We're going to start the meeting with the moment of silence, followed by the pledge of allegiance in English and then in Spanish.
Civic Plaza parking passes are provided for members of the public. You can obtain a parking pass from council staff at the table near the chamber's entrance.
Members of the public, city staff, and the media have a ability to view this meeting in person and on live streams through four different platforms.
Web TV, on Comcast Channel 16, the Web TV website, YouTube and Zoom Webinar. The live streams can be accessed from most smartphones, tablets, or computers.
Also, this meeting is closed captioned, and you may enable the closed captioning services on your television or device at this time.
The video recording of this and all past council meetings will remain available for viewing at any time and on the city council's website.
Council staff is available via telephone. If members of the public need assistance, finding the videos online, please call 505-768-3100, for assistance during business hours Monday through Friday-80-5PM.
The council will take a break at approximately 7pm this evening if needed, with regard to decorum in the chambers we want tonight's proceedings to be as civil and respectful as possible. Please do not make any personal tax and please no applause or snapping or any other outburst during the meeting.
The meeting will go a lot smoother if we all get along.
We're going to start with proclamations and presentations. Councilor Grout.
Thank you, Ms. Madam President.
Let's see. Tonight we have a proclamation recognizing Albuquerque Public Schools, selfless seniors.
Dr. Gabriella Duran Blakey, APS Superintendent, and Shannon Barnhill, the Executive Director of APS Education Foundation, are here to accept.
And then we have a few of our recipients here as well.
Y'all would come down to the podium.
I don't see Dr. Blakey. She must have gotten busy.
She's busy looking traffic.
Something like that.
But I am so glad to see you all. I'm very proud of you all.
Thank you for being here this evening.
Okay. Today, we're as, where as Albuquerque Public Schools Education Foundation established the selfless senior program,
to recognize students who quietly contribute to our community through selfless acts that do not earn a lot of fanfare or recognition.
And whereas Albuquerque Public Schools Education Foundation has partnered with Frank Frost on this initiative for the last 17 years.
To recognize and celebrate these students for their dedication to their schools and their commitment to serving others.
And whereas students from APS schools are nominated by their friends.
Schools staff, their families or community members, and most have never been publicly thanked or praised for their contributions to our community.
And whereas the young people chosen for the class of 2025 represent the best of our city and our hope for a bright future and they are from Albuquerque High School Kaylee Shelton.
From a trusco heritage academy high school, Leana Belmer, Maris from Cebola High School, Ryan Ramirez from Del Norte High School, Jasmine Montoya from El Dorado High School, Charles Epp from Highland High School, Philippe Hernandez from La Cueva High School, Clay She.
I'm in Zano High School, Maddie Espinoza from New Futures High School, Amari Salomon, Elu.
I probably butchered that I'm sorry.
From next year in Academy High School, Danny Figueroa from Sandy High School, Eli Crowley from Valley High School, Alicia Padilla from volcano Vista High School, Kaylin Montoya.
And Wes Mesa High School, Noah Chavez.
He had proclaimed that the council, the governing body of the city of Albuquerque, hereby recognizes the Albuquerque Public Schools Education Foundation, class of 2025 seniors and thanks them for their service to our community.
Thank you all.
Ms. Farnhill, could you talk a little bit about these kids and what you all do and what they're doing and where they're flowing and then we're going to have you come by.
So, shake everybody's hands.
Okay. Thank you so much.
Councillor Grout, President Basan and fellow counselors and citizens I honored to be here to recognize these amazing incredible soon to be graduates.
And on behalf of the APS Education Foundation, we are honored to have this population in their name.
I know 17 years ago when Frank Frost came to us with this idea, he was thinking, gosh, it's time to show the community about our students and how they are impacting our community through their selfless acts and they're not the quarterback of the football team, they're not the valvictorian.
These are these are individuals who are making a difference directly with their fellow classmates.
So I wanted to also say that we applaud the families for raising such an amazing young people here today.
And I am also here with one of our student board members that sits on the foundation board with 30 community and business board members.
And he has a little bit to say about the selfless seniors.
And it's Henry Newcomme from Attersco Heritage County.
Hi everyone, I just wanted to say that these selfless seniors have given back to their communities and I have witnessed it myself participating with many of them.
And I just want to say that they represent the greater school community, inspiring acts of selflessness as they themselves have committed within us.
The underclassbin, the middle schoolers and the elementary schoolers.
And now, because of this proclamation, they represent the generous spirit of the city of Albuquerque and inspire acts of selflessness in its constituents.
And they inspire us to give to those who need champion and important cause, give voice to the voiceless and make our city a better place for all.
Thank you.
Dr. Blakey's here now.
Hi.
Just Blakey is here.
We're so excited that she is.
So thank you.
Coming.
We would be glad to accept this honor.
As you can tell, they're they're they're selfless and so they're quiet.
They're shy.
But we appreciate every of them and what they bring to our communities.
Thank you, Madam President.
I can just say that if this gentleman is an example of all of these people, you guys chose well.
Thank you.
I just wanted to see if you could maybe just you have.
Hang on.
Hang on one second.
Say their names real quick.
Hang on one second, everybody.
We want you to come through here.
Let's hear from the counselors real quick.
Thank you.
Okay.
Counselor Rogers.
I just wanted to say hi to the student that I know that worked with me on the Mayor's Youth
Council.
Hi.
Just had to shout about because he was also on the Mayor's Youth Council and really did a lot of work with
us.
And just so excited to see you here.
Awesome.
All right.
Now come on through and congratulations.
Well done.
You know what I mean.
Okay.
Congratulations to those selfless seniors real quick.
Anybody who is remaining standing in the chambers due to fire code restrictions and all the other rules in place that I don't even know about.
Can you please find a seat?
And.
Counselor Grout.
I'm going to go ahead and hopefully is it okay with you if I call down from HR for the presentation that's next.
Okay.
I'm just going to call them down to get started if that's okay.
All right.
So moving on.
We have a presentation.
This was requested by counselor Grout.
And this presentation is for Mr. Ian Stoker director of the city of Albuquerque Human Resources Department who will provide an update on employee anti human trafficking training.
Welcome director and I know that.
Counselor Grout's going to have probably several questions, but.
