> INEZ NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD MEMBER. PLEASE UPHOLD THE LUPZ OF EXTENDING DUPLEX FROM THE UPTOWN URBAN CENTER. THIS WOULD BE INTO ONE-THIRD OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WOULD CAUSE -- IT WOULD BE FALSE HOPE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. ALL OF OUR HOUSES ARE BUILT ON THE SAME PLAN. RANCH HOUSES, SOLID BRICK. THEY HAVE INTERIOR SIDE TO SIDE HALLWAYS. YOU CANNOT DIVIDE THE MAIN HOUSE OR YOU'RE TALKING GARAGE CONVERSIONS. 99% OF THE GARAGES ARE ONE CAR. MINE IS 12 BY 22. ONE OF THE LARGER ONES. YOU WOULD HAVE NO PLUMBING IN THAT GARAGE. YOU WOULD HAVE TO START WITH A KITCHEN. THERE'S ONE 220 PLUG AND ONE 120 PLUG. YOU WOULD NOT HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUT OF THIS. IT'S A FALSE HOPE. IT'S A FALSE PREMISE. PLEASE UPHOLD THE COMMITTEE'S REJECTION. >> DIANDRA FOLLOWED BY GILL. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I AM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGER FOR PNM. PNM SUPPORTS IDO AMENDMENT SIX REGARDING ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS. AS THE SYSTEMS ARE BUILT OUT, WE WILL CONTINUE TO COORDINATE WITH PLANNING AND COUNCIL STAFF TO MONITOR AND IF NECESSARY MAKE SUGGESTIONS TO IMPROVEMENTS TO IDO USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS. AMENDMENT SIX WILL LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD BETWEEN THE UTILITY AND THIRD PARTY DEVELOPERS. ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS ARE AN ESTABLISHED BUT STILL EVOLVING TECHNOLOGY. WE APPRECIATE THE CITY'S COLLABORATION TO SUPPORT THE METRO AREA'S ELECTRIC GRID AS OUR ENERGY NEEDS GROW AND CHANGE. AGAIN, WE THANK YOU FOR WORKING ON THIS AMENDMENT. AND PNM IS IN SUPPORT. >> GILL FOLLOWED BY MRS. WARD. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCILORS. I'M NEW TO THIS AREA HERE. I'VE BEEN HERE LESS THAN A YEAR AND A HALF. I WAS RECENTLY APPOINTED -- EXCUSE ME. PRESIDENT OF SANTA FE VILLAGE IN DISTRICT ONE. I JUST HAVE TO COVER A COUPLE ITEMS. IF DUPLEXES ARE APPROVED THAT ARE SMALL LOTS AND NARROW STREETS, IT CAUSES SERIOUS PROBLEMS ESPECIALLY WITH ADDED TRAFFIC. WE'LL MOST LIKELY LOOK LIKE A MALL PARKING LOT AT CHRISTMAS TIME. THE WAY IT'S SET UP. REGARDING THE TRIBAL MEET FACILITATION, IT HAS BEEN TOO LONG FOR LOCAL NATIVES NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN CITY BUSINESS. THESE PEOPLE ARE ALL PART OF OUR COMMUNITY. ANYWAY, AS FAR AS FRONT YARD WILLS AND FENCES, AS I SAID BEFORE, MOST OF OUR STREETS ARE NARROW. AND WOULD CREATE BIND -- BLIND SPOTS. NOT TO MENTION AESTHETICS. IT WOULD RUIN THE LOOK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. >> MS. WARD FOLLOWED BY JOHN. >> SOME TEXT AMENDMENTS ARE MISLABELLED AND ARE SUBSTANTIVE. ACCORDING TO CHANGE, DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ACCEPTED MEANING IS LEGALLY DUBIOUS AND ORWELLIAN. THIS BODY AT TIMES RESEMBLES A ZOO BUT ANIMAL FARM COMES TO MIND. YOU CAN DEBATE AMONG YOURSELVES WHO ARE THE PIGS AND THE HORSES I DO HAVE NOMINEES FOR THE SNAKES AND THE ASSES. PLEASE VOTE NOPE ON CHANGES OF ADJACENT. PLEASE VOTE NO ON WALL HEIGHTS. AND VOTE NO ON -- AND SUPPORT TRIBAL MEETINGS FACILITATE. >> JOHN FOLLOWED BY IAN. IAN FOLLOWED BY EDWARD ON ZOOM. >> SUPPORT THE DUPLEX AMENDMENT. 49% OF PEOPLE WHO RENT ARE SPENDING MORE THAN 30% OF INCOME ON HOUSING. AND 26% ARE SPENDING HALF OF THE THEIR INCOME. WE DON'T JUST NEED ZONING AND LAND USE REFORMS LIKE THE DUPLEX AMENDMENTP, WE DON'T JUST NEED EXPANDED TENET PROTECTIONS. WE DON'T JUST NEED MORE INCLUSIONARY POLICIES FOR EVERY NEW FANCY BUILDING THERE ARE AFFORDABLE UNITS IN IT. WE DON'T NEED WHAT HAPPENED AT LOS ALTOS. WE NEED ALL THE POLICIES AND NEED THEM NOW. ALL I'M GOING TO SAY IS IF FOR WHATEVER REASON YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE DUPLEX AMENDMENT THINK ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER IDEAS I PROVIDED BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE CRISIS. THANK YOU. >> EVELYN FOLLOWED BY GREG. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS, I AM SPEAKING AS A CERTIFIED RESIDENTIAL APPRAISER AND REAL ESTATE BROKER IN OPPOSITION TO B2 THE DUPLEX AMENDMENT. I DO NOT LIVE IN THE TARGETED NEIGHBORHOODS. 2023 NEW MEXICO HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUOTE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS CRITICAL TO SUPPORT GROWTH. B2 WILL DIMINISH THE SUPPLY OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS. INVESTORS GO INTO THE AREAS AND COMPETE WITH HOMEOWNERS, INVESTORS WILL WIN. AMENDMENT WILL NOT GIVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. HAVING APPRAISED IN ALL THE AREAS I CAN TESTIFY THAT IN ALL THESE AREAS EXCEPT FOR THE VOLCANO HEIGHTS URBAN CENTER THEY'RE ALREADY EXISTS DUPLEXES AND TRIPLEXES. THE BQ AMENDMENT UNFAIRLY AFFECTS HISTORICALLY CULTURAL DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS. LAST YEAR, MEMBERS -- ANYWAY. TO BE OR NOT TO BE VOTE NO ON B2. THANK YOU. >> GREG FOLLOWED BY ELNOR. >> PRESIDENT LEWIS, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. THE NOB HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO OPPOSE AMENDMENT B2, DUPLEXES, B3 ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS, B6 FRONT YARD WALLS AND FENCES RESIDENTIAL, AND B4 PREAPPLICATION FACILITATED MEETINGS. OTHERS FROM THE ASSOCIATION SPOKE ON ELECTRIC STORAGE SYSTEMS AND FRONT YARD WALLS. WE VOTED TO OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT AND PRE-APPLICATION MEETINGS BECAUSE WE REGULARLY HAVE SUCH MEETINGS AND FIND THEM USEFUL. PER THE APPLICATIONS MEETING WERE PUT INTO THE IDO TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS IN THE PREVIOUS PROCESS. BY REMOVING THE PREAPPLICATION MEETING THE AMENDMENT ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. WE OPPOSE DUPLEXES AS A PERMISSIVE USE IN R-1 ZONES. THERE'S AN EXISTING IDO PROCESS TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF A PARCEL AND THAT SHOULD BE USED RATHER THAN DEFINING R1 ZONES OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING. OTHER PARTS OF ALBUQUERQUE MAY HAVE DIFFERENT CONDITIONS AND THEIR RESIDENTS MAY FEEL DIFFERENT BUT THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THESE ISSUES. THANK YOU. >> ELANOR FOLLOWED BY JORDAN. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS, DURING GENERAL COMMENT, I MENTIONED ABOUT HAVING COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT HAVING TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THAT COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT. AND NOT ACROSS TO ADJACENT COTTAGE DEVELOPMENTS. IT HAS BEEN UNCLEAR IN THE PAST HOW THAT APPLIES SO I URGE YOU TO CLARIFY AND MAKE SURE THAT EACH COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT HAS TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THE IDO. THERE ARE A FEW CHANGES WHOSE JUSTIFICATION SEEMS TO BE TO LESSON THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORKLOAD. PLEASE INCREASE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET INSTEAD OF PASSING AMENDMENTS THAT RESIDENTS DO NOT WANT SUCH AS INCREASING WALL SIZE, REMOVING PRESUBMITED MEETINGS AND DUPLEXES AND REDUCING TIME TO REQUEST A MEETING. >> JORDAN FOLLOWED BY MEREDITH. >> GOOD EVENING AS A RESIDENT OF DOWNTOWN AND THOSE THAT WORKED WITH OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS. I STRONGLY SUPPORT DUPLEXES. OUR LARGEST INFLATIONARY PRESSURE IS HOUSING. DUPLEXES ARE A MEANINGFUL FIRST STEP PROVIDING OPTIONS AND AIDING SOCIALABILITY AND EASING FINANCIAL BURDEN. HAVING BEEN PRECARIOUSLY HOUSED MYSELF THIS ISSUE IS CLOSE TO MY HEART. THIS IS FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE IT CURBS UNSUSTAINABLE COST ASSOCIATED WITH URBAN SPRAWL BY MINIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF PAVEMENT AND PLUMBING NEEDING TO CONNECT HOMES. IT MAKES ALBUQUERQUE A BETTER PARTNERING BY PROTECTING OUR INDIGENOUS LANDS. IT ONLY AFFECTS LONG SELECT PREMIUM TRANSIT CORRIDORS WHERE INCREASED DENSITY MAKES SENSE. DUPLEXES FIT INTO NEIGHBORHOODS OFTEN APPEARING AS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES PRESERVING HISTORIC AREAS. GENTLE DENSITY PREVENTS GENTRIFICATION. I ALSO POINT OUT THAT SACRAMENT EOCENE A 19% DROP IN HOMELESSNESS. THANK YOU TO COUNCILOR ROGERS AND COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN FOR CHAMPIONING THIS. YOU GUYS ARE GEMS. >> MEREDITH FOLLOWED BY KIM PRICE. >> SPRUCE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OPPOSES AMENDMENT B2. THIS IS NOT LESING THE HOUSENING PROBLEMS. BECAUSE A DUPLEX CONVERSION DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AFFORDABLE. THE TARGETED AREAS HAVE LOW TO MODERATELY PRICED HOMES ALREADY ATTRACTIVE TO PROFIT-DRIVEN BUYERS. THESE COULD BE STARTER HOMES BUT INDIVIDUALS CANNOT COMPETE WITH PURCHASES BY INVESTORS. MONEY WISE.COM RANKS NEW MEXICO AS THE STATE WITH THIRD HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF SALES TO INVESTORS. 33%. AND STATES THAT THIS IS DRIVING UP PRICES OF HOMES AND RENT CREATING AN INCREASINGLY UNSUSTAINABLE AND CONTINUED HOUSING SHORTAGE. R1 HOMES COULD NOT BE PREVIOUSLY CONVERTED TO DUPLEXES WITHOUT A ZONE CHANGE. BY RECLASSIFYING R1 TO INCLUDE DUE MREXZ B2 IS A ZONING CHANGE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. >> KIM FOLLOWED BY MICHAEL. >> I'M JIM, I LIVE IN MOLTEN ROCK. I'M HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS. THE WOMAN FROM PNM SAYS THIS IS EVOLVING TECHNOLOGY. I HAVE SOLD INDUSTRIAL BATTERIES OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS AND IT WAS NOT DESCRIBED TO US -- I'M SORRY. >> YOU'RE FINE. PLEASE CONTINUE. >> ANYWAY, IT'S AN EVOLVING TECHNOLOGY. SODIUM BATTERIES ARE AROUND THE CORNER. THEY DO NOT EXPLAIN WHETHER THEY WANT TO USE LITHIUM IRON OR LITHIUM ION. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A MEGAWATT THERMAL DEVICE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. CALIFORNIA WITH THEIR TIGHT REGULATION HAS HAD FIVE OF THESE BLOW UP ON THEM. AND THEY HAVE MUCH HIGHER REGULATIONS. I'M SPEAKING AGAINST THAT. AND I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL TO PLEASE SUPPORT THE NEW OUTDOOR LIGHTING PROGRAM. THE CITY DID A GREAT JOB HIRING ASSOCIATIONS AND THEY WROTE A GREAT PROPOSAL. WE NEED TO SUPPORT THAT. >> MICHAEL FOLLOWED BY CHRIS. >> HELLO, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY AND THE COUNCIL TO SPEAK TODAY IN SUPPORT OF PERMISSIVELY ALLOWING DUPLEXES IN R1 ZONES. I'M A HOME OTHER THAN IN DISTRICT NINE. I COULD TALK ABOUT HOW THIS IS A NECESSARY INCREMENTAL STEP TOWARD INCREASING ALBUQUERQUE'S HOUSING SUPPLY TOWARD ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS AND RENT PRICES AND TOWARD CREATING RESILIENT CITY. I WASN'T TO PUT FOCUS ON TO THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE EXCLUDING FROM LIFE IN THE CITY IF WE FAILED TO PASS IT. A SCIENTIST AT THE LAB IS MY VALUED NEIGHBOR LIVING NEAR ME AND HER LOVELY FAMILY IN A DUPLEX. A YOUNG ENGINEER WANTS TO PUT DOWN ROOTS BUT CAN'T GET HIS FOOT INTO THE HOUSING MARKET. TWO SCIENTISTS ARE LEAVING ALBUQUERQUE BECAUSE IN ORDER TO START A FAMILY THEY NEED ACCESS TO STARTER HOMES WHICH ARE RARE OR NONEXISTENT. NOT PASSING THIS DENIES US THE PLEASURE OF HAVING THEM AS OUR NEIGHBORS AND DENIES THE CITY THE BENEFIT OF THE INCREDIBLE TALENTS. I URGE THE COUNCIL AND MY COUNCILOR TO PASS THE DUPLEX AMENDMENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> CHRIS FOLLOWED BY ANDRAE. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I REPRESENT PLUS POWER. OUR TEAM HAS BEEN WORKING SINCE 2018 TO DEVELOP STAND ALONE ENERGY STORAGE IN NON-RESIDENTIAL LIGHT ZONING ADJACENT TO THE WEST MESA SUBSTATION. THIS PROJECT WILL PROVIDE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE CRITICAL ENERGY RESILIENCY AND GRID STABILITY. IT WILL PLAY A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN MEETING THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO ENERGY TRANSITION ACT GOAL AND PNM GOAL OF ZERO CARBON. WE SUPPORT THE IDO AMENDMENT REGARDING THE ENERGY STORAGE REGARDING THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE. WE THANK CITY STAFF FOR INVOLVING OUR TEAM AND STAKEHOLDERS IN THE DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. >> ANDREA. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEWIS, I LIVE -- I'M A RESIDENT IN THE NORTH VALLEY. I'M ENCOURAGING YOU TO ALLOW DUPLEXES PURR PERMISSIVE. MIXED HOUSING IS ESSENTIAL. CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NOT ONLY WORKS WITH DEVELOPERS BUT ALSO ALLOW FOR WEALTH BUILDING FOR LOCAL BUSINESSES AND LANDLORDS. DESIGN ALLOWS FOR -- MAINTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. WE'RE OUT OF TIME WHEN IT'S POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP LENDING PRODUCTS THAT COULD BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR CASITA. LENDING PRODUCTS THAT ARE CDFI FUNDED AND FINANCED AND STATE-BACKED THROUGH REVOLVING FUNDS ALLOW RESIDENTS TO CONVERT HOMES TO DUPLEXES WHICH ARE AN AVERAGE LOWER COST OF CONVERSION THAN CONSTRUCTION OF CASITA OR CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. IF YOU WANT TO PREVENT HOMELESSNESS FROM GETTING WORSE, IF YOU WANT TO ALLOW OPPORTUNITY FOR MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS, FOLKS THAT ARE JUST DEVELOPING THEIR CAREER AND ESTABLISHING THEMSELVES IN THE WORLD, SPOERALITY DUPLEXES. MIXED HOUSING AND INCLUSIONARY ZONING HAS CONTRIBUTED AND IT'S A TOP CONTRIBUTOR TO ECONOMIC MOBILITY IN ALL CITIES ACROSS THE U.S. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE TIME. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING DUPLEXES AS PERMISSIVE IN R1 ZONE. >> THAT CONCLUDES COMMENT ON O-13. WE'RE ON O-24-13. BACK TO THE SPONSOR. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, BEFORE I MOVE AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. I JUST WANT TO SAY I KNOW MR. COX HAS PRESENTATIONS FOR ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO -- WITH YOUR PERMISSION REQUEST IF THE SPONSOR OF THAT AMENDMENT WOULD LIKE PRESENTATION THEY COULD REQUEST IT BECAUSE I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT I COULD PROBABLY MOVE IT WITHOUT THE PRESENTATION. I'M GOING TO SKIP THAT PART. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. ON PAGE 342 OF THE IDOEPC RED LINE, ADD A NEW SUBSECTION WITH TEXT AS FOLLOWS AND RENUMBER SUBSECTIONS. ADDS REQUIRED LIGHTING NONSHALL ILLUMINATE THE BUILDING FACING THE ALLY. PURSUANT TO 58D4. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR GROUT. SCOMBLN MR. PRESIDENT, . >>COUN. BASSAN: IF THIS IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ABUTTING AN ALLEY, NONNONRESIDENTIAL, SHALL ILLUMINATE. WE WANT TO ILLUMEINATE ALLEY WAYS FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY ALL GOOD THINGS. >>COUN. LEWIS: AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. ANY DISCUSSIONS OR QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT? >>COUN. ROGERS: JUST TO CLARIFY. NON-RESIDENTIAL BUT INCLUDES MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT? IS THAT RESIDENTIAL? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR ROGERS, MULTIFAMILY WOULD BRING RESIDENTIAL, NON-RESIDENTIAL IS REFERRING TO THE DISTRICT CATEGORY. WITHIN THE IDO DISTRICT YOU HAVE MIXED USE CATEGORY, NON-RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL. YEAH. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT? COUNCILOR BASSAN TO CLOSE. >>COUN. BASSAN: URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >> [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: LET'S GO DOWN THE LIST OF AMENDMENTS. THE NEXT ONE IS COUNCILOR ROGERS AND COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE FLOOR AMENDMENT TWO. I WILL NOT READ THE WHOLE THING. I THINK EVERYONE READ IT. THIS IS THE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DUPLEXES IN UCMX AND TT AREAS ONLY. OR WITHIN 1,320 FEET OF THOSE. I'LL MOVE THAT AMENDMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR ROGERS. ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? ANYTHING ELSE, COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN? >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FIRST. >>COUN. LEWIS: DISCUSSION? COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN TO CLOSE. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR WE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION AROUND DUPLEXES. I THERE WERE A LOT OF CONCERNS THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT WERE STATED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THE FIRST ONE WAS THE DEVELOPERS WOULD BUY A FULL BLOCK OF HOUSES AND KNOCK THEM DOWN AND CREATE DUPLEXES. I DO NOT SHARE THAT CONCERN. THIS YEAR WE SAID YOU CAN ONLY DO THIS IF IT'S AN EXISTING HOME. IF YOU GO AND BUY A HOUSE AND DEMOLISH IT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITTING PROCESS. THAT IS IN DIRECT RESULT OF ALL THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE LAST YEAR. THAT WENT TO EPC AND IT WAS TURNED DOWN. THEN WE HEARD THAT WASN'T REALLY THE PROBLEM. THAT WASN'T OUR CONCERN. OUR CONCERN IS THAT WE'RE SCARED IT'S TOO MUCH. IF WE DO THIS CITY WIDE THERE WILL BE DUPLEXES ON EVERY CORNER. SO, WE SAID OKAY, WE WILL MAKE IT ONLY ON AREAS YOU SEE MX AND TT AREAS WITHIN THE CITY WHERE WE WANT DENSITY. WE WANT PEOPLE TO LIVE NEAR TRANSIT AND AREAS THEY WANT TO LIVE, WORK AND PLAY IN. AND WE GO PUSH BACK ON THAT. PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT'S NOT WHAT WE MEANT. BUT IT'S BEGINNING TO SEEM TO ME WHAT WE'RE UPSET ABOUT IS WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE LIVING NEXT TO US THAT MAKE LESS MONEY THAN US. THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF. WE'VE ADDRESSED EVERY CONCERN OVER AND OVER AGAIN. ALL THE AMENDMENT BEFORE US SAYS IS YOU CAN DO DUPLEX IN AN EXISTING HOME THAT'S ALREADY THERE THAT WON'T CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU CAN ONLY DO THAT IN CERTAIN AREAS WHERE THERE ARE REALLY GOOD REASONS TO HAVE INCREASED GENTLE DENSITY. I FIND IT VERY FASCINATING THAT THIS -- THE REASON FOR OPPOSING THE CHANGES EVERY SINGLE TIME WE PUT OUT A NEW ITERATION, BUT THE REASON FOR SUPPORTING IT HAVEN'T CHANGED SINCE LAST YEAR. I CONTINUE TO GET CALLS AND EMAILS. EVERY SINGLE DAY. SEEING, PLEASE LET'S INCREASE GENTLY DENSITY IN OUR CITY. WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY A HOUSE. THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO BUY A HOUSE. WE'VE HEARD TWO EXAMPLES TONIGHT. I PERSONALLY, IF I DIDN'T OWN MY HOME COULDN'T AFFORD TO BUY A HOUSE. I SURE WOULD LOVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE IN AN DUPLEX IF IT WAS OFFERED IN OUR CITY. I JUST WANT TO SAY, I HEARD A LOT TONIGHT ABOUT SALES TO DEVELOPERS, SALES TO DEVELOPERS. THERE'S NO DATA THAT SAYS DEVELOPERS ARE GOING TO RUSH IN AND PURCHASE UP ALL THE HOMES AND TURN THEM INTO DUPLEXES. JUST LIKE THERE WAS NO DATA THAT SAID THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH CASITAs AND IT DIDN'T. IT DID NOT HAPPEN. THERE'S NOT A RUSH ON CASITAS. THERE'S NOT A RUSH OF DUE -- DUPLEXES. THERE'S PEOPLE THAT MAY CREATE A SECOND UNIT FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE IN. I REMIND EVERYONE IN THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE ALREADY, SEVEN UNRELATED ADULTS CAN LIVE TOGETHER IN ONE HOME. THEY'RE ALREADY DOING IT. THEY'RE FORCED TO BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD OTHER HOUSING. ALL WE'RE SAYING BY SAYING WE WOULD LIKE DUPLEXES IF WE HAVE DIGNITY IN THE HOUSING. YOU CAN HAVE YOUR FAMILY LIVE ON THEIR OWN AND NOT SHARE WITH SOMEONE ELSE. THOSE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY LIVING TOGETHER. THEY HAVE MULTIPLE CARS AND HAVE INCREASED TRAFFIC. WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE JUST THINK WE DON'T WANT THOSE PEOPLE LIVING NEAR US. I FOR ONE DO WANT THEM LIVING NEAR US. WITH THAT, I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: MADAM CLERK. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: NO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO. >> FAILS ON A 3-6 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: AMENDMENT FAILS. WE GO TO B3 IN YOUR PACKET. THIS IS AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. AND THAT IS COUNCILOR BACA. >>COUN. BACA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THIS IS -- >>COUN. LEWIS: THE AMENDMENT THAT FAILED WOULD NO LONGER -- IT IS STILL NUMBER TWO? THIS IS GOING TO BE AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE? AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE. >>COUN. BACA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE. DO PASS. THIS AMENDMENT IS FOR THE BATTERY STORAGE FACILITY AND PRIMARILY ADDRESSES MAKING SURE THAT IF ONE OF THESE IS BUILT IN AN AREA IT CONFORMS TO THE STANDARD OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IT'S IN. IT GOES THROUGH LANDSCAPING OR UP AND DOWN. I WON'T READ IT ALL. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR GROUT. OUR STAFF HAS A COMMENT. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, AT LUPZ WE HEARD A LOT OF FIRE CONCERNS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE YOU AWARE WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM AFR HERE TONIGHT. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS, ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS AMENDMENT? COUNCILOR ROGERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM AFR REGARDING FIRE CONCERNS. I HAD A PLEASURE OF TALKING WITH -- I WON'T SAY A BIG SAMPLE OF FIREFIGHTERS WHO HAVE NOT HEARD ABOUT THIS. I KNOW IT GOES TO THE RANKS DIFFERENTLY. I WANT TO HEAR WHAT WE'RE DOING TO TRAIN AND WHAT IS OUR CURRENT HAS MAT CAPABILITY. IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN. I READ THESE FIRES CAN BE PUT OUT AND START. YOU CAN START TO COME DOWN. JUST IN THE INTEREST OF TIME. I JUST WANT TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR HAZ MAT TRAINING AND HOW DO WE NOTIFY FIREFIGHTERS THAT THIS IS HAPPENING. THE 12 I SPOKE TO DID NOT HAVE CLUE THIS IS HAPPENING. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR ROGERS, I BROUGHT JASON GARCIA. HE'S OUR FIRE MARSHAL. ALL OF THIS WILL START GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS THROUGH FIRE CODE BEFORE WE EVEN GET ANY INFORMATION OUT TO OUR FIREFIGHTERS. BEING THAT THIS IS STILL IN PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION, IT STARTS HERE. AND IT'S DUSBURSED OUT. IF YOU WERE ARE SPEAKING TO THE RANK AND FILE IN THE DEPARTMENT, THAT'S JUST BECAUSE WE AREN'T AT THAT STAGE. WE HAD TOUCH ON THE PROCESS FOR COUNCIL. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR ROGERS HI. YEAH, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'LL BE ABLE TO OVERSEE FROM THE GROUND UP OF THE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, THE BUILDING OUT OF ALL THE SYSTEMS AS THEY GO INTO THE CITY. WE TALKED ABOUT THE TRAINING WE'LL START. THE PHOENIX FIRE DEPARTMENT STARTED A PROCESS THAT WE'LL MODEL IN A WAY THAT THEY HAD SUCCESS WITH IT. THESE SYSTEMS ARE GOING AROUND ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. IT'S BECOMING THE STANDARD FOR THIS KIND OF ENERGY STORAGE. WE'RE PREPARING FOR IT. WE WILL BE PREPARED FOR IT. WE HAVE TWO HAZ MAT SQUADS AND A TASK FORCE THAT WILL BE -- WE ALREADY KNOW WE'RE GOING TO PLAN FOR OUR DISMRACH ON HOW WE WILL BE DISPATCHED TO THOSE EVENTS IF WE HAVE ANY. WE KNOW THE DANGERS OF IT. AND WHAT ARE AWARE OF IT. THE RANK AND FILE YOU HAVE SPOKEN TO, IT'S SOMETHING NEW ACROSS THE COUNTRY. YET IN SOME CITIES IT'S PRETTY COMMON AND STANDARD. >>COUN. ROGERS: ONE MORE FOLLOW UP. THAT MEANS THE RANK AND FILE ISN'T INVOLVED IN HOW WE'RE WRITING THE CODE IN HOW WE'RE DECIDING HOW WE RESPOND. IT'S ADJUST YOUR ADMINISTRATION -- JUST YOUR ADMINISTRATION AND LEADERS? HOW DO YOU INVOLVE THE FRONT LINE? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR ROGERS, WE USE THE FIRE CODE TO HELP SET THE STANDARD FOR HOW SOMETHING IS BUILT AND IMPLEMENTED IN THE CITY. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES HAVE A WHOLE PROCESS THEY GO THROUGH. THE AUTHORS ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS AND IN THIS CASE WE RELY ON OTHER ENTITIES, NFPA STANDARDS OR FIRE CODES TO IMPLEMENT THE PROCESSES. THERE'S A WHOLE PROCESS OUR POLICIES GO THROUGH. THAT LOOPED IN LABOR AND MEMBERS THAT MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. THAT'S WHERE OUR POLICY IS PASSED. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I GUESS SPECIFICALLY HOW DO YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VOICE OF THE FRONT LINE FIREFIGHTERS IN DEVELOPING ALL OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR ROGERS, JUST LIKE I SAID, WHENEVER WE HAVE A NEW POLICY, THERE'S A BUNCH OF STEPS THAT GO THROUGH INCLUDING INPUT FROM FIREFIGHTERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: AFTER THE POLICY IS MADE? >> NO, IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A POLICY THERE'S SEVERAL -- THERE'S A 12-STEP PROCESS THAT WE HAVE THAT INCLUDES FEEDBACK FROM FIREFIGHTERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR CHAMPINE. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. IT'S NOT A QUESTION FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. IT'S PROBABLY FOR THE SPONSOR. WE VOTED IT DOWN IN COMMITTEE, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND THIS? IT DIDN'T? I THOUGHT IT DID. IT WAS WITHDRAWN. SO HAS ANYTHING CHANGED SINCE THEN? ONE MORE QUESTION. PNM IS HERE. I WONDER IF THEY CAN ANSWER THIS IF POSSIBLE. THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING. I KNOW IT'S LATE. THERE'S LOTS OF QUESTIONS WHEN THIS CAME UP BEFORE. AS FAR AS HEATING, COOLING, UNITS, WE TALKED ON DIFFERENT PAST TIMES, AND ANOTHER MEETINGS ABOUT THIS. DID YOU GUYS COME UP WITH ANY ANSWERS AS FAR AS THE NOISE THAT'S GOING TO BE CAUSED BY THE AIR CONDITIONING? >> COUNCILOR LEWIS, COUNCILOR CHAMPINE, I'M PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY SENIOR MANAGER OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS. WE DID COME UP WITH A FEW ANSWERS FROM YOUR CONCERNS. YOU KNOW, WE DO ABIDE BY THE NOISE ORDINANCE OF THE CITY. IT'S WHEN WE BUILD THESE FACILITIES. SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DO WITH SUBSTATIONS. WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HEY HAVE. -- MAY HAVE. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: MR. PRESIDENT, IS THERE A CONSTANT HEATING AND COOLING ISSUE YOU HAVE TO ADDRESS WITH THESE UNITS WHILE IT'S CHARGING AND DISCHARGING? >> PRESIDENT LEWIS, COUNCILOR CHAMPINE YES. IN FACT, THE BATTERY UNITS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ARE THE LITHIUM ION. AND THEY DO HAVE TO BE COOLED AND THEY CANNOT EXCEED A CERTAIN HEAT. RIGHT NOW, THIS TECHNOLOGY CANNOT -- HAS A RANGE FROM 14 DEGREES TO 122 DEGREES. WITHIN THE UNITS THEMSELVES, THEY WILL BE COOLING ACCORDINGLY TO KEEP WITHIN THIS TEMPERATURE RANGE AND HEAT ACCORDINGLY TO BE SO THEY DON'T GET TOO COOLED OR UNDER 14 DEAGREES. IDEALLY, LIKE ANYTHING YOU WANT THEM AT ROOM TEMPERATURE. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS, OTHER QUESTION OR DISCUSSION? WE'LL GO TO COUNCILOR GROUT. >>COUN. GROUT: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. HOW OFTEN DO THESE THINGS CATCH ON FIRE? >> PRESIDENT LEWIS, COUNCILOR GROUT, WE DO HAVE SOME STATISTICS. ESPECIALLY WITH THE LITHIUM IONS. ACCORD TO THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE WHICH IS EPRI, FROM AUGUST 12 TO APRIL 2023 WHICH IS BY A TEN-YEAR TIME PERIOD. THERE HAVE BEEN ABOUT 500 UTILITY-SCALE AND THESE ARE EVEN LARGER PROJECTS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE U.S. FROM THERE THERE WERE 14 FIRE INCIDENTS. HOWEVER, THAT'S AN INCIDENT RATE OF 2.9%. AND THERE WAS NEVER ANY INJURY OR LOSS OF LIFE DUE TO ANY OF THE FIRES. >>COUN. GROUT: THANK YOU. ARE BUSINESSES BUILDING THESE BATTERY STORAGE UNITS NOW? WHEN THEY COME TO TOWN. >> PRESIDENT LEWIS, COUNCILOR GROUT, I WILL REFER TO DIANDRA BECAUSE SHE WORKED ON ONE OF THE BATTERY STORAGE UNITS FOR A BUSINESS. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR GROUT, THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THAT. I DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC NUMBERS OR WHO -- BUT THE WAR IS YES. >>COUN. GROUT: IF WE -- THIS HAS REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE BUSINESSES OR IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THEM IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT WE NEED TO ADHERE TO, THE BUSINESSES OR YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE TO ADHERE TO IN ORDER TO BUILD ONE. IF WE DON'T DO THAT, AND CAN THEY STILL BE BUILT IF WE PASS THIS? >> PRESIDENT LEWIS, COUNCILOR GROUT, I BELIEVE THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS WITHOUT THIS LANGUAGE, YES, THEY CAN BUILD THEM OUT -- I BELIEVE THEY WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN APPROVAL PROCESS FOR ZONING CHANGE. BUT YES, IT IS POSSIBLE. >>COUN. GROUT: WITH THESE PROTECTIONS IN THERE, IT MAY HELP IN THE FUTURE? I KNOW ENERGY STORAGE IS A NEW TECHNOLOGY. A NEW THING. SO, NOT BEING -- WE ALSO NEED TO BE PROACTIVE ABOUT THE FUTURE. IT'S GOOD TO HEAR THAT PHOENIX, WHICH IS OUR NEIGHBOR, THEY'RE DOING THIS. AND YOU'RE MODELING WHAT YOU'RE DOING FROM THEM. SO YOU HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO CHECK. I DO -- I WAS PLEASED THAT YOU ALL AGREED WITH THE CHANGES. I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THEM COMING INTO MY NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU KNOW, I WANT PEOPLE TO BE SAFE AND I ALSO DON'T WANT THEM TO BE AN EYESORE. THOSE TELEPHONE POLES THAT CAME INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY MADE THEM LOOK LIKE FAKE TREES, THEY STILL LOOK LIKE FAKE TREES BUT THEY LOOK LIKE DEAD FAKE TREES NOW. I DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THE FACADE THAT HAVE BEEN A REQUIREMENT THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, I APPRECIATE THAT YOU ALL SUPPORT THAT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE -- IF WE'RE EVER GOING TO GET MOVED IN THIS DIRECTION OR WE NEED TO PLAN FOR IT. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD FIRST STEP. I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR ROGERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. RESEARCHING THIS I FOUND DATA AROUND SPECIFICALLY STORAGE FIRES IN THE U.S. AND CANADA. BASED ON FIRE TRACE INTERNATIONAL THEY CITED 19 DIFFERENT NUMBER OF FAILURE EVENTS. THEY TALKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WATER-BASED SUPPRESSION. WILL THOSE BE AUTOMATIC IN ALL OF THESE UNITS WHERE YOU HAVE WATER-BASED SUPPRESSION? >> PRESIDENT LEWIS, COUNCILOR ROGERS, THAT AS FAR AS WATER SUPPRESSION I CAN'T SAY THEY WILL OR NOT. THAT'S PART OF THE TECHNOLOGY THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE CONTAINED IN THESE STORAGES AND BY MY UNDERSTANDING THERE ISN'T MANY WATER SUPPRESSION WITHIN A MORE -- ARE YOU SPEAKING ABOUT A SPRINKLER SYSTEM? THAT'S SOMETHING I CAN'T ANSWER RIGHT NOW. WE COULD PROBABLY LOOK MORE INTO IT. I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT. >>COUN. ROGERS: I THINK WE SHOULD RESEARCH THAT. CALIFORNIA HAS HAD THE MOST NUMBER OF FAILURE EVENTS. THAT'S SOMETHING THEY INSTITUTED THAT HAD A BIG PUBLIC OPPOSITION BECAUSE OF STORAGE FIRES. ONE OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS I HAD DURING THE LUPZ COMMITTEE IS HOMELAND SECURITY. HAVE YOU GOTTEN ANSWERS ON HOW WE WOULD PROTECT THESE STORAGE UNITS FROM HOMELAND SECURITY SAFETY? >> PRESIDENT LEWIS, COUNCILOR ROGERS, WE APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION. PNM TAKES CYBERSECURITY VERY SERIOUSLY. WE ALREADY HAVE MEASURES IN THERE. THEY INCLUDE THE 12-FOOT WALLS. WE HAVE 24-HOUR MONITORING. AS WE HAD DISCUSSED BEFORE, I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO WHAT PNM OFFERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WHAT ABOUT CYBERATTACKS? THAT'S WHAT HOMELAND SECURITY CITED IN THEIR RESEARCH WAS THOSE THINGS ARE GREAT BUT THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT CYBERATTACKS. HOW DO WE PLAN FOR THAT? >> PRESIDENT LEWIS, COUNCILOR ROGERS, AGAIN, PNM HAS ROBUST CYBER PROTECTION. YOU CAN'T GO INTO SPECIFICS OF THOSE, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM. AS SOMEBODY THAT IS A USER OF PNM INFRASTRUCTURE, IT'S VERY ROBUST. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR CHAMPINE. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: I'M JUST GOING OVER -- 43E8. IT SAYS ELECTRIC UTILITY THE SUBSTATION SHALL BE SURROUNDED BY PERIMETER WALL OF MINIMUM OF 12 FEET HIGH. AND BACK ALMOST 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. NEXT PAGE OVER ON 43E. ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM SAYS THE WALL OR FEET AT LEAST EIGHT FEET BUT NOT MORE THAN 12. ARE THERE TWO WALLS, ONE AROUND -- I'M CONFUSED. CAN YOU CLARIFY THE TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS? >> COUNCILORS, THE EIGHT-FOOT WALL IS RELATED TO ELECTRIC UTILITY WHICH IS THE OWN USE AND GENERALLY IS SUBSTATIONS THAT EXISTS WITHIN THE CITY. AND THE ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM BATTERY IS WHERE WE REQUIRE 12-FOOT WALLS AND THAT'S ALSO WHAT HOMELAND SECURITY REQUIRES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: EIGHT TO 12 FOOT WALLS FOR THE ESS. MR. PRESIDENT, THERE'S A WALL ON THE OUTSKIRT AND WALL AROUND THE BATTERY BOX? >> APOLOGIES. I GOT IT CONFUSED. SWITCH THAT. THE ELECTRIC FACILITY WHICH IS THE SUBSTATION REQUIRES A 12-FOOT WALL PER OUR IDO. AND THE CITY, THE LOCAL LAW FOR THE BATTERY STORAGE COULD BE EIGHT TO TWELVE FEET TALL. THERE'S NO TWO WALLS. IT'S JUST ONE PERIMETER WALL ONLY. IT'S TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF STRUCTURES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE HAVE OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON ZOOM. >> WE HAVE MICHAEL VAUSS. >>COUN. LEWIS: IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT? >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEWIS, AND COUNCILORS. I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK QUICKLY TO COUNCILOR ROGERS'S QUESTION ABOUT THE FIRE SUPPRESSION. THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE ZONING CODE. YOU HEARD FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL EARLIER AND FIRE SUPPRESSION REQUIREMENTS ARE BUILT INTO THE CITY FIRE CODE. THAT WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WHEN FACILITIES COME IN FOR DEVELOPMENT. AND WITH REGARD TO THE WALLS, I THINK TO BE CLEAR A 12-FOOT WALL AROUND A SUBSTATION IS A REQUIREMENT. IF BATTERIES WERE IN THE SUBSTATION, THE 12-FOOT WALLED ALLOWED WOULD QUALIFY. IT'S ONE WALL. IF SOMEONE IS DOING A STAND ALONE BATTERIES ONLY, THE LARGER SCALE INDUSTRIAL ONES, AND THEY WANTED TO PUT IT WITHIN JUST AN EIGHT-FOOT WALL IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA THAT'S WHY THERE'S A RANGE FOR THE BATTERIES DIFFERENT FROM SUBSTATIONS. >>COUN. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. COUNCILOR BACA. >>COUN. BACA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I JUST WANT TO REMIND FOLKS THIS IS AN AMENDMENT NOT THE ACTUAL -- WHICH CONCERNS ITSELF PRIMARILY WITH WALLS FOR SECURITY AND FACADES AND LANDSCAPING. IT'S IN A NEIGHBORHOOD. THE MAJORITY OF THE QUESTIONS TODAY ASKED WERE EXCELLENT BUT THEY'RE NOT GERMANE TO THIS AMENDMENT. AND JUST TO FINISH, I WELCOME OFFENSE THESE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. THE AGING INFRASTRUCTURE DOESN'T ALLOW SOLAR PANELS. WITH THAT, I URGE EVERYONE'S SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU, ALL. I MOVED TO THAT PRETTY QUICK. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. I MOVED TO THE CLOSED REAL QUICK. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT? TAKE THAT AS YOUR CLOSE, COUNCILOR BACA? ALL RIGHT. MADAM CLERK. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT, COUNCILORS, WE GO TO -- WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS FIRST ONE. THIS WOULD BE FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR. EXHIBIT ONE. IF YOU WOULD -- I'M GOING TO MOVE AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR. LET ME MOVE THIS FIRST. IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR CHAMPINE. AND THEN, STAFF, GIVE AN EXPLANATION. I DON'T WANT TO READ EVERYTHING. I'LL LET OUR STAFF CLARIFY OPTION ONE AND OPTION TWO. >>-- COMMITMENT TO NEGOTIATING WITH THE APPLICANT IN GOOD FAITH ABOUT HOW THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CHANGED TO LESSON ANTICIPATE NEGATIVE IN PACT AND REASONABLY BE ACCOMMODATED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. AND ESSENTIALLY THAT WOULD JUST SOLIDIFY A GOOD CONVERSATION BETWEEN OUR ADR OFFICE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE DEVELOPER PRESENT AT THAT MEETING. WHAT IT ALSO DOES IS BRING IN LANGUAGE THAT REALLY CLARIFIES ADR'S POSITION AND POSSIBLE THIRD PARTY SAYING THAT THE CITY SHALL ASSIGN A NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY TO FACILITATE LAND USE DISCUSSION AND DOCUMENT THE DISCUSSION IN A MEETING REPORT. A DIFFERENT FACILITATOR MAY BE USED THAT WOULD READ BY THE APPLICANT AND REQUESTER. THEN ALSO JUST LEGAL LANGUAGE THAT SAYS DISCUSSION IN THESE MEETINGS AND THE MEETING REPORT SHALL HAVE NO LEGAL BINDING. THAT'S OPTION ONE. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO OPTION TWO. >>COUN. LEWIS: EXPLAIN OPTION TWO. THEY'RE CONFLICTING, CORRECT? >> YES. SO, AMENDMENT B4B, WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF DAYS THAT A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION COULD RESPOND OR REQUEST FOR FACILITATED MEETING FROM 15 TO 7. IT ALSO BRINGS IN THAT GOOD NEGOTIATION LANGUAGE BY ACCEPTING THE MEETING REQUEST THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS AGREEING TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE APPLICANT IN GOOD FAITH. ON TOP OF THAT IS ALSO BRINGS IN THE NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY LANGUAGE AS WELL. ESSENTIALLY, THE BIG DIFFERENCE IS THE SECOND ONE KEEPS PRESUBMITED MEETINGS BUT REDUCES THE DAYS TO REQUEST THAT MEETING WHICH THE FIRST ONE GETS RID OF PRESUBMITTAL AND REPLACES IT WITH POST SUBMITTED MEETING. AND POST SUBMITTAL IS REFERRING TO THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS, FLOOR AMENDMENT FOUR IS OPTION ONE. THAT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ON FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE? COUNCILOR ROGERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I THINK MY QUESTION IS JUST SINCE YOU'RE SPONSOR OF BOTH, WHICH ARE YOU MOVING? >>COUN. LEWIS: I'M MOVING OPTION ONE. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> IT PASSES ON A 5-4 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY, COUNCILORS, I'M NOT GOING TO MOVE OPTION TWO. THIS WILL BE AMENDMENT FIVE. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THIS IS FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE. I WILL NOT READ IT OUT. IT'S JUST MAKING THE CHANGE THAT WE JUST DID. KIND OF GOING THROUGH TO THE TRIBAL CONSULTATION SECTION OF THE IDO. I MOVE A DO PASS. >>COUN. LEWIS: SECOND BY COUNCILOR BASSAN. COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I HAD ORIGINALLY HAD A CONCERN THAT I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO CLARIFY. BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS IN LIGHTENING. ON ONE HAND I THOUGHT IF WE PASSED THE AMENDMENT WE JUST PASSED AND GOT RID OF THE PRESUBMITTAL MEETING, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR TO KEEP THE PRE-SUBMITTAL MEETING FOR CERTAIN ENTITY, WITHOUT THE OTHER HOWEVER THIS IS A SPECIFIC RULE FOR DIFFERENT THINGS. MR. COX, I APPRECIATE IF YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU DISCUSSED WITH ME. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR BASSAN, I'M GOING TO REMIND MYSELF AS BEST AS POSSIBLE. THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN THE PRE-APPLICATION MEETING FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD AND TRIBAL PRE-APPLICATION MEET IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE APPLICATION. A TRIBE IS A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, AND THAT APPLICATION THAT TRIGGER A PRE-SUBMITTAL MEETING FOR THE TRIBE REALLY DEAL WITH THE LAND SPECIFICALLY. IT'S SUBDIVISIONS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY, REZONING AND ANYTHING NOT TO DO WITH DESIGN OR THE ARCHITECTURAL USE AND TRUCKTURE OF A PLACE WHILE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING DEALS A LOT WITH HOW THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TRAFFIC, SITE PLANS, REALLY JUST A SLEW OF MANY MORE APPLICATIONS THAN WHAT TRIBES GET BASED OFF THE RELATION OF LAND MORE THAN ANYTHING. >>COUN. LEWIS: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS. I REALLY JUST WANT CONSISTENCY THROUGHOUT. I FEEL LIKE IT FEELS STRANGE TO CHANGE THE RULES FOR ONE GROUP AND NOT THE OTHERS. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE. COUNCILOR PEÑA. SIX OR FIVE. AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX. >>COUN. PEÑA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I'M GOING TO READ THIS EXPLANATION. THIS IS FRONT YARD WALLS AND FENCES. I DON'T ANTICIPATE IT'S GOING TO PASS. IT COMES UP EVERY YEAR. IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE, YOU KNOW I KNOW HAVE AN ABOUT TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF FENCES IF WE DO A SPECIAL REQUEST. SOME NEIGHBORHOODS USE FENCES FOR SECURITY REASONS FOR PEOPLE NOT TO GET IN. YOU KNOW, AS YOU HAVE WITH SPECIAL USE REQUIRES RESOURCES AND MONEY AND TIME TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. AND SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHO DO HAVE HIGHER -- THE NEED FOR A TALLER FENCE ACTUALLY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT IN LOTS OF CASES. IF YOU LOOK AT MORE AFFLUENT NEIGHBORHOODS, THE WAY IT IS NOW IN SOME NEIGHBORHOODS, THEY JUST DON'T HAVE FENCES. I KNOW THERE'S CONCERN WITH PEOPLE PUTTING UP FENCES IN SOME OF THE NICER NEIGHBORHOODS. I JUST DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING A PROBLEM. I'M GOING TO JUST PUT IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. OR FOR A VOTE ONE MORE TIME. AND THAT WILL BE THAT. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: WHO SECONDS? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL SAY COUNCILOR CHAMPINE WITH A SECOND. DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR ROGERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: I JUST HAVE A CLARIFYING HISTORICAL QUESTION. WHY DO WE KEEP BRINGING IT OUT EVERY YEAR? >>COUN. PEÑA: WE BRING IT UP EVERY YEAR JUST BECAUSE THERE'S A NEED. THERE'S PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WHO REALLY FEEL LIKE IN DISTRICT THREE FOR EXAMPLE THAT REALLY FEEL THEY NEED A FENCE FOR SECURITY SO PEOPLE AREN'T ENTERING. EVEN IN SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS WE SEE IT'S A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING. THEY WOULD PREFER TO HAVE A TALLER FENCE HEIGHT. SOMETIMES PEOPLE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO THAT. BY ALLOWING -- FENCE HEIGHTS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE CHART, FENCE HEIGHTS AREN'T GOING TO GO TO EXTREME HEIGHTS. THERE'S REALLY A COUPLE FEET ALLOWANCE. WHETHER IT BE COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THIS IS FOR MY LEARNING. IN THESE IDO UPDATES ARE WE ALLOWED TO SAY IF IT'S SOMETHING YOU NEED IN YOUR DISTRICT, ARE WE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. INSTEAD OF BLANKET CHANGES, ARE WE ALLOWED TO DO IT FOR THE AREA THAT WANTS IT? >>COUN. PEÑA: I'M SURE WE ARE. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR ROGERS, THAT IS A BIT OF DIFFERENT PROCESS. IT REQUIRES A LONGER TIMELINE. FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF THE OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL SMALL MAP AREA ORDINANCES THAT ARE COMING THROUGH LATER TONIGHT, THERE'S A LOT OF ANOTHER NOTIFICATION. IT'S ALMOST A YEAR-LONG PROCESS TO GET THAT STARTED. WHEREAS, THIS AMENDMENT WHEN IT DIDN'T PASS WAS JUST BROUGHT BACK. >>COUN. PEÑA: MR. PRESIDENT, I'LL CLOSE BY SAYING I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. I THINK ME AND COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN ARE GOING TO BE PUTTING THESE AMENDMENTS FORWARD EVERY YEAR. >>COUN. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SAY ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE'LL COUNT THAT AS COUNCILOR PEÑA'S CLOSE. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: NO. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: NO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO. >> IT FAILS ON A 1-8 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN. COUNCILOR ROGERS AND COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE FLOOR AMENDMENT SEVEN. EXHIBIT ONE TO O-24-13. AND ON PAGE 152 IN TABLE FOUR 4-2-1 ALLOWABLE RESOURCE. REVISE THE ROLE OF OVERNIGHT SHELTERS TO MAKE THE USE PERMISSIVE IN ALL ZONE DISTRICTS CURRENTLY ALLOWED AS CONDITIONAL. WHICH ARE MXM, MXH, NR-C, NR-LM, AND NR-GM. WE ALSO PROHIBIT WITHIN 1500 FEET IN ANY DIRECTION OF A LOT CONTAINING OVERNIGHT SHELTER, WE WOULD BE -- PROVIDING 200 OR MORE BEDS ARE PROHIBITED. THAT'S A COMPROMISE FROM MY FELLOW COUNCILORS ABOUT THE MEMORIAL ON -- THE INJUNCTION NOW THAT'S BEEN LIFTED. I'M LEAVING IT AT 200 WITH FEEDBACK FROM MY CALLESIAN. THIS USE REQUIRES CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. AND IT WOULD ALSO MAKE MORE THAN TEN BEDS IN AN MXM AND NRC ZONE DISTRICT WITHIN 330 FEET OF THE REZ ZONE DISTRICT OR ANY RESIDENTIAL USE IN ANY MIXED USE ZONE. THE EXPLANATION FOR THIS IS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO MAKE SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED OVERNIGHT SHELTERS PERMISSIVE IN SOME DISTRICTS AND PROHIBIT LARGE SHELTERS. THE BREAKDOWN WOULD BE TEN OR LESS ARE SMALL AND PERMISSIVE IN THE ZONE YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN. 11 TO 49 BEDS WOULD BE MEDIUM PERMISSIVE. AND CONDITIONAL IN MXM AND NRC200-PLUS BEDS LARGE SHELTERS ARE PROHIBITED IN ALL ZONES. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY TO OVERNIGHT SHELTERS. IT DOESN'T CHANGE SUPPORTIVE PERMANENT HOUSING ANY OF THE OTHER ALLOWABLE USES. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR BACA. QUESTION OR DISCUSSION? COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I GET ASKED ABOUT THE MOST. BY MY CONSTITUENTS. WHY AREN'T YOU DOING MORE, WHY AREN'T THERE MORE SHELTERS, WHY AREN'T THERE MORE PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO GO. WHILE I COMPLETELY AGREE THAT WE DON'T WANT MORE BIG PLACES. I DON'T THINK THE -- I'M NOT SURE THE GATEWAY IS THE ANSWER. I THINK THERE'S A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL OVERNIGHT SHELTERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. I WOULD LOVE TO IS TELL MY CONSTITUENTS WE HAVE DONE SOMETHING AND WE'RE MOVING FORWARD TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SHELTERS THROUGHOUT OUR CITY. THANK YOU TO COUNCILOR ROGERS FOR DOING THE HEAVY LIFTING ON THIS. I SUPPORT IT. >>COUN. LEWIS: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THIS IS AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN. MOVED AND SECONDED. CLOSED ON IT. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: NO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO. >> THAT FAILS ON A 3-6 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT. COUNCILOR BACA. O-24-17. WE'RE BACK ON 13. COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT WAS -- WE'RE GOING TO O-11. THIS IS SPONSORING THIS BY REQUEST. ADOPTION OF SMALL AREA NEXT AMENDMENT TO THE IDO FOR THE VOLCANO HEIGHTS TO ALLOW DRIVE THROUGHS AND MIXED USE ZONE DISTRICTS. O-24 IS QUASI-JUDICIAL REQUEST WHICH REQUIRES A SPECIAL PROCEDURE TO ALLOW THAT APPLICANTS AND THE PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. THIS AGENDA WILL PROCEED AS FOLLOWS. FIRST OF ALL THE COUNCIL PLANNING STAFF WILL GIVE A FIVE MINUTE PRESENTATION AND TESTIMONY BY PUBLIC SPEAKERS TWO MINUTES EACH. REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT IS FIVE MINUTES. CROSS EXAMINATION. TWO MINUTES EACH AND THEN COMMENTS BY PLANNING AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IF ANY. FIVE MINUTES AND COUNCIL PLANNING STAFF AND CLOSING COMMENTS. CITY STAFF, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, AND APPLICANT MUST BE SWORN IN. ANYONE SPEAKING. CITY STAFF, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, AND THE APPLICANT IF YOU'RE HERE AND GOING TO SPEAK TONIGHT, IF YOU WILL BE SPEAKING ON THIS ITEM, AS A STAFF MEMBER OR MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. EVERYBODY RAISING THEIR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY WILL BE TRUE? EVERYBODY ANSWERING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. OKAY. MR. COX, IF YOU WILL PLEASE BEGIN WITH YOUR INTRODUCTION. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, THANK YOU. THIS IS O-24-11. I DON'T BELIEVE MY PRESENTATION WILL TAKE FIVE MINUTES. WE'LL SEE. THIS IS A RELATIVELY SIMPLE AMENDMENT FOR THE VOLCANO HEIGHTS URBAN CENTER. AN URBAN CENTER DESIGNATED BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IT'S AN AREA THAT WE HOPE -- OR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AIMS TO CREATE A URBAN ENVIRONMENT WHICH PERTAINS TO WALKABLE MIXED USE BASICALLY A STYLE OF LIFE WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TOO FAR. WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DO IS REMOVE CERTAIN LANGUAGE THAT PROHIBITS DRIVE-THROUGH STRUCTURES WITHIN THE URBAN CENTER. AND SO, AS YOU CAN SEE, IN THE ARROW, THIS IS IN OUR NORTHWEST AREA JUST NORTHEAST OF PETROGLYPH NATIONAL MONUMENT. AND THE MAP AND ZONE DISTRICTS SHOW IT. AND A QUICK CORRECTION. IT'S NOT ALL DISTRICTS THAT PROHIBIT DRIVE THROUGHS, BUT ALL MX DISTRICTS WITHIN THE URBAN CENTER PROHIBIT DRIVE THROUGHS CURRENTLY. THIS PLAN WOULD ALLOW DRIVE THROUGHS WITHIN THE MX ZONES. AT THE EPC HEARING THEY RECOMMENDED DENIAL. THAT IS REALLY IT. I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? >>COUN. LEWIS: HOW MANY EPC MEMBERS WERE THERE? >> FIVE. >>COUN. LEWIS: AND WERE THERE WEST SIDE REPRESENTATIVES THERE? I BELIEVE THE COMMISSIONERS FROM MY DISTRICT, COUNCILOR PEÑA'S DISTRICT AND I BELIEVE COUNCILOR SANCHEZ'S DISTRICT DID NOT ATTEND THAT MEETING. LET'S TALK ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THAT MEETING. I'M SORRY? AND COUNCILOR BACA, THAT'S CORRECT. I THINK THOSE ARE THE FOUR COMMISSIONERS. THOSE ARE GOING TO BE TIMES WHEN THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. IT JUST SO HAPPENED THAT ALL FOUR WEREN'T PRESENT AT THAT MEETING. THOSE WHO SPOKE AT THAT MEETING, IN FAVOR OF THE CHANGE, WERE THEY -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY WERE MOSTLY OR ALL RESIDENTS OR HAD STANDING IN THAT AREA? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I CAN'T SAY EXACTLY WHERE FOLKS LIVED. WE HAD A SLEW OF PEOPLE THAT COMMENTED ON IT. IN FAVOR AND OPPOSED. I WILL SAY AS PART OF THE PACKET YOU HAVE TONIGHT YOU WILL SEE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEMBERS OF THE AREA SIGNED A PETITION WITH 150 SIGNATURES IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT. I CAN'T RECOLLECT. >>COUN. LEWIS: 160 PEOPLE THAT SHOWED UP AT THE MEETING THAT SIGNED THAT PETITION IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING THE DRIVE THROUGHS. AND THEY WERE RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA. IF THEY SIGNED THAT PETITION, OF COURSE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THOSE THAT SPOKE, MANY SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THIS. THOSE WHO SPOKE AGAINST, WAS THERE ANY -- AS FAR AS INDICATION OF WHERE THEY CAME FROM OR WHAT AREAS OF TOWN THEY WERE IN? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I UNFORTUNATELY CAN'T SAY EXACTLY WHERE FOLKS WERE FROM OR SPECULATE ON THE PROPERTY. ALL I KNOW IS THAT EXACTLY WHERE THE PACKET IS AND -- AS FAR AS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE URBAN CENTER, IT'S JUST HARD FOR ME TO SAY THAT. >>COUN. LEWIS: I MEAN, JUST REVIEWING THAT, IT LOOKS PRETTY CLEAR THAT MUCH OF THE OPPOSITION CAME FROM PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THAT OR NOWHERE NEAR THAT BOUNDARY AND OTHER PARTS OF TOWN THAT WEIGHED IN IN OPPOSITION. THAT SEEMED TO BE A PRETTY CLEAR DISTINCTION. I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY YOU THAT EPC MEETING WENT AND WHAT SOME OF THE PUBLIC INPUT WAS AND WHERE THAT CAME FROM. >>COUN. LEWIS: ERR -- WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED. AT THIS TIME, IF THERE ARE NOT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE DO THAT, THIS WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO THAT. OTHERWISE, WE'LL GO TO COUNCIL PLANNING STAFF. IF THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION. THAT'S YOU. WE JUST DID THAT. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO TESTIMONY BY PUBLIC SPEAKERS. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS MONICA FOLLOWED BY RENEE. RENEE FOLLOWED BY BILL. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M WITH THE WEST SIDE COALITION. YES, I WAS AT THE MEETING. I DID PARTICIPATE IN THE FACILITATED MEETING. I WAS INVOLVED IN THE MAKING OF A NATIONAL MONUMENT. AND THIS SITE IS RIGHT NEXT TO THAT NATIONAL MONUMENT. THAT'S WHY WE HAD SECTOR PLANS FOR THE NATIONAL MONUMENT. YOU KNOW, AROUND THAT AREA. WHICH THE IDO CHANGED. THE IDO IS MUCH MORE INTENSE. BUT THERE ARE SOME RESTRICTIONS THAT WE SHOULD UPHOLD AND THE PLANNING STAFF DID RECOMMEND NOT TO AMEND THIS OR REMOVE THE BAN ON DRIVE THROUGHS. AND AS YOU LOOK AT THAT MAP THAT MATT COX SHOWED, THE NRBP ZONE ALONG UNSER AND PASEO SHOW YOU CAN DO A DRIVE THROUGH RIGHT THERE. AND THERE'S ANOTHER SECTION ALSO. BUT THE MX ZONE IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE MONUMENT. AND EVEN THE PARK SERVICE HAS A LOT OF CONCERN. SHE WAS -- THEY'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN EXPRESSING THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD LIKE TO SELL THEIR LAND AND I HEAR THAT LAND WOULD BE MORE PROFITABLE TO SELL IT AS A DRIVE THROUGH. BUT WE'RE NOT HERE JUST TO PAY ATTENTION TO THEIR PROFITS. WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THIS. AND WHAT I NOTICED THAT EACH YEAR WE KEEP REMOVING MORE AND MORE PROTECTIONS FOR THAT AREA. WHICH I JUST THINK IT'S SO DISRESPECTFUL BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH A UNIQUE RESOURCE THAT WE HAVE. WE NEVER THINK OF DOING THAT AT THE BASE OF THE MOUNTAINS, WOULD WE? KEEP MOVING MORE AND MORE PROTECTIONS AROUND THE BOSQUE. WE SHOULD HONOR AND LET'S STOP REMOVING PROTECTION. AND ADD MORE. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM. >> BILL FOLLOWED BY MS. WARD. >> PRESIDENT LEWIS, FELLOW COUNCILORS, I'M NOT USED TO BEING UP LATE. THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO SAY, I TALKED TO OUR REPRESENTATIVES -- CURRENT OH, MAN. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN DEPTH OVER SEVERAL TIMES. AND ALL I CAN SAY IS MAJORITY OF US IN SANTA FE VILLAGE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM PAUSE OF THE LACK OF WALKABLE SPACE. I JUST WOULDN'T -- IT JUST WOULDN'T FIT WITH THAT WHOLE AREA UP THERE. I DON'T HAVE ANY GREAT AMOUNT OF DETAILS FOR YOU. IN A NUTSHELL WE'RE OPPOSED TO IT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> MS. WARD, FOLLOWED BY MARK. >> MR. PRESIDENT, MY FIRST REQUEST IS THAT YOU RECUSE YOURSELF FROM THE VOTE ON THIS ORDINANCE. AND I BELIEVE YOU SHOULD HAVE RECUSED YOURSELF FROM DISCUSSION ON IT AS WELL. MY SECOND REQUEST IS THAT SOMEONE EXPLAIN THE INCONSISTENCY OF PROMOTING URBAN CENTERS AS WALKABLE PLACES WITH LITTLE NEED FOR PARKING, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE OF LITTLE NEED FOR AUTOMOBILES. YET YOU WANT TO ALLOW DRIVE-INS. MY THIRD REQUEST IS THAT MS. WHITMORE BE RECOGNIZED. I THINK SHE HAD COMMENTS AND WAS GETTING READY TO COME TOWARD THE PODIUM. AND IF MY RECOLLECTION IS CORRECT, SHE WAS THE CITY PLANNER INVOLVED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. I COULD BE WRONG. I'M SURE SHE'LL CORRECT ME. PLEASE ALLOW HER TO SPEAK ON THIS AS WELL. TO THE REST OF THE COUNCILORS, PLEASE VOTE NO. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: CAN I ASK YOU WHAT WOULD BE THE REASON WHY I SHOULD RECUSE MYSELF FROM THE VOTE? >> WELL, YOU DISCUSSED AND CARRIED A SMALL TEXT AMENDMENT THAT INVOLVES -- SMALL AREA TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WAS APPEALED TO DISTRICT COURT. >>COUN. LEWIS: DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH THIS SPECIFIC? >> THE POINT IS THAT YOU'RE THE CARRIER -- YOU'RE THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL AND YOU'RE ACTING AS AN ADJUDICATER. AND IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS. YOU'RE DISCUSSING AND PROMOTING RESULTS THROUGH THE FELLOW COUNCILORS. AND THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE BASICALLY CAN'T BE THE JUDGE AND JURY FOR YOUR OWN LEGISLATION. >>COUN. LEWIS: MR. MORROW, WOULD YOU GIVE AN OPINION ON THAT. ? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THERE WAS A DISTRICT COURT OPINION ON A SMALL AMENDMENT FROM LAST YEAR. THAT OPINION WAS NONPRESIDENTIAL AND HAS BEEN APPEALED. AT THIS POINT THERE'S NO REASON TO CHANGE COUNCIL PROCESS REGARDING HOW COUNCIL HANDLES SPONSORSHIP -- >>COUN. LEWIS: MY INVOLVEMENT AS A SPONSOR, SPONSOR BY REQUEST, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS CAME THROUGH OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT, IT NEEDS A SPONSOR. I GUESS ONE OF THE OTHER SPONSORS COULD HAVE PUT THEIR NAME ON IT. BUT THE REQUEST GOES FROM OUR COUNCIL STAFF TO THE COUNCILOR WHOSE REPRESENTING THAT DISTRICT WITH NO INDICATION OF WHETHER THAT COUNCILOR SUPPORTS IT OR NOT. IT JUST NEEDS A SPONSOR, CORRECT? DO YOU SEE ANY INDICATION OF A REASON OR EVIDENCE THAT I WOULD NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I DO NOT. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THAT ALL IDO AMENDMENTS AND ALL LEGISLATION THAT IS BEFORE THIS COUNCIL REQUIRES. >>COUN. LEWIS: THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND OF QUASI-JUDICIAL COMMUNICATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ON THE RECORD IN ANY KIND OF WAY? >> I HAVE NOT HEARD OF ANY, NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WE HAVE MARK FOLLOWED BY FREDRICO. FRED RICO FOLLOWED BY EVELYN ON ZOOM. EVELYN AND JILL ON ZOOM. WHO HAVE NOT BEEN SWORN IN AT THIS TIME. MR. PRESIDENT. >> I WAS SWORN IN. THIS IS EVELYN. MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS. THIS AMENDMENT AIMS TO INCREASE THE PROPERTY VALUE FOR INVESTORS WHO CURRENTLY OWN VACANT LOTS IN THE VOLCANO HEIGHTS URBAN CENTER. A FORMER ALBUQUERQUE DEVELOPER TOLD ME THAT ALLOWING DRIVE THROUGHS ON A SITE INCREASES IT'S VALUE SIGNIFICANTLY. MAJOR PORTIONS OF VOLCANO HEIGHTS ARE ALREADY ZONED FOR DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES. ALSO MANY DRIVE THROUGH USES ARE IN EXISTENCE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE VOLCANO HEIGHTS URBAN CENTER. WITH HEART DISEASE, DIABETES AND LIVER DISEASE AS PRIMARY CAUSES OF DEATH IN NEW MEXICO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO HAVE DRIVE THROUGHS ON EVERY CORNER. PLEASE VOTE NO. THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT. >> GILL. >> I APOLOGIZE. I'M HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY. I'M A DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT WHO LIVES CLOSE TO THE PROPOSED VOLCANO HEIGHTS URBAN CENTER. I'M VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO THIS AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DRIVE THROUGHS. THIS AREA AS WE DISCUSSED WAS DESIGNATED AS A WALKABLE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED AREA. AND ALLOWING DRIVE UPS WOULD NEGIGATE THE PLAN THAT WAS DEVELOPED BY THE ALBUQUERQUE-BERNALILLO COUNTY AND WOULD -- IT WAS WELL THOUGHT OUT. SECTIONS OF THE TECHNICAL AND SURROUNDING AREA. HAVING DRIVE UP WOULD IF CREASE VEHICLE POLLUTION AND PAK THE ALREADY HEAVY TRAFFIC ON PASEO AND UNSER WORSE THAN IT IS NOW. WE HAVE SUFFICIENT NEARBY DRIVE THROUGH BUSINESSES TO THE EAST AND NORTH WEST OF US. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ONLY SATISFY THE INTEREST OF BUSINESS AT THE EXPENSE WITH QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE NEARBY RESIDENTS. THE EPC RECOMMENDED A NO VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT. I HOPE YOU HEED THE RECOMMENDATION. AND HEED THE WELL THOUGHT OUT PROTECTION THAT WERE DEVELOPED BY PLAN. THANK YOU. >> MR. PRESIDENT, THAT CONCLUDES COMMENT. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT'S THE TESTIMONY BY PUBLIC SPEAKERS. NOW WE GO TO THE REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THERE WILL BE NO REBUTTAL. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO CROSS EXAMINATION. COMMENTS BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT IF ANY? >> I THINK I CAN SAY GOOD MORNING COUNCILORS. I WORK IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I WAS THE STAFF PLANNER FOR THIS CASE AT EPC. I CAN SAY THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO TESTIFIED IN SUPPORT AND AGAINST WHO LIVE IN THE AREA. AS WELL AS OTHER PLACES IN TOWN. THAT'S NOT REALLY THE DECISION CRITERIA FOR THIS CASE. THE DECISION IS WHETHER IT FURTHERS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE EPC PLAN FOUND IT DID NOT BECAUSE IT GOES AGAINST, IT CONFLICTS WITH POLICIES RELATED TO THE URBAN CENTER THAT SURROUNDS THE VOLCANO HEIGHTS URBAN CENTER. AS YOU HEARD TESTIMONY THAT IS ENVISIONED AS THE WEST SIDE ONE AND ONLY POSSIBILITY FOR A WALKABLE PLACE WHERE YOU MIGHT NOT NEED A CAR TO GET SERVICES. THE IDEA OF HAVING DRIVE THROUGHS IN A WALKABLE CENTER IS BY ITS NATURE UNDERMINING THAT VISION. THEY ALSO FOUND IT CONFLICTED WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES RELATED TO THE PETROGLYPH MONUMENT AND WANTING CONTEXT SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT MINIMIZED THE IMPACT ON THE MONUMENT. EPC FOUND DRIVE THROUGHS THAT CLOSE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE MONUMENT THROUGH IDLING, NOISE, FUMES AND TRAFFIC. THOSE ARE THE REASONS THEY STATED FOR DENIAL. AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUPPORTS THE RECOMMENDATION. >>COUN. LEWIS: OTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL BE IN THIS AREA THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE, ARE WE EXPECTING EVERYBODY TO WALK TO THOSE DEVELOPMENTS? EVERYBODY WOULD WALK TO THEM? >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, AS YOU HEARD DRIVE THREWS ARE ALLOWED WHICH SURROUNDS UNSER AND PASEO IN THIS AREA. THE PROHIBITION IS ONLY IN THE MIXED USE ZONE DISTRICTS IN VOLCANO HEIGHTS. >>COUN. LEWIS: AND THEN, I MEAN, AGAIN I HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE WAS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO SAID WE REALLY WANT THIS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT. AND I THINK THAT IS SIGNIFICANT. I TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. AS WELL ASADJACENT COMMUNITIES THAT ARE A GOOD WAYS AWAY WEIGH IN AS WELL. ANYHOW, COUNCILORS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT? OKAY. COUNCILOR PEÑA. >>COUN. PEÑA: MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE A QUESTION. -- IT WAS STATED THAT THIS IS BY REQUEST. REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT? THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS IN OPPOSITION? >>COUN. LEWIS: YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHERE THIS ORIGINATED? THIS COME BY THE APPLICANT TO OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CORRECT? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, JUST A SECOND. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, THIS IS BY REQUEST BECAUSE IT'S A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE THAT BOARD IS MANAGED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, ANY PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT COMES FROM THE ADMINISTRATION IS ALWAYS DENOTED AS BY REQUEST. MORE OF A TECHNICAL FUNCTION THAT THE LEGISLATION READS BY REQUEST EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICATION AS IT WAS SUBMITTED DID COME FROM COUNCIL SERVICES AND CITY COUNCIL STAFF. >>COUN. LEWIS: I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION. WHERE IT ORIGINATED. I IMAGINE IT WOULD HAVE COME FROM THE APPLICANT. THAT WORKED WITH OUR PLANNING STAFF. AT SOME POINT. TO BRING THIS REQUEST. WITH THE SUPPORT OF 160-SOMETHING NEIGHBORS. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, AS YOU KNOW WE CAME IN A -- I CAME IN A BIT LATE TO THIS. I'M UNSURE AS TO WHERE THIS IDEA ORIGINATED FOR UP. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT APPROACHED THE COUNCILOR WITH THE -- WHERE THIS AMENDMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO. THE APPLICANT APPROACHED THE PLANNING STAFF. >> YEAH. >>COUN. LEWIS: WHICH IS HOW THIS COMMONLY COMES ABOUT. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. >> CORRECT. >>COUN. LEWIS: OUR PLANNING STAFF AND THE COUNCIL. UNLESS ANYBODY FROM THE PLANNING STAFF HAS ANY RECOLLECTION OF THAT? >> COUNCILORS, I DO NOT. I APOLOGIZE. >>COUN. LEWIS: MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DIDN'T SUBMIT THE REQUEST. I BELIEVE IT CAME FROM COUNCIL PLANNING STAFF. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, THIS REQUEST CAME FROM COUNCIL PLANNING STAFF. DISTINCT FROM THE ADMINISTRATION'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT LAST YEAR. AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNCILOR LEWIS. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT'S NOT TRUE. NOT AT THE DIRECTION FROM COUNCILOR LEWIS. THIS CAME FROM OUR PLANNING STAFF. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT. WE. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE HAVE A WHOLE PLANNING STAFF THAT'S NOT HERE ANYMORE. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. THIS WAS RECEIVED BY COUNCIL PLANNING STAFF THAT IS NO LONGER HERE. WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHERE IT ORIGINATED. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL GET THAT ANSWER THIS EVENING. >>COUN. LEWIS: I ASSUME IT'S A COMMON WAY THESE THINGS WOULD COME ABOUT. OKAY. WE'LL GO TO COUNCIL PLANNING STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS. >> COUNCILORS, NO COMMENTS. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL? I'M GOING TO MOVE A DO PASS. MOTION AND SECOND BY COUNCILOR GROUT FOR DO PASS. WE'VE ALREADY HAD SPEAKERS. AND SO, COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL. COUNCILOR BACA. >>COUN. BACA: CLARIFICATION OF DO PASS IN THIS CASE. UPHOLD? >>COUN. LEWIS: DO PASS WILL ACTUALLY ADOPT THIS AMENDMENT. YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, A DO PASS WOULD ADOPT THE AMENDMENT ALLOWING DRIVE THROUGH STRUCTURES WITHIN THE MIXED USE ZONE DISTRICTS IN THE URBAN CENTER. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS, ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? MOVED AND SECONDED. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES ON A 6-3 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE GOING TO GO TO ITEM P. COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN BY REQUEST. O-12. -- >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: I MOVE A DO PASS. >>COUN. GROUT: SECOND. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOTION AND SECOND BY COUNCILOR GROUT. COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: I'M SORRY, MR. PRESIDENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: I'M SORRY. WE NEED TO WALK THROUGH THE WHOLE DEAL AGAIN. THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL REQUEST IT REQUIRES SPECIAL PROCEDURES TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT STAFF AND THE PUBLIC THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. THIS AGENDA WILL BE AS FOLLOWS. IT WILL BE THE SAME STRUCTURE AS WE HAD FOR THE PREVIOUS BILL. STAFF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND APPLICANT MUST BE SWORN IN. YOU'LL BE SPEAKING AS A STAFF MEMBER OR MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. EVERYBODY RAISE YOUR HAND. OUR STAFF SHOULD RAISE THEIR HAND IF THEY SPEAK ON THIS. AND DO YOU AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT YOUR TESTIMONY WILL BE TRUE? ALL RIGHT. MR. COX. BEGIN. WE'LL DO THE INTRODUCTION AND WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. ACTUALLY PUBLIC COMMENT IS IN THE PROCESS. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, WE'RE HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY. TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT. >>COUN. LEWIS: SPEAKING UP IN THAT MIC TOO. >> COUNCILORS, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS THIS IS O-24-12. THIS WOULD MAKE TRIBES A COMMON THEMED AGENCY WITHIN BPO2. AND SO, UNDER THE EPC RED LINE EPC PASSED AN AMENDMENT THAT MADE TRIBES A COMMENTING AGENCY WITHIN 660 FEET OR IF THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WITHIN 660 FEET OF MAJOR PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND TRIBAL LANDS. EPC RECOMMENDED DENIAL BASED ON NOT SEEING THE VALUE OF TRIBAL COMMENTS SEPARATE FROM PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEIR FINDINGS. JUST AS A VISUAL REPRESENTATION THIS IS OUTLINED IN THE AREA. IF THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WITHIN THIS YELLOW BUFFERED AREA THE TRIBES WOULD HAVE A 15-DAY COMMENTING PERIOD. THUS SIMILAR TO HOW WE SEND OUT REQUEST FOR COMMENTS FROM INTERNAL DEPARTMENTS LIKE APD, AFR OR EXTERNAL DEPARTMENTS OR ORGANIZATIONS LIKE ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT GROUP THAT CAN GIVE KAUALITY INPUT. >>COUN. LEWIS: ANY COMMENTS? TO CLARIFY, THIS WOULD -- WHAT STATUS WHAT PUT THIS THE TRIBES AT? WHAT IS THAT CALLED? >> THAT'S A COMMENTATING AGENCY. >>COUN. LEWIS: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OWNS MOST OF THE LAND. OR THE LAND THEY HAVE INTEREST IN. DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE THAT KIND OF STATUS? >> AS -- >>COUN. LEWIS: AS A COMMENTING AGENCY. >> THE NATIONAL PARKS HAVE STATUS ON KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, WITH APPLICATION AND PROXIMITY TO THE DEVELOPMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: THEY HAVE THAT STATUS BECAUSE THEY'RE LANDOWNERS IN THAT AREA, CORRECT? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THAT'S HOW WE QUALIFY A COMMENTING AGENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: THEY OWN THE NATIONAL PARK. WHAT KIND OF -- I GUESS, ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO COMMENT DO THE TRIBES HAVE NOW? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TRIBES UNTIL 24-13 DID NOT HAVE ANY COMMENTING POWER WITHIN THE CITY. AND NOW SINCE EPC RED LINE WAS APPROVED AND ONCE IT IS ENACTED THEY WILL BE ABLE TO COMMENT ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION IS WITHIN A 660 FEET OF MAJOR OPEN SPACE OR A TRIBAL PROPERTY. >>COUN. LEWIS: THIS IS AREA -- AS FAR AS THIS BILL IS IT CARVED OUT? DOES THIS APPLY TO ALL AREAS OF THE CITY ORTHIS CARVED OUT AREA? >> THIS WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL. IT IS A CARVED OUT SMALL MAP. >>COUN. LEWIS: IT'S CARVED OUT FOR THE SPECIFIC AREA TO INCLUDE THEM IN A GREATER STATUS THAN OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY. EVEN THOUGH THERE MIGHT BE SIMILAR TYPE OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY THAT MIGHT HAVE THE SAME VALUE THEY LOOK AT? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, IT WOULD GIVE THEM THE SAME POWERS IF THEY WERE IN 660 FEET IF THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WAS IN 660. >>COUN. LEWIS: IN THIS SPECIFIC AREA BUT NOT OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THERE ARE OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY THAT CAME IN WITH THIS RED LINE VERSION. >>COUN. LEWIS: NOT EVERY AREA OF THE CITY? >> NOT EVERY AREA, NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. COUNCILORS, OTHER DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS? WE'LL GO THROUGH OUR -- TESTIMONY OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS. >> UP FIRST WE HAVE JANE FOLLOWED BY BERNADETTE. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, THE HYPOCRISY IS BEHAVIOR THAT CONTRADICTS ONE CLAIMS TO BELIEVE. EXAMPLES IN THIS CASE. REFUSING TO ESTABLISH TRIBAL NATIONS AS COMMENTING AGENCIES ON DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. SACRED LAND HAVE STARTED TO TIME IMEMORIAL AND GENERATIONS. FINDING AT O-24-12 WOULD DELAY DEVELOPMENT OR PRIVILEGE TRIBAL NATIONS, CLAIMING THAT O-24-12 WOULD BE A BURDEN TO THOSE SUBMITTING APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT. THE LANGUAGE OF IDO6-4-J IS CLEAR. CITY STAFF RECOMMEND COMMENTS. COMMENTERS RECEIVED WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS SHALL BE CONSIDERED. HYPOCRISY IS WHAT A TAILIER TO PASS O-24-12 WHILE CLAIMING, QUOTE, THE CITY ALSO HONORS AND RESPECTS ENDURING RELATIONSHIP THAT EXISTS BETWEEN THESE PEOPLE AND TRIBAL NATIONS. AND THIS LAND. AND COMMIT TO CONTINUING TO LEARN HOW TO BE BETTER STEWARDS OF THE LAND THE CITY INHABITS AS WELL. AGAIN, I'M QUOTING CITY LANGUAGE FOR LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. THAT'S WHAT THIS WOULD REPRESENT. PLEASE HONOR THESE PROFESSIONS OF RESPECT FOR TRIBAL NATIONS AND PASS O-24-12. AND ONE MORE COMMENT. BY PASSING THE IDO TONIGHT, AND O-24-13 YOU ESTABLISHED ANIMAL WELFARE AGENCIES AS COMMENTING AGENCIES. JUST A LITTLE CONTEXT. >> BERNADETTE FOLLOWED BY ATSA. >> HELLO PRESIDENT LEWIS, I'M WITH NAVA AND RESIDENT OF DISTRICT SIX. I'M HERE TO VOICE BY SUPPORT FOR O-24-12 REQUIRING APPLICATIONS TO TRIBAL REPRESENTATIVES. NEW MEXICO'S ON TARNISHED LANDSCAPES AND RUINS AND THE PETROGLYPHS DREWS INTEREST FROM VARIOUS PEOPLE. PLEASE GIVE THE MONUMENT THE SPACE SO IT CAN BE OBSERVED AND ENJOYED. GIVE THE SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENTS THE RESPECT THEY DESERVE WHEN DEVELOPING CITY LANDS AROUND OUR SACRED SITES. WE ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT O-24-12. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> ATSE FOLLOWED BY ELIZABETH. ELIZABETH FOLLOWED BY BILL. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, TRIBAL -- JUST TO ANSWER THE QUESTION IN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT FOR THE PETROGLYPH NATIONAL MONUMENT, TRIBAL CONSULTATION WAS PART OF THE AGREEMENT. IT WAS SIGNED ON BY ALL ENTITIES. LIKE MANY AGREEMENTS, IT WAS WASN'T EVER PROPERLY ACTUALIZED. THE OTHER POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS THAT DURING TRIBAL CONSULTATION DOESN'T SLOW DEVELOPMENT. IT DOESN'T SLOW PERMITTING PROCESSES. WHEN YOU HAVE THE MECHANISM SET UP YOU CAN BE ALERTED IF THERE ARE CONFLICTS. THERE ARE I BELIEVE A MULTITUDE OF REASONS WHY IN THIS PARTICULAR SENSITIVE AREA THAT IT IS PRUDENT TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE A TRIBAL CONSULTATION STRUCTURE. MOREOVER, RATHER THAN WORRYING ABOUT WHETHER IT WOULD BE APPLIED TO THE REST OF THE CITY, YOU MIGHT THINK ABOUT THE 22 FEDERAL AGENCIES THAT DISBURSE FUNDS THAT REQUIRE A TRIBAL CONSULTATION PROCESS IN THE APPLICANTS AND THE REQUESTER. THE IDEA OF DELAYING IT OR NOT DOING IT JUST NOT VERY GOOD COMMON SENSE AND IT WILL WAIVE AWAY ALL KINDS OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES AND HAVE THE CITY MAKE MISTAKES GOING FORWARD. LIKE IN DOING THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE DOUBLE TWO AIRPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS REQUIRE TRIBAL CONSULTATION. THIS IS A RARE -- THE PETROGLYPH NATIONAL MONUMENT IS AN IMPORTANT ASSET TO THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. AND MANY TRIBAL GROUPS WITHIN THE STATE HAVE HAD A TIE TO IT AND THEY HAVE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT IT AND THEY USE IT AS PART OF THEIR RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCES. THANK YOU. >> BILL FOLLOWED BY KYLE. KYLE FOLLOWED BY ALICIA. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEWIS, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I'M NAVY VETERAN HOMEOWNER IN DISTRICT ONE. I'M INVESTED IN THE WEAL BEING OF OUR CITY. I URGE YOU TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT TO ADD TRIBAL CONSULTATION TO THE IDO PROCESS. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ARE NECESSARY TO BUILDING A THRIVING COMMUNITY BUT IT HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON TRIBAL RESOURCES AND TRADITIONAL PRACTICES. WE'RE URGING YOU TO KEEP CITIZENS INFORMED OF ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL AFFECT OUR LIFE WAYS. THIS ORDINANCE NOT ONLY AFFECTS TRIBAL NATIONS BUT ALSO URBAN NATIVE PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE. WE'RE THE TRUSTED MESSAGERS OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND WANT TO HELP SUPPORT TRIBAL NOTIFICATION. WE NEED TO PROTECT SACRED SITES ALL OVER ALBUQUERQUE NO MATTER WHERE WE ARE FROM. IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE IS NOT LOST OR BROKEN. AS CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION ON AMERICAN INDIAN NATIVE AFFAIRS OUR BOARD SUPPORTS THIS AMENDMENT AND THE COMMUNITY IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT BUT NOT AT THE COST OF KEEPING STAKEHOLDER GROUPS OUT OF THE PLANNING PROCESS AND SIMILAR PROCESSES. THIS IS ONE MORE STEP IN THE ALREADY COMPLICATED PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT BUT IT'S ONE THAT ALLOWS ALL OF US TO MOVE FORWARD. TRIBAL NOTIFICATION BENEFITS EVERYONE. WE WANT TO BE PART OF THIS PROCESS. WE URGE COUNCIL TO VOTE TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE TRIBAL NOTIFICATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. >> ALICIA FOLLOWED BY PETER ON ZOOM. >> WITH RESPECT, GOOD MORNING, CITY COUNCIL, I'M FROM THE PUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA. I'M A MOTHER TO A 1-YEAR-OLD WHO IS AT HOME SLEEPING WAITING FOR ME. I'M A HOME AND LANDOWNER IN DISTRICT ONE. I SERVE AS THE PRESIDENT OF NATIVE-AMERICAN VOTERS ALLIANCE. AND AS WE CONVENE TONIGHT, ON STOLEN LAND, I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO IS THE ANCESTRAL HOMELANDS TO 23 SOVEREIGN PUEBLOS TRIBES AND NATIONS. THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE WHICH WAS BUILT ON TI WRBS A LAND HAS THE SIXTH HIGHEST POPULATION OF NATIVE IN THE COUNTRY WITH 400 TRIBES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. AS YOU CONSIDER AGENDA ITEM O-24-12 TONIGHT I WANT TO URGE YOU TO VOTE IN SUPPORT OF ADOPTING THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE TRIBAL CONSULTATION IN THE IDO PROCESS. THIS IS A VERY LONG OVERDUE AND THE VERY BEAR MINIMUM THE CITY NEEDS TO BE DOING TO RESPECT THE CULTURAL TRADITIONAL AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS INVOLVING OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND THE SAUFBERN TRIBAL NATIONS THEY REPRESENT. THANK YOU. >> PETER FOLLOWED BY AARON. >> HELLO, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I WORK FOR AN ORGANIZATION CALLED NAVA. FOCUSES ON INFORMING AND EMPOWERING INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES IN NEW MEXICO. I'M A CONSTITUENT OF DISTRICT TWO AND CITIZEN OF THE PUEBLO OF LAGUNA. I SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. IT'S OVERDUE AND SETS PRESIDENT THAT TRIBAL CONSENT IS CRITICAL NOT OPTIONAL. THIS COUNCIL CONTINUED TO REFUSE TO LISTEN TO CONSTITUENTS WHEN IT COMES TO ISSUES RELATED TO HIS. SHUNNING IT TO THE END OF AGENDAS AS OCCURRED TONIGHT. PLEASE MAKE A CHANGE. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >> AARON FOLLOWED BY ATSA. >> MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I WORK WITH A NON-PROFIT NAVA. I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF IDO AMENDMENT O-24-12 FOR THE NORTHWEST MESA ESCARPMENT VPO REQUIRING REFERRALS TO APPLICATIONS TO TRIBAL REPRESENTATIVES. TRIBAL LEADERS NEED TO BE AT A TABLE WHEN IT COMES TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CHANGES NEAR SACRED SITES. THE PETROGLYPHS ARE IN VALUABLE THAT IS USED TODAY FOR RELIGIOUS AND CEREMONIAL ACTIVITIES. TRIBES NEED TO BE NOTIFIED AND CONSULTED ON BEST PRACTICES AND PROTECTING THE PETROGLYPH MONUMENT AREA. IT IS OUR HOPE THAT THE COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER A ONE-MILE BUFFER ZONE AROUND THE PETROGLYPH AND THAT MEANINGFUL TRIBAL CONSULTATION IS A STANDARD PRACTICE BOTH HONORED AND EXERCISED. THANK YOU. >> ATSA. >> GOOD EVENING, AGAIN. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NAVA. THE 501C3. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING TO PROTECT THE PETROGLYPHS SINCE THE 1990s. WHERE RESIDE IN DISTRICT 15. I'M A MEMBER OF THE NAVAJO NATION. I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK YOU TO VOTE IN SUPPORT OF THE ADOPTING OF THE SMALL IDO LANGUAGE AMENDMENT THAT REQUIRES TRIBAL CONSULTATION AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROCESS. PEOPLE LOOK TO THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE TO SEE HOW THEY SHOULD BE TREATING THE NATIVE COMMUNITIES WITHIN THEIR BORDERS. WE HAVE WITNESSES THE PROBLEMS THAT OCCUR WHEN TRIBAL LEADERS ARE NOT PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. AND AGAIN, IT'S OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE THAT THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE RESPECTS THE VOICES OF THE TRIBAL LEADERS. BECAUSE WE REPRESENT MORE THAN 400 DIFFERENT TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONS WE DEPEND ON THE 23 THAT RESIDE WITHIN OUR STATE AND HANDFUL OF PUEBLOS THAT SURROUND ALBUQUERQUE TO HELP LEAD US IN DECISIONS AND DECISIONS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE AS PEOPLE STEWARDS OF THE LANDS. WE SUPPORT THE PUEBLO OF LAGUNA RECOMMENDATION TO EXTEND THE BOUNDARY FROM 600 FEET TO ONE MILE. WE'RE GREATLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE PETROGLYPHS AND CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS SITES IMPORTANT TO OUR TRIBE AND URBAN COMMUNITIES. OUR TOURISM DOLLARS ARE DEPENDENT ON THE POSITIVE EXPERIENCES WITHIN TRIBAL COMMUNITIES. AND OUR SACRED SITES. WE NEED TO KEEP THEM AND MAINTAIN THEM. THEY NEED TO BE PROTECTED. THESE ARE LIVING BEINGS IN OUR COMMUNITIES. WE STILL HAVE PILGRIMAGES TODAY. ADDING TRIBAL CONSULTATION IS SUPPORTED BY MANY TRIBAL LEADERS AND NATIVE COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND ALLIES ACROSS THE CITY AND STATE. AGAIN, ALBUQUERQUE IS SURROUNDED BY TRIBAL LANDS AND IT'S TIME FOR TRIBES TO HAVE A VOICE IN THIS MATTER. THANK YOU. >> THAT CONCLUDES COMMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT? OKAY. CROSS EXAMINATION BY ANYONE THAT SPOKE DURING PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY? COMMENTS BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. ANY? >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCIL, WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DAESZ ADDRESS YOU. THE PETROGLYPHS ARE BEAUTIFUL, UNIQUE, IRREPARABLE, SACRED TO MANY. RECOGNIZED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, STATE GOVERNMENT, FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS, AND EVEN LONGER THAN THAT, ALL OF THOSE COMBINED BY THE NATIVE-AMERICAN TRIBES. PARTICULARLY IN THE AREA. SO, WE FULLY SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF ALLOWING THEM TO SUBMIT FORMAL COMMENT. WE ARE NEVER AFRAID OF RECEIVING COMMENTS. WE WELCOME COMMENTS. AND WE'LL LEARN FROM THOSE COMMENTS. WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT IN THIS MATTER. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: OUR PLANNING STAFF? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> NO FOLLOW UP. >>COUN. LEWIS: ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS ASKING ABOUT IS I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE NATIONAL PARKS, FEDERAL NATIONAL PARKS OWNS THE PETROGLYPHS WHICH IS A BIG AREA. HUGE AREA. I THINK THEY HAVE STANDING AND NOTIFICATIONS BECAUSE OF THAT. AND THEY DO HAVE -- I UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE AGREEMENTS WITH THE TRIBES ON CONSULTATION. I CAN'T REMEMBER A DEVELOPMENT THAT DIDN'T HAVE TRIBAL CONSULTATION BECAUSE OF THAT AGREEMENT WITH THE ACTUAL LANDOWNERS AND THE NATIONAL PARKS ON ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THIS WHOLE AREA. I THINK THIS IS DUEPLICATIVE. I THINK THE TRIBES HAVE A VOICE IN ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THEIR AGREEMENTS WITH THE NATIONAL PARKS. AND THERE'S MANY EXAMPLES OF THAT. SO, AGAIN, I THINK IT'S DUPLICATIVE. THIS IS A SINGLE AREA. IT'S CARVED OUT. SO, I DON'T SUPPORT THE MOTION. COUNCILORS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? SPONSORS TO CLOSE. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: MR. PRESIDENT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE REFERRING HE AS A SPONSOR. WE JUST MOVED FROM THE COUNCIL PLANNING CLOSING COMMENT TO A VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: I THINK WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THOSE. IF THERE ARE ANY OTHERS, I CAN ASK YOU AGAIN. I WOULD ASK FOR DISCUSSION AGAIN. WHERE DID THIS REQUEST ORIGINATE? >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: I CAN ANSWER THAT. THIS CAME FROM ME. >>COUN. LEWIS: IT HAPPENED WITH CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU HAD WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM WHO? >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THIS REQUEST CAME FROM ME. I ASKED COUNCIL PLANNING STAFF TO DETERMINE THE BEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD ON TRIBAL CONSULTATION. THEY MET WITH VARIOUS TRIBAL REPRESENTATIVES AND CAME BACK WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE SEEN TONIGHT. THERE WERE TWO. ONE WAS IN THE IDO FOR THE MAJORITY OF OTHER LAND IN OUR COMMUNITY. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT THE COUNCIL PASSED THAT. THIS ONE WAS BECAUSE THERE'S A SMALL MAP AREA AROUND THE PETROGLYPHS AND BECAUSE THE PETROGLYPHS HAVE INCREDIBLE SACRED MEANING TO THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT, WE MADE THIS SEPARATE PROPOSAL. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. I'M JUST INTERESTED. I'M ASSUMING THAT'S A PRETTY COMMON THING. THAT COUNCILORS WOULD SUGGEST A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS AND FOLLOW THIS PROCEDURE. I JUST WANT TO -- IN LIGHT OF THE OTHER DISCUSSION WE HAD, GIVE SOME CLARIFICATION AND EXPLANATION ON HOW SOME OF THESE THINGS COME ABOUT. >> CERTAINLY, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I CAN'T SPEAK TO HOW COMMON THESE ARE. I CAN SAY THAT AS PART OF OUR DISCUSSION IT IS COMMON FOR COUNCILORS TO ENGAGE AND PROPOSE LEGISLATION THAT AFFECTS THE INTEREST OF THEMSELVES AND THE COMMUNITY. AND SO, I THINK THAT IS CERTAINLY VERY COMMON. AS TO ITS RELATION TO SMALL MAPPED AREAS, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT HISTORICALLY LOOKS LIKE. AND HOW COMMON THAT IS. >>COUN. LEWIS: IT'S UNUSUAL THAT A COUNCILOR FROM ANOTHER DISTRICT WOULD -- DOES SOMETHING LIKE THIS SPECIFICALLY WITH OTHER COUNCIL DISTRICTS. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S WRONG. I'M JUST SAYING IT'S A LITTLE UNTIL -- UNUSUAL. I THINK EVERYTHING IS DONE PROPER IN THAT REGARD. BEING QUASI-JUDICIAL AND A COUNCILOR -- THERE'S NO MISTAKE BUT THE SPONSORING COUNCILOR IS FOR THIS FROM THE BEGINNING WHEN THEY SPONSORED IT AS OPPOSED TO MAYBE AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD COME THROUGH THE COUNCIL PLANNING STAFF AND GIVEN TO A COUNCILOR BECAUSE IT'S BY REQUEST. AND NOT A PART OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS IN ANY WAY. YOU KNOW, MOVING UP TO A HEARING LIKE THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMENTS THAT YOU ALL HAVE ON THAT? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OFFENSE -- OF THE COUNCIL. IT'S UP TO THE COUNCILORS TO MAKE THEIR OWN JUDGMENT OF WHAT'S APPROPRIATE TO AIT PARTICIPATE IN. >>COUN. LEWIS: WHY DOES IT SAY BY REQUEST? >> THAT I DON'T KNOW. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: MR. PRESIDENT, THIS ALL CAME FROM HE. I ASKED COUNCIL PLANNING TO STAFF WORK ON HOW IT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. IT CAME BACK WITH TWO PROPOSAL. WAS IN THE IDO WE PASSED THIS EVENING. AND FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE LAND AND CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. THE OTHER ONE BECAUSE THE PETROGLYPHS IS A SMALL MAPPED AREA IT HAD TO BE QUASI-JUDICIAL IT WENT THROUGH THE EPC WHERE IT WAS TURNED DOWN. SO THE TRADITION IS WHEN SOMETHING IS GOING THROUGH THE EPC IT COMES BACK TO THE COUNCIL AS A BY REQUEST JUST LIKE THE ONIA DID EARLIER. THAT IS HOW IT'S LABELLED. AGAIN, THIS WAS MY PROPOSAL. IT HAS BEEN MY PROPOSAL FROM THE BEGINNING. I THINK IT'S WAY PAST TIME THAT THIS BE ADOPTED IN THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. AGAIN, I WAS NOT TRYING TO GO INTO SOMEONE ELSE'S DISTRICT AS MUCH AS JUST TRYING TO ENSURE THAT WE COVER THE ENTIRE CITY WITH TRIBAL CONSULTATION BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS THE VERY LEAST WE SHOULD BE DOING. AND THERE IS A PARTICULAR PIECE OF LAND IN YOUR DISTRICT THAT IS SACRED TO MANY, MANY PEOPLE. AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE PASSED IN THIS IDO EARLIER, THAT WE ALSO PROVIDED THE SAME LEVEL OF TRIBAL CONSULTATION ON THAT PIECE OF VERY, VERY SACRED LAND. AGAIN, THESE ARE NOT ADDITIONAL PROPOSALS, THEY'RE NOT ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO SLOW DOWN DEVELOPMENT. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING EXCEPT SAY THAT TRIBES ARE ALSO COMMENT AGENCIES WHEN THINGS ARE HAPPENINGENING IN THIS HISTORIC SACRED SPACE. >>COUN. LEWIS: WHAT WERE THE REASONS FOR THE EPC DENIAL? IN THE PREVIOUS ONE WITH THE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE EPC THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION OF THE DENIAL. WHY DID THE EPC DENY THIS REQUEST? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PRESENTATION. THE SUMMARY IS THAT EPC RECOMMENDED DENIAL BECAUSED ON NOT SEEING THE VALUE OF TRIBAL COMMENTS SEPARATE FROM PUBLIC COMMENT. THAT WAS WHERE THE CONVERSATION EVOLVED AROUND. >>COUN. LEWIS: HOW MANY EPC MEMBERS WERE AT THAT MEETING? >> NEED TO PULL UP WHICH MEETING IT WAS HEARD IN. >> SO, O-24-12 WAS HEARD AT THE JANUARY 18, 2024 MEETING. WHICH WAS SEPARATE FROM MOST OF THE OTHER ORDINANCES. THERE WERE SEVEN EPC MEMBERS PRESENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: MAJORITY OF THOSE SEVEN VOTES AGAINST THAT. AND IT COMES BACK TO US? ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? ANYTHING ELSE, COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN? [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: ITEM Q. O-17. COUNCILOR BACA BY REQUEST. >>COUN. BACA: ADOPTING SMALL AREA TEXT AMENDMENT. REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING BUILDING STEP DOWNS, LANDSCAPING, BUILDING DESIGN AND PROPERTIES LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE RAIL TRAIL. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR CHAMPINE. WE'LL START THE PROCESS HERE. THIS IS ALSO QUASI-JUDICIAL REQUEST. REQUIRES SPECIAL PROCEDURES THAT WE USED IN THE OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. AND WILL PROCEED IN THAT WAY. AGAIN, CITY STAFF, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND APPLICANT MUST WE SWORN IN. IF YOU WILL BE SPEAKING TO THIS ITEM OR YOU THINK YOU MIGHT BE AS A STAFF MEMBER OR MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. AND DO YOU AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY WILL BE TRUE? >> I DO. >>COUN. LEWIS: PLEASE BEGIN WITH YOUR INTRODUCTION. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, THANK YOU. THIS IS O-24-17 RAIL TRAIL SMALL MAPPED AREA. I'M SURE ALL OF YOU ARE WELL AWARE OF WHAT THE RAIL TRAIL IS THESE DAYS. ESSENTIALLY, AT ITS SIMPLEST FORM IT'S A PATHWAY THAT GOES THROUGH MOST OF CENTRAL ALBUQUERQUE OR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS THAT CONNECT A NUMBER OF LOCAL ATTRACTIONS THAT WE SEE SURROUNDING DOWNTOWN, OLD TOWN, THE BOSQUE, AND OTHER HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS. WHAT THE SMALL MAP AREA PROPOSES IS NUMBER OF DESIGN REQUIREMENT FOR THE PROPERTIES ABUTTING THE RAIL TRAIL AREA. AND SO, THESE ARE JUST APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ALONG THE RAIL TRAIL. AND SO, TO START OFF, SOME OF THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE AROUND EDGE BUFFER LANDSCAPING AND ACCESS AND CONNECTATIVITY. IF YOU'RE DOING A DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE RAIL TRAIL YOU NEED TO HAVE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS CONNECTING YOUR DEVELOPMENT TO THE RAIL TRAIL. AND THAT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT. EDGE BUFFERED LANDSCAPE BY THE GRAPHICS, ON SOME OF THE SCREENS, THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FIVE-FOOT WIDE BUFFER AT LEAST WITHIN MULTIFAMILY MIXED USE AND NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OTHER THAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST THREE BUSHES AND A TREE TO BE APPROXIMATE EVERY 25 FEET. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A 15-FOOT WIDE BUFFER AREA. THE OTHER IS -- THE ANOTHER DESIGN REQUIREMENT IS THE BUILDING HEIGHT STEP DOWN. WHAT THIS DOES IS YOU'RE BUILDING WITHIN THE FIRST 20 FEET CAN'T GO OVER 48 FEET IN HEIGHT. AS SOON AS IT'S PASSED 20 FEET YOU CAN GO WHATEVER THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT. IF YOUR ZONE DISTRICT ALLOWS 68 FEET AFTER THAT INITIAL 20 FEET YOU CAN GO UP TO IT. THE BUILDING HEIGHT STEP DOWN DOES NOT PERTAIN TO ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT FALLS WITHIN THE MAIN STREET CORRIDORS, PREMIUM TRANSIT CORRIDORS OR THE DOWNTOWN URBAN CENTER. AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IS THIS MAP ESSENTIALLY. THE PURPLE IS THE MAIN STREET, ORANGE PREMIUM TRANSIT AND LIGHT BLUE IS DOWNTOWN CENTER. WHERE THIS TAKES EFFECT -- OR REALLY WHERE THE BUILDING HEIGHT STEP DOWN COMES INTO PLAY MORE THAN MOST OTHER AREAS IS THE SAWMILL AND WELLS PARK AREA. THERE'S A PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT WE CAN SPEAK TO LATER THAT TACKLES THE BUILDING HEIGHT STEP DOWN IF YOUR PROPERTY IS ON A CORNER LOT. ESSENTIALLY, IF YOU HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAS TWO STREET FACING SIDES AND THE TRAIL TRAIL ON ANOTHER SIDE, THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO GET RID OF THE STEP DOWN ON THOSE PARTICULAR PROPERTIES TO AVOID A POSSIBLE PYRAMID SITUATION. APOLOGIES. WE'RE GOOD. ALSO, FOR BUILDING DESIGNS, ANY FACADE FACING THE RAIL TRAIL SHALL MEET THE TYPICAL REQUIREMENTS WE HAVE IN BASE ZONE DISTRICTS AROUND THE CITY. THAT TACKLES OR TRIES TO AVOID MONOTONY IN FACADES. YOU NEED CERTAIN ARTICULATION. HOW MANY FEET LIKE COLUMNS DOORS, WINDOWS CANOPIES. AND THE SECOND BUILDING DESIGN IS AT LEAST 50% OF THE OUTDOOR SEATING AND GATHERING AREA SHALL BE LOCATED AJAYS WANT -- ADJACENT TO THE RAIL TRAIL. DUE TO THE RAIL TRAIL PROMOTING CYCLING, PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY, ANY TYPE OF MOBILITY OTHER THAN AUTOMOBILE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF OFFSHOOT PARKING SPACES MAY BE REDUCED BY 10% IF IT'S LOCATED 330 OF ANY PARK OR TRAIL. THE RAIL TRAIL IS A RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT IS NOT A TYPICAL TRAIL THAT YOU WILL SEE. YOU LOOK AT IT THE SAME WAY AS A -- ANY ROAD OR STREET IN THE CITY. THAT IS MY PRESENTATION, I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PLANNING STAFF? IF NOT, WE'LL GO TO TESTIMONY BY PUBLIC SPEAKERS. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WE HAVE LORETTA FOLLOWED BY CRYSTAL. >> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL PRESIDENT COUNCILORS. I'LL BE READING OFF THE MAY 13th LETTER IN YOUR RECORD. THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE IS CONCERNED WITH THE RAIL TRAIL IN GENERAL DUE TO THE PROXIMITY OF HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS. THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE CONTINUES TO PERPETUATE RACIAL INEQUITIES IN MINORITY COMMUNITIES AND PROVIDE NO PLANS TO STOP THE GENTRIFICATION AND ELIMINATION OF OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS. UNDER HMDEF2022 PERSPECTIVE PLAN STATES REAL ESTATE CONDITIONS. HIGHER RENT LOWER VACANCIES AND INCREASING DEMAND FOR NEW REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERIZES OFFICE INDUSTRIAL RETAIL AND MULTIFAMILY RENTAL MARKET SINCE 2002. AND SUGGEST WHILE THE REAL ESTATE MARKET IN THE POCKET IS GROWING, THESE CONDITIONS HAVE NOT IMPROVED LOCAL RESIDENTS ECONOMIC PROSPECTS. THESE WILL INTENSIFY AS THERE'S NEW PROJECTS IN THE PIPELINE THAT IMPACT THE LOCAL REAL ESTATE MARKET AND DRIVE DEMAND UPWARD AND PLACE INCREASING COST PRESSURES ON LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND LOCAL BUSINESSES. WHILE THESE NEW DEVELOPMENTS ARE COMPETING FOR ALBUQUERQUE RESIDENTS THEY MAY CREATE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS THAT PRODUCE NEIGHBORHOOD DISPLACEMENT AND GENTRIFICATION. THESE PROJECTS INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE RAIL TRAIL, AND GREATER DOWNTOWN URBAN TRAIL PROJECTS, RAIL YARDS REDEVELOPMENT AND UNITED PROFESSIONAL SOCCER TEAM. THE HNA REQUESTED THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE SHOW HOW THE RAIL TRAIL IS MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE COMMUNITY. THE HNA HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE RAIL TRAIL WHEN FIRST PROPOSED. THEY REQUESTED THE CITY COUNCIL PROVIDE LANGUAGE IN THE O-24-17 TO PROTECT HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS. HNA REQUESTED CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE REDEVELOPMENT OFFICE TO BEGIN DISCUSSION ON HOW THEY WORK WITH US. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU. >> THAT PRODUCE NEIGHBORHOOD DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS AND SMALL BUSINESSES AND OVERALL GENTRIFICATION BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. >> CRYSTAL FOLLOWED BY SUZANNE ON ZOOM. SUSANNE ON ZOOM. >> GOOD MORNING, CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> WE CAN HEAR YOU. >> OKAY, GREAT. GOOD MORNING. PRESIDENT LEWIS, COUNCILORS, I'M PRESIDENT OF HERITAGE REAL ESTATE COMPANY. ON BEHALF OF JIM LONG AND THE HERITAGE COMPANIES WHICH ARE UNDERTAKING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE SAWMILL DISTRICT I'D LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT OF COUNCILOR BACA'S AMENDMENT ONE TO O-24-17. THE RAIL TRAIL RUNS THROUGH SAWMILL METROPOLITAN REDEVELOPMENT AREA. WHICH IS THE BLIGHTED AREA DESIGNATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO INCENTFIZE REDEVELOPMENT BY PRIVATE DEVELOPERS. THE PROPOSED RAIL TRAIL CHANGES TO THE IDO ARE PARTICULARLY CHALLENGING FOR CORNER LOTS WHERE THERE'S AN EXISTING REQUIREMENT THE BUILDING BE SET BACK FAR ENOUGH TO ACHIEVE A CLEAR SIGHT TRIANGLE. IN SAWMILL THERE ARE ADDITIONAL SET BACK THAT HAVE TO BE MET DUE TO CHARACTER PROTECTION OVERLAY. WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE IDO, THERE WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE THREE SETS OF STEP BACK AND STEP DOWN REQUIREMENTS LIMITING THE AREA OF THE LOT UPON WHICH THE OWNER CAN BUILD MAKING CORNER LOTS ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP. IN FACT, THIS THIRD LAYER OF RESTRICTIONS FOR CORNER LOTS ALONG THE RAIL TRAIL MAY HAVE THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF DISINCENTIVIZING REDEVELOPMENT. WITHOUT CATALYTIC REDEVELOPMENT, THE BENEFITS OF THE RAIL TRAIL WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS IMPACTFUL. PLEASE VOTE IN FAVOR OF AMENDMENT ONE TO O-24-17. THANK YOU. >> MR. PRESIDENT, THAT CONCLUDES COMMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. FOLLOW PROCEDURE. REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT. ACROSS EXAMINATION. COMMENTS BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT? COUNCIL PLANNING STAFF CLOSING ARGUMENTS ? COUNCILORS, ANY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS? >>COUN. LEWIS: THIS WOULD BE REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT. IS THAT WHAT THIS IS? >> THIS IS THE APPLICANT. >>COUN. LEWIS: YOU'RE THE APPLICANT. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. COUNCILORS, I'M REPRESENTING THE METROPOLITAN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TODAY. MR. COX DID A GREAT JOB OF WALKING YOU THROUGH THE INDIVIDUAL REGULATIONS AS PROPOSED. I'LL TAKE A VERY BRIEF MOMENT TO FOCUS ON THE PROCESS. WE FIRST BROUGHT THIS TO THE EPC IN DECEMBER. THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF CONVERSATION BOTH IN FAVOR AND OPPOSITION OF THE REQUEST. THE EPC WAS PRETTY UNSURE OF THE REQUEST AT THAT POINT TO BE HONEST. THE CASE WAS DEFERRED A MONTH WHICH ALLOWED US TO GO TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND TALK WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS AND COME BACK WITH A REVISAL. THAT HAPPENED IN JANUARY. THE EPC HEARD THAT WE DID THAT WORK WITH THE LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS RESIDENT AND PROPERTY OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS. AND CONDITIONED THE REQUEST WHICH CHANGED OUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION. THAT'S THE VERSION YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY WHICH WE SUPPORT. WE THINK THAT THIS IS GOOD FOR THE RAIL TRAIL. WHILE THE IDO TENDS TO FOCUS ON WHAT THE FRONT OF BUILDINGS LOOK LIKE THE RAIL TRAIL WILL FACE REAR OF BUILDINGS. THIS PUTS GUIDELINES AND MAKE SURE IT'S A PLEASANT EXPERIENCE ALONG THE TRAIL. WE REVIEWED COUNCILOR BACA'S AMENDMENT AND WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THAT. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS, YOU ALSO HAVE -- THERE'S COMMENTS BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. ANOTHER FIVE MINUTES IF YOU WANT IT? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, WE DO HAVE MICHAEL ONLINE WHO IS REPRESENTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS. JUST WANT TO SAY ON BEHALF OF PLANNING THAT YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION HEARD THIS CASE ON JANUARY 11 AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. OF THE AMENDMENT. CITING IT'S FURTHERING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES FOR CENTERS AND CORRIDORS, INFILL, PLACE MAKING, AND METROPOLITAN REDEVELOPMENT. AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE TONIGHT. OR THIS MORNING. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE AMENDMENT? COUNCILOR CHAMPINE. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: THIS IS BY REQUEST FROM THE CITY OR FROM US? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, THE APPLICANT IS MRA. AND -- COUNCILOR BACA IS THE SPONSOR. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS, BACK TO COUNCILOR BACA. COUNCILOR BACA TO CLOSE. ANYBODY HAVE DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? >>COUN. BACA: MR. PRESIDENT, I MOVE AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE? >>COUN. LEWIS: WE HAVE AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. WE'LL MOVE THAT. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: SECONDED. >>COUN. LEWIS: SECONDED BY COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. BACA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I'LL LUMP IN MY COMMENTS WITH EVERYTHING. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO PROBLEM. >>COUN. BACA: THIS IS OVERALL REQUEST BY MRA AND ADMINISTRATION. TO PUT IN SAFEGUARDS AND DESIGN STANDARDS ON THE RAIL TRAIL. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THIS WILL -- THESE PROJECTS SPARK A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT. THERE NEEDS TO BE A BALANCE BETWEEN PROTECTING OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS AND ALLOWING FOR SOME OF THE HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT TO COME. I THINK THEY'VE DAWN PRETTY GOOD JOB OF THAT. THROUGHOUT IT. I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE ORDINANCE ITSELF. AS FAR AS THE AMENDMENT, THIS IS -- THE AMENDMENT IS DIRECTLY FROM MYSELF. IT'S -- WE HAVE A BIG HOUSING SHORTAGE IN OUR CITY. SO HOW DO YOU MAKE SURE YOU ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN IN AREAS WHERE IT'S APPROPRIATE WHILE ALSO PROTECTING THE AESTHETICS. IN THIS CASE THE AMENDMENT IS A SHORT AREA WHERE ALREADY THEY'RE BUILDING. LOT OF STEP DOWNS. SOMETIMES IT'S JUST AN ASTHECTIC SPOT. I LIKE HIGH RISES. I LIKE THE SHADE THEY PRODUCE. YOU KNOW, WE STARTED OUR SUMMER EARLY OVER 100 DEGREES AGAIN. IT WILL BE HOT THROUGH THE YEAR. MANY TRUES -- TREES WILL TAKE YEARS TO GROW. ONE SMALL SEGMENT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT FOR HOUSING AND ALSO PROVIDE SHADE. I URGE AND SUGGEST DO PASS ON ALL THESE. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. THAT'S AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT? WE'LL TAKE THAT AS A CLOSE. COUNCILOR BACA URGES YOUR SUPPORT. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: BACK ON THE BILL AS AMENDED. COUNCILOR BACA. >>COUN. BACA: URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >> [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE GOING TO GO TO R-64. MOVING THAT UP A FEW ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: MR. PRESIDENT, R-64 ESTABLISHING A THREE-MONTH MORATORIUM RELATED TO PROCESSES WITH DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES TO ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO RECTIFY CONFLICTING LANGUAGE. MR. PRESIDENT, THERE WAS -- WE PASSED DEMOLITION BILL A WHILE BACK AND MISSED A PART IN THERE THAT LATER ON SAYS IF AN APPEAL HAPPENS IT WILL GO TO DISTRICT COURT BUT WE AMENDED THAT OUT. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE TO CLARIFY THAT AND MAKE IT ALL CONSISTENT. WE CAN'T DO THAT WITH THE ORDINANCE UPDATE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING ON RECESS. PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS READY TO DEMOLISH PROPERTIES. THIS IS A MORATORIUM ON THE DISTRICT COURT PART SO WHEN WE GET BACK WE CAN FIX THE ORDINANCE. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR CHAMPINE. ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? >> NO, MR. PRESIDENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY, ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS? >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR BASSAN, WE APPRECIATE THIS FIX SO WE CAN KEEP THINGS MOVING. >>COUN. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'LL GO TO ITEM I. P5. >>COUN. PEÑA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WE HAVE P5 AND P6. IF THE STAFF CAN GO AHEAD AND TALK ABOUT THESE TWO BILLS, I'D APPRECIATE IT. I'M EXHAUSTED AND I THINK THE INTENT IS TO DEFER THEM THIS EVENING. >> CERTAINLY, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. P5 AND P6 ARE CHARTER AMENDMENT PROPOSALS LIKE THE ONES WE'VE ADDRESSED EARLIER TODAY. THIS IS THEIR FIRST HEARING. THE COUNCIL IS NOT PERMITTED TO PASS THEM THIS EVENING. THE TWO AMENDMENTS ARE -- THE TWO PROPOSALS EFFECTIVELY DO VERY SIMILAR THINGS. WHAT THEY DO IN P5 IS THEY AMEND THE CHARTER SO THAT THE NEXT COUNCIL DISTRICTS UP FOR ELECTION IN 2025 WHICH ARE THE ODD NUMBER COUNCIL DISTRICTS WOULD BE SERVING A TWO-YEAR TERM. AND THEN IN 2027 ALL NINE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE UP FOR ELECTION. THAT WOULD BE IN THE OFF-CYCLE. IT WOULD NOT BE AT THE SAME TIME AS MAYORAL ELECTION. THE INTENT OF THIS PROPOSAL SO THAT IN 2027 ALL CITY COUNCILLORS WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RUN FOR MAYOR WITHOUT RESIGNING THEIR SEATS. THE FIX DOES THE SAME THING AS FAR AS CHANGING THE CYCLE OF WHEN COUNCILORS WOULD BE ELECTED. THIS WOULD MAKE IT SO THE ELECTIONS IN 2025 WOULD BE FOR FOUR-YEAR TERMS. THE ELECTIONS IN 2027 WHICH WOULD BE THE EVEN NUMBER COUNCIL SEATS WOULD BE FOR TWO-YEAR TERMS. IN 2029 ALL CITY COUNCILLORS WOULD BE UP FOR REELECTION. THE COUNCILORS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO RUN FOR OFFICE AT THE SAME TIME. SO ANYONE THAT CHOSE TO RUN FOR MAYOR WOULD HAVE TO RESIGN THEIR COUNCIL SEAT. I BELIEVE THAT SUMMARIZES IT. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. MR. PRESIDENT. ALL I'M TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE SIMILAR TO EARLIER IS REALLY FAIRNESS IN THE PROCESS. RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE ODD NUMBERED COUNCILORS WHO CANNOT -- IF THEY DECIDED THEY WANTED TO RUN FOR MAYOR THEY HAVE TO RESIGN THEIR SEAT. THEN YOU HAVE EVEN NUMBER COUNCILORS WHO COULD ACTUALLY RUN FOR MAYOR AND KEEP THEIR SEAT. IT'S JUST TRYING TO KEEP -- TRYING TO ESTABLISH FAIRNESS. AND EITHER PROPOSAL, BOTH OF THEM OBVIOUSLY I THINK ONE OF THEM -- IF THEY -- ONE OF THEM TO PASS AND ONE OF THEM NOT TO. FOR ME, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S EVEN ODD OR RUN OR NOT RUN. JUST SO WE CAN DOWN THE ROAD CREATE SOME FAIRNESS. WITH THAT, UNLESS THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION -- I GUESS I SHOULD. >>COUN. LEWIS: THE BILL HAS BEEN MOVED FOR DO PASS AND SECONDED. WE'RE DISCUSSING THAT RIGHT NOW. AND WE'LL GO TO DEFERRAL. COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. JUST A COUPLE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. I SEE NO ONE SIGNED UP FOR THIS. I'VE BEEN TOLD THERE'S NO-NO OPPORTUNITY TO SIGN UP FOR THIS BILL TONIGHT. CAN SOMEBODY VERIFY IF THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY ON THE WEBSITE TO SIGN UP FOR THE THESE. THEY WERE PUT ON LATE. SO PEOPLE ARE TELLING ME THEY DID NOT SEE THAT OPTION. CAN WE CLARIFY? >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN, I DO HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED UP FOR R-66. THAT BEING MR. SERRANO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: SO PEOPLE DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIGN UP FOR HIS. MY OTHER QUESTION IS JUST -- SO DOES THE HEARING THAT STARTED AT 1:07 A.M. REALLY COUNT TO REQUIRED TWO HEARINGS ON THESE BILLS? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN, MY BELIEF IS IT WOULD COUNT AS THE FIRST. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR BACA. >>COUN. BACA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I AGREE WITH YOU THERE'S EQUITY IN THAT PROCESS, POTENTIALLY. THERE'S A REASON WHY EVERY SINGLE ELECTED BODY IN THE COUNTRY HAS STAGGERED ELECTIONS. COULD YOU IMAGINE ON P6 WE ENDED UP WITH AN ENTIRELY NEW GOVERNMENT. YEAH, I AGREE WE NEED TO FIX IT SOMEHOW. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT THE WAY. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR ROGERS. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WOULD ASK EITHER ADMINISTRATION OR OUR STAFF THE REASONING BEHIND THIS JUST AS I ASKED THE SAME QUESTION FOR THE WAGES. >>COUN. LEWIS: I THINK COUNCILOR PEÑA EXPLAINED THE REASONING BEHIND IT. IF WE NEED TO -- I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF CAN EXPLAIN THAT MUCH MORE. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WHAT'S THE CURRENT WAY IT IS WITHOUT ANY OF THESE. >>COUN. LEWIS: YEAH, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. STAFF COULD GIVE A CLEAR HOW -- YOU KNOW WHAT CHANGES SPECIFICALLY WITH THESE TWO PROPOSALS WOULD MAKE TO OUR ELECTIONS IN THAT REGARD SPECIFICALLY TO WHEN THEY HAPPEN AND WHICH ONES. >> SO, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR ROGERS, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE ORIGINS ABOUT HOW THESE WORK. I DO KNOW THAT -- I'M SORRY, I'M CLARIFYING SO I SPEAK PROPERLY. AS MENTIONED, THE EVEN NUMBERED DISTRICTS CURRENTLY ARE ELECTED AT THE SAME TIME -- ODD NUMBERED DISTRICTS ARE -- I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, CURRENTLY THE WAY IT'S SET UP IS ODD NUMBER DISTRICTS RUN AT THE SAME TIME AS THE MAYOR. THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE IN ODD DISTRICTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO RUN FOR MAYOR AND KEEP THEIR COUNCIL SEAT. EVEN NUMBER RUN OFF CYCLE FROM THE MAYOR. EVEN NUMBER DISTRICTS CAN CHOOSE TO RUN FOR MAYOR AND MAINTAIN COUNCIL SEAT. IF THEY WERE TO WIN, OF COURSE YOU GIVE UP THE COUNCIL SEAT, IF YOU LOSE YOU CAN STAY IN THE SEAT. THAT'S WHAT THE CURRENT LAW IS RIGHT NOW ON THE CHARTER. >>COUN. LEWIS: EXPLAIN WHAT THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD DO. >> MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, WHAT THE AMENDMENTS WOULD DO, I BELIEVE P5 PUTS ALL COUNCILORS TO RUN OFF MAYOR CYCLE. IF THEY'RE RUNNING OFF THE MAYOR CYCLE ALL NINE CAN RUN FOR MAYOR AND CHOOSE TO KEEP THEIR SEAT. THE OTHER PROPOSAL WOULD SAY ALL NINE COUNCILORS RUN AT THE SAME TIME AS THE MAYOR AND THEN THE ONLY WAY THOSE -- ANYBODY CAN RUN IF THEY GIVE UP THEIR COUNCIL SEAT. >>COUN. LEWIS: THE INTENTION IS TO PUT BOTH OF THESE ON THE BALLOT OR WE CHOOSE? >>COUN. PEÑA: THAT WE CHOOSE ONE. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE CHOOSE ONE. OKAY. AND ONE WOULD SIMPLY BE ALL NINE COUNCILORS WOULD BE UP FOR ELECTION AT THE SAME TIME AND ALL NINE COUNCIL DISTRICTS. SO IF IT WERE TO BE -- ONE OF THOSE THINGS FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEONE MIGHT GET ELECTED IN 2025 I THINK THE PROCEDURE WOULD BE A TWO-YEAR TURN AND HALF RUN BEGIN AND IT IS A FOUR-YEAR RUN OFFSET FROM THE MAYOR'S RACE. COUNCILORS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. IS THE -- ETHAN MY QUESTION IS FOR THE CITY CLERK. WHAT -- IF YOU HAD TO RETURN ELECTIONS FOR ALL COUNCILORS AND THE MAYOR AT THE SAME TIME, HOW WOULD THAT IMPACT YOUR OFFICE? >> I THINK AT THIS POINT, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I THINK IT'S HARD TO PREDICT WHAT THAT ELECTION WOULD LOOK LIKE. THERE WOULD BE BUSY -- BUT I THINK WE -- I MEAN, WE WILL PROCEED HOWEVER THE COUNCIL SEES FIT. I WILL SAY IN DOING RESEARCH ON THESE PROPOSALS THERE WAS A LARGE SURVEY DONE BY THE ICMA PROBABLY A COUPLE YEARS AGO THAT FOUND THAT 20% OF THE MUNICIPALITIES IN THE U.S. USE UNSTAGGERED ELECTIONS AND CHICAGO AND ATLANTA DO THIS. THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF HAVING UNSTAGGERED ELECTIONS. AND SO, AS WE HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THESE PROPOSALS, IT'S CERTAINLY -- I'LL BE REACHING OUT TO CLERKS OFFICES IN THOSE AREAS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE LOGISTICS ON THIS LOOKS LIKE. I THINK THE MAIN PIECE WOULD BE THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND REPORTING AND OUR TRANSITION TO ELECTRONIC QUALIFYING CONTRIBUTIONS THE BURDEN HAS DECREASES. YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S -- WE ARE PREPARED TO PROCEED HOWEVER THE COUNCIL ELECTS. >>COUN. ROGERS: MADAM VICE-PRESIDENT, I'VE BEEN GETTING FEEDBACK THAT CHANGING SO THAT WE ALL RUN AT THE SAME TIME WOULD POSITIVELY AFFECT OUR VOTER TURNOUT. IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, DO YOU HAVE ANY PROFESSIONAL OPINION ABOUT THAT? >> MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, COUNCILOR ROGERS, I WOULD NEED TO RESEARCH THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC INFORMATION AT THIS TIME ABOUT VOTER TURNOUT IN MUNICIPALITIES WHERE THE ELECTIONS ARE UNSTAGGERED. BUT THAT IS SOMETHING I COULD CERTAINLY DO SOME RESEARCH ON AND AS THE COUNCIL IS DISCUSSING THESE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT ISSUE. >>COUN. ROGERS: THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S TIED TO THE MAYOR'S RACE. WE SEE THE TURNOUT IS HIGHER THAN IF IT'S NOT A MAYOR'S RACE. I LOVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU. >>COUN. GROUT: THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> MADAM VICE-PRESIDENT, FIRST WE NEED TO MOVE THE BILL. WE NEED TO MOVE P-5 OR P6. >>COUN. PEÑA: SO, MADAM VICE-PRESIDENT, I DID MOVE P5. I SAID WE'D DISCUSS BOTH OF THEM FOR THE SAKE OF TIME. I DID MOVE IT. I'M NOT SURE IF THERE WAS A SECOND PROVIDED. THERE'S A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BASSAN. I THINK WITH THAT, ALL WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO P6. WE'RE ON P5. THE INTENT IS TO DEFER. I WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS TO SAY THAT IF YOU HAVE THIS KNOWLEDGE, I DO, BUT THERE ARE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, THERE'S 144 -- >> THERE'S 70 HOUSE MEMBERS AND 48 STATE SENATORS. >>COUN. PEÑA: SO OUR HOUSE MEMBERS RUN ON ONE CYCLE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, WHEN -- IN THIS CURRENT ELECTION CYCLE EVERY HOUSE NUMBER AND EVERY SENATOR IS RUNNING. AND THEN EVERY TWO YEARS ALL HOUSE MEMBERS RUN AND THE STATE EVERY SENATOR RUNS EVERY FOUR YEARS. >>COUN. PEÑA: THANK YOU. THEY DON'T HAVE STAGGERED. WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO MOVE A DEFERRAL, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER -- DEFERRAL OF P5. TO THE AUGUST 5th MEETING. >>COUN. GROUT: WE HAVE DEFERRAL FOR P-24-5. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. GROUT: WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT? THERE'S A SECOND OVER HERE. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES ON A 6-3 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. WE'RE ON ITEM J. COUNCILOR PEÑA, R-65. >>COUN. PEÑA: R-65 I MOVE A DO PASS. AND A DEFERRAL. THANK YOU. >> COUNCILOR PEÑA, YOU CAN SIMPLY MOVE A DEFERRAL. THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A HEARING ON THIS. >>COUN. PEÑA: OKAY. DEFERRAL TO AUGUST 5th. I THINK THERE'S A SECOND. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: SO, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A HEARING ON THIS BILL AT ALL? >> ON THE RESOLUTION, IT DOESN'T NEED HAVE A HEARING. THE RESOLUTION DOESN'T REQUIRE TWO HEARINGS. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: SO THE BILL HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. AND DID YOU MOVE A DEFERRAL? >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT'S BEEN SECONDED. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE DEFERRAL? [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES ON A 7-2 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: P6. ITEM K. -- >>COUN. LEWIS: QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? >>COUN. PEÑA: MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE AN AMENDMENT. FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. THE EXPLANATION FOR THIS IS THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO FIX LANGUAGE SO THAT THE SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSITION IS ALIGNED WITH THE INTENT OF PROPOSAL. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOVED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR GROUT. THIS IS AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. QUESTION OR DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT? ANYTHING ELSE, COUNCILOR PEÑA? >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. MADAM CLERK. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>COUN. LEWIS: BACK ON THE BILL AS AMENDED. COUNCILORS, ANY DISCUSSION? QUESTIONS ON THE BILL? COUNCILOR PEÑA. >>COUN. PEÑA: THE DEFERRAL -- DID I MOVE DEFERRAL? I MOVE CAN DEFERRAL TO AUGUST 5th. >>COUN. LEWIS: QUESTIONS ON THE DEFERRAL? [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: NO. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES ON A 7-2 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. ITEM L IS COUNCILOR PEÑA. R-66. >>COUN. PEÑA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. R-66 IS ADOPTING PROPOSITION TO BE SENT TO THE VOTERS AT THE 2024 GENERAL ELECTION PROPOSING TO AMEND ARTICLE TWO OF THE CHARTER RELATED TO CITY COUNCIL ELECTION CYCLES. I MOVE A DEFERRAL TO AUGUST 5th. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE GOT A MOTION AND SECOND FOR DEFERRAL. ANY QUESTIONS. WE HAVE SOMEONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. LET'S GO TO THE SPEAKER. >> RUDOLPH SERRAN OP. O >> RUDOLPH, ARE YOU THERE? YOU'RE MUTED. >> WELL I'M SURPRISED THE AMOUNT OF WORK YOU GUYS ARE DOING TODAY. I THANK YOU. THIS WAS MORE TO SUPPORT -- HELLO? >> WE CAN HEAR YOU. >> YEAH, I WAS SUPPORTING MORE LIKE MORE TIME -- MORE TIME TO HAVE MORE -- MORE TIME TO MAKE THE CHANGES OR TO SURVIVE THE CHANGES THAT WERE HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. IN OUR POLITICS. USUALLY TWO YEARS IS NORMAL. BUT THE CHANGES ARE GOING TOO FAST. AND ARE NEGATIVE TO OUR CITIES. TRYING TO SLOW DOWN THE CHANGES, AS FAST AS IT IS, IS SOMETHING I SUPPORT. THANK YOU. >> MR. PRESIDENT, THAT CONCLUDES COMMENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT MOTION IS FOR DEFERRAL TO AUGUST 5th. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ON THE DEFERRAL? COUNCILOR PEÑA, ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES ON AN 8-1 VOTE. >>COUN. BACA: POINT OF ORDER. I MOVE WE EXTEND THE MEETING BY TEN MINUTES TO FINISH THE AGENDA. I MOVE WE EXTEND THE MEETING BY TEN MINUTES. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOTION IS TO EXTEND TO 1:40. IT'S SECONDED. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> PASSES ON AN 8-1 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE GOT GO TO ITEM N. THIS IS COUNCILOR ROGERS, COUNCILOR BACA, AND COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN. >>COUN. BACA: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. R-58 CREATING TASK FORCE TO REVIEW THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. I THINK IT IS GOOD TO BE ABLE TO MAKE CHANGES AS THE CITY GROWS AND CHANGES OVER TIME. HOWEVER, I THINK IT SHOULD BE A DELIBERATIVE PROCESS. AND SHOULD TAKE TIME. FOR INSTANCE P5 AND P6 FIRST PUBLIC HEARING IS AT 1:30 A.M. HOW MANY PUBLIC FOLKS ARE IN ANY WAY ENGAGED IN THIS OTHER THAN MR. SERRANO? IN ANY CASE, I MOVE A DO PASS. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: SECOND. >>COUN. LEWIS: MOTION AND SECOND BY COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN FOR DO PASS. >>COUN. ROGERS: MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE AN AMENDMENT. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. MY AMENDMENT IS ON PAGE TWO LINE FOUR AMEND SUBSECTION B. THE TASK FORCE SHALL HOLD THE FIRST MEETING NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 1 INSTEAD OF AUGUST 1 AND SHALLED PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS IN A REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR ON OR BEFORE MARCH 1st INSTEAD OF FEBRUARY 1st UPON PRESENTATION THE COMMISSION SHALL BE DISCHARGED. THIS GIVES TIME FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TO APPOINT PAST MEMBERS. AND IT ALSO EXITATES THE DATES TO GIVE THEM THE EXTRA TIME TO DO THE FINAL REPORT. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY, IT'S FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. MOVED AND SECONDED. COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN WITH A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE? COUNCILOR SANCHEZ. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I'D JUST LIKE TO REMIND WE HAD AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE TAKING THIS TASK AND THE MAYOR NEVER ASSIGNED A PERSON TO TACKLE THIS. NOW HE'S WORKING TO GET SOMETHING DONE. I THINK WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT. THANK YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: OKAY. COUNCILORS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENTS? ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE, COUNCILOR ROGERS? OKAY. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: NO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO. >> THAT FAILS ON A 3-6 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS PROPOSED? I DON'T SEE MY AMENDMENT IN THE PACKET. WE HAVE A HARD COPY OF IT? I SEE ONE FOR R-58. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I DO NOT HAVE YOUR AMENDMENT. I CAN RUN-UPSTAIRS AND GET A HARD COPY FOR YOU. >>COUN. LEWIS: GOT AN EMAIL YOU CAN FORWARD ME OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? OKAY. >>COUN. LEWIS: LET'S GO TO THE SPEAKERS. >> WE HAVE DAVID FOLLOWED BY ROSEMARY ON ZOOM. I THINK WE'LL GO STRAIGHT TO ROSEMARY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, ALTHOUGH I CAN'T SAY THANK YOU THAT THIS VERY IMPORTANT MATTER HAS COME UP SO LATE THAT ONLY STAY AT HOME RETIREES ARE UP TO TESTIFY ON IT. I ASK THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU ALREADY APPROVED SENDING SOME CHARTEDER CHANGES TO THE VOTERS, I'M ASKING YOU TO STILL ADOPT R-24-58 AND PUT TOGETHER A REASONABLY COMPETENT GOVERNMENTAL AND PROFESSIONAL AND PRIVATE CITIZEN GROUP TO LOOK AT OUR CHARTER. LOOK DEEPLY AT THE STRUCTURE OF OUR CITY GOVERNMENT. INCLUDING THE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. AND INVOLVE CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS AND NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROFESSIONALS. OUR CITY INCLUDES -- INCLUDING THE CITIZENS PROFESSIONAL LEADERS, HAS THE RESOURCES TO DO THE JOB OF CHARTER REVIEW AND REVISION WITH SKILL AND EFFICIENCY. PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO DO THIS WELL. I WOULD POINT OUT I WAS GOING TO SAY THIS EARLIER THAT THE CITY CHARTER SERVES THE SAME ROLE FOR CITY GOVERNMENT AS OUR CONSTITUTION DOES FOR THE STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. IT'S A SERIOUS MATTER TO AMEND THE FEDERAL GOVERNING DOCUMENT OF THE CITY AND IT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT. AND IT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN WITHOUT SOME SERIOUS STUDY BEFORE. THANK YOU. >> THAT CONCLUDES COMMENT, MR. PRESIDENT. >> MAYBE WE CAN DRAFT TO IT. ADD TWO PEOPLE TO IT AND EXTEND THE DEADLINE. AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? >>COUN. LEWIS: SAY THAT AGAIN. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU -- THAT KEVIN HAS GONE TO GET MY UNDERSTANDING IS IS IT EXTENDED THE DEADLINE OF THE TASK FORCE AND ADDED ADDITIONAL PEOPLE. >>COUN. LEWIS: IT DOES ADD ADDITIONAL TO THE TASK FORCE. IT DOES A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS. I DON'T THINK I CAN DRAFT IT IN MY MIND RIGHT HERE. BUT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. >> MR. PRESIDENT. >>COUN. LEWIS: UNLESS ANYONE HAS COMMENTS. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: I HAD A COUPLE COMMENTS. I'LL MAKE THEM NOW. FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANT TO THANK COUNCILOR ROGERS FOR PULLING THIS TOGETHER. I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD APPROACH. I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH BETTER TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE TO WHAT WE VOTED ON EARLIER TONIGHT. EVEN SO, HAVING THIS PROCESS WHERE CITIZENS HAVE AN ACTUAL MECHANISM FOR INPUT AND UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THESE CHARTER CHANGES THAT MIGHT BE ADDITIONAL TO WHAT WE'VE DONE. I JUST WANT TO THANK HER FOR THE HEAVY LIFT. I'M HONORED TO SIGN ON AS CO-SPONSOR. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT? OKAY. CAN YOU PUT IT ON THE SCREEN? OKAY. I CAN'T READ IT. CAN YOU READ IT? >> I'M HAPPY TO READ IT. ON PAGE ONE LINE 22 STRIKE 15 AND REPLACE 17. STRIKE LINES ONE AND TWO AND REPLACE WITH THREE AT LARGE MEMBERS SELECTED BY CITY COUNCIL ONE OF WHOM SHALL BE SELECTED BY COUNCIL TO CHAIR THE TASK FORCE. NUMBER THREE IS ON PAGE TWO LINE FOUR STRIKE AUGUST 1, 2024 AND REPLACE WITH OCTOBER 1, 2024. AND NUMBER FOUR ON PAGE TWO LINE SIX STRIKE FEBRUARY 1, 2025 REPLACE WITH APRIL 1, 2025. AND THE EXPLANATION IS THE AMENDMENT INCREASES THE NUMBER OF AT LARGE MEMBERS SELECTED BY THE COUNCIL BY TWO MEMBERS TO THREE. IT ALSO POSTPONES THE DATE OF WHEN THE TASK FORCE MUST BEGIN AND CONCLUDE DUTIES BECAUSE COUNCIL WILL NOT BE ABLE TO NOMINATE MEMBERS UNTIL AUGUST. >>COUN. LEWIS: I THINK THIS AMENDMENT I BELIEVE WE WANTED TO ADDRESS THIS AMENDMENT I THINK WE DISCUSSED ALSO KEVIN HAD AN AMENDMENT. IT ALSO WAS MEANT TO ADDRESS THE LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT DEALS WITH REVIEWING THE CURRENT BILLS THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING RIGHT NOW. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS THAT WAS AMENDED OUT BY THE COUNCIL AT THE PRIOR MEETING. THE LANGUAGE DRAFTING TO LOOK AT TASK FORCE IS DELETED. THERE'S A CORRESPONDING CHANGE MADE TO THE TITLE. >>COUN. LEWIS: ANY LANGUAGE THAT HAS TO DO WITH CURRENTLY ANY OF THE P BILLS IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS? ALL RIGHT. COUNCILORS, UNLESS I GET A MOTION WE'RE GOING TO END THIS MEETING IN TWO MINUTES. >>COUN. ROGERS: MR. PRESIDENT, I MAKE A MOTION. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: I MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 1:50. >>COUN. LEWIS: THAT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. SECOND BY COUNCILOR BASSAN. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES ON AN 8-1 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: COUNCILORS. THIS IS AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. THIS IS AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. AGAIN, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT? ADDING THREE AT LARGE MEMBERS FROM COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THAT? ALL RIGHT. WHO IS THE SECOND? COUNCILOR CHAMPINE IS SECOND. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: YES. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: NO. >>COUN. GROUT: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: YES. >>COUN. LEWIS: YES. >> THAT PASSES ON A 7-2 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE'RE BACK ON THE BILL AS AMENDED. AMENDED TWICE. AND COUNCILORS DISCUSSION ON THE BILL AS AMENDED? IF NOT, WE'LL GO TO COUNCILOR BACA TO CLOSE. >>COUN. BACA: URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. LEWIS: WE DIDN'T -- WE DID VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. WE VOTED TO EXTEND THE MEETING. SO, THE BILL HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. AND AMENDED. AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO DO A FINAL VOTE ON THE BILL AS AMENDED. [ ROLL CALL ]. >>COUN. BACA: YES. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. CHAMPINE: NO. >>COUN. FIEBELKORN: YES. >>COUN. GROUT: [ INAUDIBLE ]. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. ROGERS: YES. >>COUN. SANCHEZ: NO. >>COUN. LEWIS: NO. >> THAT FAILS ON A 3-6 VOTE. >>COUN. LEWIS: THANK YOU. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.