We're going to let her deliver that and you can go ahead and begin.
Thank you.
All right.
Well, thank you very much.
Madam President members of the council.
As you said, I've been asked to give a brief presentation on the status of our anti human trafficking awareness campaign.
This was in response to your resolution are 2442.
So.
There we go.
Director, can you speak up or can we have the volume raised a little bit please.
I'll point my voice at the microphone a little better.
So the resolution provided specific goals for the human for human trafficking awareness campaign include particular training for city employees as well as signage.
So during the summer and fall of 2024 our human trafficking awareness campaign team met that was made up of members from the human resources department aviation transit.
We came up with a plan for how to address the resolution and that was implemented in two major ways training and signage.
So for training the human resources department identified or track down three different training protocols.
One for general city employees that we identified on our knowledge city learning platform.
By the aviation department through their connections with the TSA and AFR updated and existing anti human trafficking training to be serviceable for all of our public safety employees.
To fulfill the requirement the administration adopted administrative instruction 7-3 which required all city employees to undertake this training on an annual or by annual basis based on the particular needs of their departments.
The training we began implementing it at the end of 2024 in either late November but certainly by December to all new employees through our new employee orientation program.
Other employees were asked to begin taking the training and it was made available to them in January and it continues.
As of today we have had 3,956 employees take the training.
We also added a new web page to the city's website where they can identify much of the same information provided in the training and other signages.
It's available at cabq.gov forward slash human dash trafficking.
In terms of the signage that we have provided and put up the aviation department was able to obtain signage again through the TSA that signage has been put up in public areas.
And restrooms throughout the Sunport beginning in December and ongoing.
The transit department has also begun putting up signage at the Alvarado Transit Center, all of their other transportation hubs, all art stations, all bus stops, shelters and in every bus.
That effort is ongoing.
HR acquired signs that are being put up throughout the restrooms here in city hall as well as the Plaza Del Sol building.
And we will be adding it to our digital billboards that are available in every elevator lobby throughout the building.
In the future we will plan where we are going to provide signage that can be put up in restrooms.
In community centers and senior centers. And just to pay that, we'll begin in March. Here are some examples. On the previous page, there are a few signage examples. These are examples from the Sunport.
In terms of expenses and what this has cost, the primary expense has been for licenses through the city's electronic learning management platform knowledge city.
We, the cost of about $24,000 is being, is partly for pro-rated licenses that will get us through the contract renewal time for that, which is in late May, early June.
And the other portion is going forward in the next year. The licenses are assigned one per employee, so for each employee that needs to take this training, they have to have a license.
So that's why we had to increase the number that we had available, so that we could have everyone take these trainings.
We have also paid for the printing of signage as well as plastic sign holders for them to be put out.
That is what I have to share. Do you have any questions?
Councils are grow.
Thank you, Madam President. Thank you director for that presentation. I do have a few questions.
Our 42 asked the administration to educate city employees on the signs and indicators of human trafficking and the proper protocols for reporting suspected cases.
I did take the training and the video did a good job of describing the problem of human trafficking, but I didn't see where it described what we should do if we see it.
That's that was my takeaway from that.
The resolution also asked the administration to collaborate with local anti trafficking organizations and law enforcement.
Could you please explain to me how you've collaborated on this training?
We've collaborated internally with APD in terms of law enforcement.
With who? APD.
The representative of law enforcement.
And frankly human resources has not reached out to other community organizations.
As we move forward, we will continue to work with our partners in economic development and the office of equity inclusion to further those collaboration.
So thank you. Have you developed and distributed outreach to the city employees?
In the form of the training that they are required to do.
That's just that. Okay.
The information about human trafficking on the HR website is excellent.
So I thank you for that.
I was that information being distributed to employees.
Forgive me. I forgot my etiquette. Madam President.
Counselor Grout is being distributed to employees both through the training that they are asked to watch.
The signage that we're being put up.
And through the website itself.
Thank you. Can you tell me how many people have not taken the training that you sent the emails to?
So if just under 4,000 employees have taken the training that leaves about 2,000 that still need to take the training.
Okay.
We also have. I appreciate all the information you've provided tonight.
We do have staff and council services that are very passionate about this project as well and stopping human trafficking.
And they would love to help as well.
We have contacts in the community who have also offered to help.
And I'd sure like to take them up on that offer.
So can can our office reach out to you and collaborate with the information that we've shared or that we've learned and some really good.
Local people that are interested in helping.
I think it would be a good idea.
President.
Councilor Grout.
Of course, they can reach out to me directly or my associate director.
Home darling.
Okay.
The spearhead of this project for us.
Very good.
Okay. Tom Darling. Thank you.
We do have an opportunity to address this horrible problem in our city.
And I think we can make this training even more impactful.
So I'll look forward to having working with you and getting this getting the words out.
Councillor Champagne and I have met with our staff and.
And we have some really fun ideas that I think would be impactful in this area as well.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President.
Yes.
Director Stoker, I was just wondering what kind of collaboration did you do with the.
What did you talk about what were the discussions.
Madam President.
Councillor Sanchez.
I personally did not have the conversation.
My understanding is that my team did reach out to them.
Find out if the content of the training that have been prepared.
Suffice for their needs.
And what that being said.
It'd be really important for you to actually make sure that you talk to the officers.
So they can actually give you ideas of what.
What they could see even when it's being hidden from plain sight when you're dealing with human trafficking.
That's something that is done over and over and over and over and even police officers missed those signs.
And so it's really really important that not only maybe do you train with APD.
But also get some good ideas from them.
And also make sure that they have other options as well to actually address these situations.
Madam President, I noticed that on your signage, you don't have any local numbers listed on the signage.
You have a number that says 2, 3, 7, 3, 3, 3.
I think that's a national number, isn't it?
Madam President, Councillor Sanchez.
Yes, it's a national number.
And even when you look at other local resources, they all refer back to the national number.
Okay, so if somebody sees the human trafficking occurring right away.
How do they, I mean, that signage should say probably to call emergency phone number or or somebody that can actually deal with it or knows what to do in reference to the human trafficking.
So there's any way that you can maybe put local numbers on the signage.
So let's say for example, if you're in the airport, wouldn't it be a good idea to actually have the airport police number listed on that signage?
Madam President, Councillor Sanchez, we can certainly look into adding additional phone numbers to future signage.
I mean, so what do you think?
I mean, is that not logical to actually have the APD or the police officers that are assigned to the airport be able to be contacted through airport dispatch.
Madam President, Councillor Sanchez, I don't disagree.
Okay, you don't disagree.
I think that's something that you probably should get done just so that we can make sure that if somebody is involved in human trafficking,
right where the signs are that they have the right person to call.
I would definitely appreciate that.
Thank you.
Councillor, is any other questions or comments?
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
We are moving on to agenda item five.
The journal I move approval of the February 19 journal.
Second.
There's a motion in a second by Councillor Sanchez.
Councillor's any discussion?
All those in favor of the motion to approve the journal, raise your hand and say yes.
Anybody opposed?
That passes unanimously.
Moving on to communications and introductions.
Are there any changes to the letter of introduction?
Councillor Lewis and Baca.
Madam President, I move the rules to be spent for the purpose of placing our 22 on tonight's agenda for action.
Our 22 is establishing minimum staffing requirements for Albuquerque fire rescue rescue apparatus.
There is a motion.
There's a second by Councillor Baca.
Councillor, is all those in favor of the rules to suspension.
Raise your hand and say yes.
Yes.
Anyone opposed?
That passes on a need to one.
Councillor's Baca and Sanchez.
Thank you, Madam President.
I move that the rules be suspended for the purpose of placing our 124 on tonight's agenda for action.
Our 124 is amended to adoptive capital implementation program.
A city of Albuquerque by implementing current appropriations.
The result by the Council of Government bodies, a city of Albuquerque.
There is a motion.
There is a second.
Second from Councillor Sanchez.
There is a motion to suspend the rules for immediate action of an R124.
Councillor's those in favor.
Please raise your hand and say yes.
Those opposed?
That passes on an eight to one.
I move approval of the letter of introduction.
There is a motion and a second by of Councillor Grout.
Councillor's all those in favor of the motion to approve the letter.
Raise your hand and say yes.
Anyone opposed?
That passes unanimously.
Moving on to reports of committees.
Councillor Feeblecorn.
Thank you, Madam President.
The land use planning and zoning committee met on Wednesday, February 26.
The reports out the following item.
In the matter of 073 that it do pass.
I make a motion to accept the committee report.
There is a motion in the second by Councillor Shampine.
Any discussion?
Councillor's those in favor of the acceptance of the committee report.
Raise your hand and say yes.
That passes unanimously.
I know you all know what to do back there.
But just so that we're fair to everyone.
Can you please find a seat?
Those standing in the chambers.
Please make sure that you find a seat.
There's more seats over here.
Thank you.
Moving on to deferrals and withdrawals.
Councillors, are there any deferrals or withdrawals at this time?
Seeing none, we're going to move on to the consent agenda.
Are there any changes to the consent agenda?
Councillors.
For those individuals on tonight's consent agenda, who are being approved to serve on a border commission.
Thank you for your willingness to serve.
I will say I've worked really hard to fill my remaining seats.
I think I've done it.
But there are several districts that I was talking to Mr. Manzano and it would probably be really nice.
If you all worked to fill those in your districts for those of you that might have a vacancy.
So with that, I would like to move approval of the consent agenda.
There's a motion in a second by Councillor Grout.
Any discussion?
All those in favor of the motion to approve the consent agenda?
Raise your hand and say yes.
Yes.
Anyone opposed?
That passes unanimously.
Moving on to announcements, Councillor Rogers?
Thank you, Madam President.
Though we'll be a local government coordinating commission special meeting tomorrow Tuesday March 4th at 5 o'clock.
In the Bernoulli County building can Sanchez commission chambers.
This will be a hybrid meeting.
Thank you.
Councillor Grout.
And in President there will be six intergovernmental legislative relations committee meetings on Wednesday March 5th at 5 p.m.
Saturday March 8th at 10 a.m. Wednesday March 12th at 5 p.m.
Thursday March 13th at 10 a.m.
Friday March 14th at 10 a.m.
And Saturday March 15th at 5 p.m.
Be a Zoom video conference.
There will also be a committee of the whole meeting on Thursday March 6th at 5 p.m.
in the Vincent E. Grego chamber.
Basement level of the Albuquerque government center.
This will be a hybrid meeting.
Councillor champagne.
Thank you, Madam President.
There will be a finance and government operations committee meeting.
Monday March 10th at 5 p.m.
here in the Vincent E. Grego chamber's basement level.
Of the Albuquerque government chamber center.
This will be a hybrid meeting.
And council.
Thank you, Madam President.
There will be a land use planning and zoning committee meeting on Wednesday March 12th at 5 p.m.
in this room.
And it will be hybrid.
Thank you, Councillors.
There are no financial instruments or appeals tonight.
So we are going to move on to general public comment.
Members of the public can provide live public comments to the council in person.
Or virtually if they have signed up for public comment for the instructions.
Published on our agenda and on our website Friday.
The public comment ground rules are that each participant will have one minute to present.
Comments are to be addressed to the councillors only through the council president.
And any disruptive conduct will result in removal from the meeting.
Once your time limit is up, Abel will ring to indicate that time has ended.
Mr. Cornelias, if you'll please call the first speaker.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Our first speaker is Rob Spella, followed by Miguel Tinnon.
And then while you're coming down, Mr. Spella, for those of you that are next.
If you'll come down to the front and be ready for when it's your turn to speak after that, it would be appreciated.
Hello.
Are you guys here?
Okay.
Yes.
So I've been with AFR for about 20 years now.
I'm a paramedic on a rescue.
I would like to encourage all of you to vote in favor of the staffing model,
retaining our current staffing model.
I've seen the other model and I have some concerns.
One of the concerns I'd like to express is when a single unit responds to an emergency.
And it's a marginal situation.
This is, we call them Charly calls.
They have a need for rescue, a need for ALS, but not necessarily we need a fire engine and a rescue.
Just the rescue response.
And this new model, we will still have these calls,
where we're going to have just a rescue, a single medic and a basic.
Right now, in the city of Albuquerque, you guys get two medics on a rescue,
responding to one of these marginal emergencies.
If it ends up being acute, you have two medics.
They're able to simultaneously provide care, interpreting advanced cardiac rhythms,
providing medication, cross-checking medications for weight-based doses for pediatrics,
and delivering life-saving electricity beyond the scope of an intermediate or basic.
I would just like you guys to consider that when voting for this.
Thank you.
Miguel Tubman, followed by Greg Montoya.
Sorry, I just noticed we only have a minute.
Good evening, Madam President.
Counselors, some here to rise in support of our 25 to 122.
We thank the sponsors for bringing this important discussion to a public forum.
I stand here before you represent and rank and file fire fires behind me,
who honorably and bravely served Albuquerque at all times.
These firefighters range from fire fire to fire.
Thank you.
The challenge, chief and everything in between, anti-basic, intermediate and paramedic. We have firefighters in all kinds of divisions, including a depth, heart, FOC, arson, fire marshes office, training, dispatch, all uniquely and qualified and synchronistically, providing support to our frontline firefighters, our frontline firefighters that provide the great service that we do.
One of the reasons for this great service is our two paramedic rescue system.
The two paramedic rescue system that we've been honing for 40-plus years in this department. You're going to hear some retirees speak on behalf of that tonight.
And we ask for your support.
Greg Montoya, followed by Sam Trujillo.
Madam President, Councillors, thank you for the opportunity to speak for you today. I'm here to express my strong support for maintaining our two paramedic staff in our rescue apparatus.
The resolution that is vital to the health safety and wellbeing of our community.
Reducing paramedic staff in would create unnecessary risk for our residents and first responders alike. We cannot afford to take a step backward when it comes to emergency medical service.
Especially when we know that well equipped and well-staffed rescue save lives.
Beyond the immediate medical impact, maintaining paramedic staff and also strengthens our city's overall level of care for ALS responses on transport capable units.
This also ensures paramedics are able to cross-check medications or coordinate treatment, eliminating the disparity of having a partner with the lesser licensure at the basic level.
I urge you to support this resolution and continue investing in the safety and wellbeing of our residents.
The people in the city of Albuquerque deserve the highest level of emergency medical care.
And that starts with ensuring our fire department is staffed as necessary.
Thank you.
Sam Truheel, followed by a Maureen Bakker.
Good evening, counselors. My name is Sam Truheel.
I'm a retired AFD firefighter paramedic.
I was in the second paramedic class that went through the EMS academy at UNM School of Medicine back in 1975.
The paramedic program came into light in 1974.
Many of you were even probably the young to remember a program emergency that used to come out.
That was our dream of having something like that and we got it going and so forth.
Throughout my career, I ended up being as paramedic director.
Back then, we used to run a three-man rescue, two paramedics and one EMT basic.
And as paramedic director, I used to come in front of the city council and justify the vampire,
because you need one person to get going on CPR on an advanced life call.
That could be the basic person.
Then you need two additional people, one to start airway management.
Go ahead and finish that thought.
Okay, I'm sorry.
Anyway, we lost my train of thought.
Anyway, we used to justify having a three-man rescue mainly because we had one person doing CPR.
Another person starting an airway management advanced airway management using medical equipment.
And then we had the third person that was communicating with the hospital, starting an IV and communicating with the people that we were at the scene
with, as well as justifying everything, protecting our people and so forth.
Thank you, Mr. Trejo.
Yeah.
Well, I ran out of time, I assume.
Yes, sir.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you for your service.
Maureen Bakker, followed by Anami Das.
Good evening.
Council President Basan and city councilors.
My name is Maureen Bakker.
I chair the Board of Directors of the New Mexico Philharmonic.
We deeply appreciate the support from the city that enables us to reach our communities title one children
and their parents as well as veterans.
I am here tonight urging you to support Councillor Bakke's proposal to remove the city charter restriction,
requiring a public vote on expenditures over $10 million for a performing arts center.
A world class performing arts center is not a luxury it is a necessity.
Our current venues, including Pope Joy Hall, are aging and inadequate for the needs of a growing vibrant city.
Beyond the cultural impact, a performing arts center is a catalyst for economic growth.
It would create jobs, attract visitors, and support local businesses.
Other cities, investments in the arts, yields significant returns for those cities,
driving development and revitalizing neighborhoods.
I respectfully urge you to support this change to the city charter.
Thank you.
Anami Doss, followed by a Stephen Bakker.
Hi, Madam Chair or Madam President, my apologies.
So I posted something about EC318, which has to do with family endeavors.
It's the contract that's coming up later on the agenda.
I was informed by the director of HHH that a part of what I had posted was in Correct and so I wanted to offer
direction.
Family endeavors is not contracted by ICE currently, and their most recent contract ended in 2023.
They are, however, still contracted with customs and border protection.
And I still intend on making a public comment on that specific item because I don't know.
The former ICE contractor and ICE contractor is barely a difference there.
We need to keep us safe in Albuquerque.
Thank you.
Stephen Bakker, followed by Robert Haramil.
President Basan, members of the Council, good evening.
My name is Stephen Bakker.
I serve as President of the New Mexico Philharmonic Foundation.
I'm a lifelong resident of Albuquerque.
I urge you to support Councilor Bakker's proposal to remove the city charter amendment limiting expenditures to 10 million dollars for a performing arts center.
Hope to all is almost as old as I am, and it struggles to meet the needs of the community.
Removing this amendment is a first step toward creating a state-of-the-art performing arts center, encouraging a vibrant and cultural future for Albuquerque and our residents.
Thank you.
Robert Haramil, followed by Lisa Christopherson.
Lisa Christopherson, followed by Marceline Costner.
President Basan and City Councilor's, my name is Lisa Christopherson.
I live in District 3.
I make public comment tonight to bring attention to a section of Blake Road that's between Unser Road and Horses Boulevard.
I began about three years ago reaching out to state and county legislators.
I've talked here before about it, and I reached out to City about this and got the same result.
I reached out to County Commissioner and thank you very much.
Councillor Penyes, you put me in contact with Jennifer and the city.
And however, they did do a study in the city confirmed that this stretch of the road is a huge public safety because there are no lights or no sidewalks.
And there's trim the parks all along and there's a school in the middle and we have kids and we have elderly people trying to get to where they need to go, but it is unsafe.
So on the higher income side of Blake, where I live, we have a huge lane in the middle.
We have bike lanes, we have sidewalks, the whole way we have lights.
And so my concern is that we have kids in elderly walking in the dirt, some with walkers, and they're at risk of being hit because it's a two lane road.
So what do we need to do to get it safe?
Marshall and Costner, followed by a sham, Kenny.
Hi.
Anti-Homus or Nensus and Sweeps, do not make life better for me.
It doesn't make life better for you unless you are an uninspired politician who wants to hide a problem before they see
Re-election, it does nothing for you.
It spends public resources on an accriminalization of folks who have already been told that they aren't good enough for shelter.
What more do we need to gain from kicking people down in our own community?
What do we gain from that?
How do we make our community better by enforcing levees and fines on people who already, we know they can't pay that.
Why are we loving it to them in the week?
We need to invest in a more effective system.
We need to see the reality and the reality is that people's lives are generally not getting better in the system is not working.
People need help now, not tomorrow, not in a year, not in five.
All people deserve food, shelter and basic decency and our lack of understanding this is utterly disgusting.
We'll be a haunting memory of the legacy we leave behind.
Sean Kinney, fellow by Al Stots.
Al Stots, fellow by Ashley Long.
I'm President, my name is Al Stots.
I'm Vice Chair of the Mexico Philharmonic Board of Directors.
In the early 1880s, a 1000-seat opera house was built in downtown Albuquerque, at Third Street and Central Avenue.
And that facility served the musical and theatrical needs of the community until 1898 when it burned down.
And it took almost 70 years for the community to get hope joy hall at UNM.
And as you've heard, hope joy is now 60 years old.
And so it is time for this community to get a new state-of-the-art performing arts center.
And as my colleagues have said, we support Councillor Baka's proposal.
Put the question on this year's ballot, asking for public approval to amend the charter.
So we can begin to take steps to build a new world-class performing arts center.
Thank you very much.
Ashley Long, followed by Gus Pidradi.
Followed by Christian Me.
Council President, members of the Council.
My name is Gus Pidradi.
I'm a proud paramedic firefighter serving this community.
And I'm here with my brothers and sisters with the International Association of Firefighters.
Local 244.
I'm very grateful to be in front of you here representing some important issue.
We're asking you for your support on resolution 25122.
This keeps a gold standard of care that I am proud to be a part of in this community.
I'm one of the young paramedics you'll hear about that made it a great deal of mentorship from people who have come before me.
And that I get to provide better patient care because I've worked on a two-medic rescue system.
Just last night we talked about Charlie calls earlier, so I'm going to use the jargon.
There was a child in this city on a station that's going to be split that came in with a Charlie call.
One rescue went.
There's a cardiac event.
Those medics had a chance to talk in that rescue ambulance as they were on their way to the call, confer, and then provide excellent care.
That family doesn't know the licenture of the two people on that truck, but everyone here in this room does.
And everyone knows that they got the best care that they deserve.
They got the gold standard Albuquerque he has been providing, and that's what we're here to protect.
Thank you.
Christian me, followed by Gilbert Bakker.
Gilbert Bakker, followed by Andrew Keller her.
You didn't mean my name is Gilbert Bakker.
I have lived in Galba, Albuquerque, most of my life.
I'm Normie Vett, and a retired firefighter paramedic for AFR.
But today I simply come to you as a concerned citizen.
I'm concerned that we are moving away from our current two-man rescue catalax system.
Why do we call it that?
Because it's the best.
It's ideal.
Not only for our citizens, but for our firefighters and police officers.
It's a system that I want and expect to have respond to my family and friends in this city.
The new system, the new system simply proposes, or something tries to do more of less, why are they trying to do this?
You simply do not have the funding and stack the keep up with our ever-growing call volume.
The similar city, El Paso, has the same amount of causes we have.
We have 1,000 firefighters.
We have 35 stations.
We have a budget of $168 million.
We have 22 stations, 765 firefighters, and a budget of approximately $125 million.
Do the math?
Andrew Keller, followed by David McKibbin.
Madam Council President, Councillor's good afternoon.
I recently spoke to this Council about my concerns about the decision to appropriate money away from the rail trail and to the west side.
I asked that you all keep an open mind and expressed hope that there might be a way forward, which does not involve moving money away from one district's project to another.
My understanding is that Mayor Keller's recent...
In the next few weeks, we have a meeting of the Council's funding appropriation. It is not a sign of opposition
to the sports complex, but rather a signal that the mayor's office is ready, excited, and extremely
willing to work with the City Council to fund both these projects in the appropriate manner.
I think Mayor Keller, the City Council, and the citizens of Albuquerque are all demonstrably in favor of both projects.
So, I hope that you uphold the veto, and that we find a way to fund both these excellent projects.
Thank you very much.
David McKibbin, followed by Let's Afro.
Let's often followed by break, Jonah C.
Madam President, Councillors.
You know, I've struggled to try to impress upon you exactly what's going on,
and not only in my life, but in the lives of a lot of people in Albuquerque,
when it comes to their first amendment rights.
In this country, people have died and left blood on soil for those rights.
It troubles me to walk the city halls of public property and be treated like a criminal,
you're simply holding a camera.
The old adage wise, you can't fight city hall.
Well, that might have been true, but now in the day of the age of a camera, when you're talking to somebody,
and I suffer what they call can't remember shit.
So, I have my camera.
So, I'm not going to be told by somebody something that later on, well, that's what we told you.
Well, no, I can go back and I can review my documentation device.
So, it troubles me when I go to the courts, and I'm not allowed to end with my camera.
They try to use some rule.
It says that I'm committing a crime, simply having a camera.
Thank you.
Great.
Join us.
Follow by a tad.
And you and me and me and me and me and me.
Council President, Councillor.
Councillor.
Yeah.
Two minutes.
One minute is not enough.
So, I'm going to take my minute and read what.
Let's not go.
I was going to try to read to you.
This statute, 30, 2013, where your court has decided to try to enforce this statute upon
Members of the press, not media.
Okay.
Media is a small, very small portion of press.
Maybe you don't realize that.
Every citizen in this country has the right to press.
That's the first amendment.
So, here's what it says.
No person shall.
We'll fully refuse or fail to leave the property of any building or facility owned operated
or controlled by the state of it or any of its political subdivisions when requested to do so by a lawful
custodian of the building facility or property.
This is the part if.
If you leave that part out.
The person is committing threatens to commit or incites others to commit any act, which would disrupt
the lawful mission process, procedures, or functions of the property building or facility.
That's the full shit.
Tad Nimmitsky, followed by Eddie Verella.
Thank you.
Standing averaging freaking doors.
We don't setting fire.
and residential income would have so-called abandoned buildings properties.
During birthday Scriptures and you think you can burn even coal winter days.
Now.
Each, every one, acre walk, co-winter, around 11, 12 o'clock, center-in, between
Wife and all, and you, Bing, you'll see what I'm talking, I'm to get out from this
comfort zone, where is APD, APD, where it's fire department, thank you.
Eddie Virella, followed by Diane Jones on Zoom.
Good evening, President of the Son of Castlers, I am a retired firefighter, these are all firefighters
here, these are all firefighters here.
But I think you must understand what has happened here, you cannot reduce the rescues to
one paramedic because people will die, it's that simple, 90% of what we do is EMS calls,
not fires, although they run into fires and everybody's running out, do not do this, this has
been going on for 35 years, I fought this battle 35 years ago, you cannot run an effective rescue
with one paramedic, please don't let anybody tell you, this is the way to go.
In closing, I would like to say this, it's a request that I really, really have thought about.
I would ask that all nine counselors go ride with the Albuquerque Fardi Parvint, or AFR, as it's
called today, ride on a rescue and make a decision that you have seen with your own eyes and how this
all works. Don't let a bunch of paperwork fool you, go out there, ride with the women and the men
of the Albuquerque Fardi Parvint AFR, and see for yourself before you even think of making this decision.
Thank you very much. Diane Jones, followed by Peter Heide.
My name is Diane Jones, and I live in Somel Crossing, Sceptivision in the Somel District.
We're very excited about the construction of the rail trail, which forms our subdivisions nor their
boundary. Please uphold the Mayor's veto and re-appropriate the funding that was cut from the rail trail
project, EC-25-330. The rail trail is currently under construction, and the money has already been
obligated. There are other methods available to fund the West Side Sports Complex. Thank you.
Peter Heide, followed by Kevin Vigno.
Yes, thank you, Madam President and Counselor. My name is Peter Heide, and I urge you to remove the
restriction in the city charter requiring a public vote on expenditures for a performing arts center here in Albuquerque.
I'm moved to Albuquerque in 2020 in part, because the dynamic cultural atmosphere that the city offers.
The arts play a vital role in making Albuquerque a desirable place to live for a variety of people.
A performing arts center offers expanded educational opportunities for our students, residents, and neighbors across
the state, and would increase Albuquerque's profile as a leading cultural center in the southwest.
Lastly, the performing arts have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity
for the city and state throughout the years. We shouldn't let anything get in the way of an opportunity to
enhance the cultural dynamism of Albuquerque and New Mexico. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kevin Vigno, followed by Janice Ferreira.
Good afternoon, City Counselors and Counselor President. My name is Kevin Vigno, and I perform
with the New Mexico Philharmonic. As their principal, oh, I'm also in the board of directors of that
organization. I want to express my strong support for the construction of a performing arts center in Albuquerque.
This would be a tremendous resource for the community and for our arts organizations that provide
the cultural vitality that distinguishes our city and our state. The first step towards this
goal would be to remove the requirement for a public vote on expenditures of $10 million or more for
a performing arts center. Current venues used by our local arts organizations such as Pope Joy,
our expensive jewelry. The difficult to book as limited dates are available. A new performing arts
center would be a catalyst for economic growth, would provide a home for organizations such as
Diana and Phil and be an important cultural center for the community. Thank you very much.
Janice Ferreira, followed by Doug Magiski.
Hi, I hope you can hear me. This is Janice Azetta. I am driving right now on my way back from what is
because for myself, you know, I'm from Zeta. I do not believe in borders. I cross them.
I want to remark on the contract with family endeavors. I will speak again on this later, but I want to
start off with some high notes. Thank you to Councillor Rocket and my districts for being
open-minded about bringing a whole spectrum of housing options. I know that, and I have spoken since
even before the election about the need for different places and different kinds of places for people to go.
Really grateful for that. I'm glad to all of the council members for pumping the bridge on the initial
contract. I think the contract we're staying now is actually much better than what we had before,
so I'm glad for that as well. I had a feeling after the different time it was submitted. We may not get
other applicants or other applicants that were suitable based on the feedback from HHH. Nonetheless,
I thank them and there's that. I know it looked like Gilbert, but I was interested in the contract.
For having a second look, I'm seeing more outcomes. I think that providing services that are evidence-based
and with this much structure as we can, so folks with opioid use disorder, is really going to help us
and as it could use this fund. I probably don't have much time left. Again, I'm in my car. I can't see the timing,
but I will be back on later and we'll talk about this again. Thank you.
Robert, I'm going to excuse me. Doug, may you excuse me.
Good evening, thank you for president and city counselors. My name is Doug Medioski,
co-founder of the Hartman Medioski Design Group. I'm also a property owner, a business owner,
and architectural firm has had the honor of designing numerous significant buildings in Albuquerque.
I have a strong interest in seeing our community move forward. A performing arts center is a
significant venue that can have transformational impact. I have had the opportunity of traveling to neighbor,
new and communities in our region who have had the vision to invest in themselves with performing
our venues. It is time for us to invest in ourselves. I am here tonight to request that you support,
removing this severely outdated restriction of acquiring public vote and expenditures of over $10 million
for performing arts center. One positive step in the right direction you can take tonight is to remove this
clause from the city charter and place decision making with you the city council for our elected
to act in the best digital community. I respectfully urge you to support this change to the city
charter which would enable pop acts and for future performing arts center development. Thank you.
Madam President, just for the record. I was unable to locate Heather Fam, Erin Cummings,
and Robert Alexander in Zoom. That does conclude general public comments. Thank you. Thank you.
Councilors, we're going to move on to other business. E.C. 330 is a line item veto of R2512,
amending the adopted capital implementation program of the city of Albuquerque by approving new projects,
supplementing current appropriations and changing the scope of existing projects. If the
council wishes to attempt an override of the mayor's veto, they will make a motion to override. If no
motion is made or if a second is not received, the mayor's veto stands. Also, if motion is made,
second is received but six votes are not obtained in favor of the override motion. The mayor's
veto stands. Is there a motion to override? Councilor Sanchez. Thank you, Madam President. I make a motion
to override. There is a motion and a second from council champagne. Councilor Sanchez, do you want to
open and start for speaking and then we'll go to other councilors? When you get right down to the
nitty gritty, this has been gone over and over time again. We're looking here, looking at here is two wins.
We're still looking at the rail trail. The rail trail is going to be a multi year, a lengthy,
very lengthy process. Right now, we can get some money to take care of business immediately and have
indoor sports complex. I think all the councilors are in agreement that, or most of the
councilors are in agreement that we move forward and have wins as we move forward and work together.
And that's what I'm hoping to accomplish is to make sure that we work together and get things done. Thank you.
Councilors, can you tell us about that? Thank you, Madam President. I think it's, you know, as I said in
last meeting, none of this is typically black or white. We can have a rail trail. We can do works
on other parts of our city. And we can work this out. I don't think we really needed to go this far in
terms of how much time and energy was put into this. As people in the audience and are listening,
we're looking at putting back money into the rail trail later tonight. My councilors, my set aside,
has already been obligated towards a part of the rail trail. Previously, we'll be for all of this, start it.
So just let folks know that there's a lot out there and it's, it's never black or white as if we're
only doing this and that's the only thing that's happening. Thank you.
Councilors, anyone else? I will take a moment to just say that I was originally not going to support
the amendment that Councilor Sanchez brought forward because I don't think it is right. I believe that there
were Councilors who had said something to that effect.
Act at the night that we voted on this. But then there was a agreement from Councillor Baca. So to me, it's, you know, let's support the colleagues that we work with, and let's support what they have wanted to do for two very important projects, whether I personally agree with them both or not. But people in Albuquerque think that they are important. So I think it was important for us to support one another. I have to take a moment to say and I recognize that this is your the middle man right now. So Madam CAO, feel forgive me for that. But I recognize
that you stand probably for your role. I think that the way this veto occurred is completely inappropriate, disrespectful and enraging is the word I keep using. I think having a veto signing party for the public, having the administration go ahead and send down a resolution for us to use our set aside funding as a solution, which is not the city, the city, the mayor's job.
To just give that to us before we even decided whether or not to override or sustain this veto, I find it really in infuriating.
I mean, just the process alone is not okay, especially when I get told that I shouldn't always go to the media or I should work together, like let's work together and let's, but on an eight to one vote is truly a shame that the mayor even considered a veto.
So I certainly hope even though I believe firmly that through legislation and the way these counselors have worked things out, these projects are going to be funded and things are working out for Albuquerque.
But I hope that as a message that we do override the mayor's veto because I think that the way this happened is something that is regrettable and I hope that that is something the mayor understands and sees because it's not fair to us as the legislative body to be treated in the way we were when this veto came out.
So with that.
Manager, pardon me, we do have a comment.
Thank you, let's go ahead and go to that Mr. Cornelius.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I mean Madam President, excuse me.
We'll start with Crystal Garcia, followed by Christopher Ramirez and Mark Bylone.
I do see a Chris in the waiting room Chris, that is Christopher Ramirez, please raise your hand.
Thank you.
We'll start with Crystal Garcia.
All right, can you hear me?
We can hear you.
Okay.
Thank you, Council members for allowing me to speak today.
Very weeks ago.
You voted to pull funding from the from the rail trail to reallocate funding today after the mayor's veto.
I'm here speaking for families who could lose their homes not through direct eviction, but through the slow crushing pressure of gentrification that these trails bring.
We know the pattern the trail comes first.
I've heard a simple amenity.
Then come the luxury developments property taxes or rent stubble, working families and elderly residents on 16 comes get pushed out.
The same neighbors who spent who have lived here for generations who have built this community gone.
This trail isn't about, isn't being built for us it's being built to attract wealthier residents.
Who can afford the rising cost that follow these.
that follow these amenity projects.
Once this placement begins,
we don't just lose our homes,
we lose our community.
Your original vote should stand, stand firm,
override this veto, show us the city,
existing residents matter.
Thank you.
Mark, by loan.
Good evening, Council.
I'm Mark by loan resident of district two.
I want to, I guess, first of all,
just thank Bakhan Sanchez for attempting to,
I guess later on in the meeting,
put the same amount of money back into the rail trail.
However, I still do think that it seems pretty reasonable
given the outcry of support for the rail trail
that the administration did what they did.
And I am pretty in favor of it, honestly,
as somebody who was immediately fibergasted,
rewatching the council's meeting two weeks ago,
where you all reappropriated the funds,
I thought that was pretty wild.
And I don't like the idea of moving stuff around in such a way.
I am sensitive to the west side needing more investments,
and I think that that's all well and good.
And I even like cross-cancelor work.
But I don't think that we should be moving funds around
for already in process projects
to projects that haven't even started,
especially projects as frankly awesome and cool as the rail trail.
Thank you.
Madam President, I am not finding Christopher Ramirez in Zoom,
so that does conclude comment.
Thank you.
Madam President, just a quick couple of clarifications.
I'm just trying to understand this.
I wasn't around when they voted for the rail trail
or moving stuff like that, but is it fully funded?
Madam CIO.
Madam President, Councillor Shempain,
the rail trail is a very large project across multiple phases.
It is not fully funded across all of the many phases
of the rail trail as of yet.
It's got, I can't actually, at this moment,
speak to you exactly which portions are funded and fully,
but they are continuing funding that will comment future phases.
The reference to currently underway and funded is related to the phases.
That is both the sawmill and the central crossing area
and a few other phases.
Madam President, how many phases are there?
Madam President, Councillor Shempain, I can get you that answer.
I don't want to miss speak as to exact number of phases.
I can speak to the future where there are nine stations
but the phases don't match to the necessarily specific phases.
Madam President, what phase or what station is being done right now?
What phases is it in a, if they're safe,
and I'm not going to hold you to it, say if there is nine,
are we at seven, are we at two?
Madam President, Councillor Shempain, I believe I can ask,
if, no, so, I think we're a Mr. Montoya.
I believe that we have two phases under fully underway,
a third, either about to start or has started.
We have everything, and I will tell you, Chief of Staff,
Roehner knows all of this by heart and can give you all of the details
in detail tomorrow first.
One final question.
Do we have an end date of this at all?
Madam President, Councillor Shempain, we do not have an end date at this time
since it's multiple, many phases over time that will be, that will be done.
I think we hope to see it done in the next, in three years,
is our, is what we are aiming to be complete with.
Thank you, Madam President.
Councillor Grout.
Thank you, Madam President.
I have a couple of questions.
Do we have all of the land acquired for the rail trail?
Madam Chair, Councillor Grout.
I think we mentioned in FGO that we have two small pieces to purchase,
which are literally linear feet as how they were described,
based upon the current access and avail of purchases that we have made.
Thank you, and Madam Chair, our Madam President.
One more question.
Why did we start on one side?
And then, we're over here on another.
Why don't we do a continual start?
Madam Chair, Councillor Grout.
I think there would be folks that could answer in better detail exactly why,
but I know that some portion of it is related to the funding
in terms of the funding designations, whether that's through state funding,
whether that is funding coming from DOT and specific pieces of property,
or improvements that are made related to the state's funding along the rail lines
that are active.
So there's multiple phases and pieces of technical work that has to be done
and is being funded by different funding sources, both federal state and our local
dollars.
And that has played a key role in which portions that started.
Thank you.
And one final question.
It's unfortunate that you don't have the staff here to answer those questions
that come up because we don't know all the questions in advance that are going to come up
in a meeting.
So it is unfortunate that your staff is not here to answer those questions.
Madam President, Councillor Grout, I understand.
Thank you, any additional questions?
Madam Vice President, just one minute.
I don't know if.
I don't know if you guys can answer.
The land between sawmill and mountain.
I think delima and mountain that was purchased already.
I don't recall that passing through here.
Do we know specifically or do you not?
Like when it closed or how much we paid for that?
Because it was land.
It wasn't a road or a rail, a rail, a rail, a rail area.
Madam President, I was a councillor champagne.
I was trying to recall in my mind the answer to that question specifically.
That section is a portion that I think there may be both.
Whether it's owning ownership or use and what in some cases we have the right of use to land.
I just want to make sure I don't want to miss speak, but I and we will get you that answer.
Okay, thank you.
Councilors, any other questions or comments?
Councilor Sanchez, you made the motion override.
Do you have anything to add to close?
I just like to just very quickly say that.
We didn't have all the questions answered today.
We know it's going to be a multi-million dollar project.
So we're in the area of a hundred million dollars.
And if you took a hundred million dollars and and looked at the amount of money,
we were just moving over and like said, it's not taking from the rail trail.
This is money that's given to counselors to decide what to do with.
And just because the mayor made a request doesn't mean we're taking money from that.
It's up to us this body to make those decisions.
So with that being said, you're looking at less than one half of a cent in the overall picture.
And that's what we're looking at.
We don't even carry one penny in our pockets.
You can't make a half a cent.
But that's how much we're looking at.
That's how much we're looking at.
A half a cent is all we're looking at.
And I'm so glad that the counselors sitting on the diast
Understand that and they get it.
And they understand that we need to work together to move all projects forward.
And I said it before.
I don't have a problem with the rail trail at all.
It's just going to be a project that is going to take many, many years.
And many, many, many millions of dollars.
So this was something we can get going immediately.
Get cancels in indoor sports complex built and get the kids who need the practice facilities,
the kids who need a facility to enjoy their sports.
That's what we need.
And that's what Albuquerque citizens need and their children need as well.
Thank you.
Councillor's the motion is to override.
Those in favor of overriding the veto.
Please raise your hand and say yes.
Yes.
Those opposed.
That passes on an eight to one.
Moving on to approvals.
ECE291 is the mayor's appointment of Miss Mary E. Coleman to the old town portal.
Marketing at advisory board.
I move confirmation.
There's a motion in a second from Councillor Grout.
Councillor.
Councillor Baca.
Thank you, Madam President.
I deferred this while we talked quite a bit because this was a bit of an issue.
However, I had the opportunity to sit down with director Sanchez.
Dr Sanchez and talk about this and steps moving forward and how to address these issues.
I just want folks to know that.
I move confirmation.
Please support confirmation.
Councillor's any other questions or comments.
We are moving confirmation of ECE291.
Those Councillors in favor.
Please raise your hand and say yes.
Yes.
Anyone opposed?
That passes unanimously.
Moving to item agenda item B. ECE3.
17 is early head start quarterly report for July 2022 through December 2024.
I move a receipt be noted.
There is a motion in a second for a receipt be noted from Councillor Champagne.
Councillors.
I know that there's some discussion.
I think Councillor Grout will start with you.
Thank you, Madam President.
According to the ordinance, this is supposed to be a report from the early head start governance advisory committee.
Looks like you have.
I'm not sure who I'm supposed to be talking to.
Madam CIO.
It looks like you have a policy council but not the governance committee that the ordinance calls for.
Does this include a report on program performance and school readiness.
Madam President Councillor Grout.
As a CIO, Carla Martinez is here.
She's been working on the head start with our youth and family services department.
Thank you for being here.
Does this report report that you guys sent us?
Does it include a report on program performance and school readiness?
Madam President, Councillor Grout.
I would like if I may be able to call it a associate director.
Dr. Dunita Mosley, who can give you a little bit more information on that.
Good evening. Good evening, Dr. Council.
So, I'll ask for a third time. Does this, these documents that you sent us, does it include a report
on program performance in school readiness?
It does not. Is there an attendance data or financial information in it?
There is. Okay. Does this report include any analysis?
It does not.
It does not. Do you feel like you've done your best work here?
With this report on Madam President, Councilor Grout. This report was a bit different.
In 2022, there was a hold placed on the quarterly reports.
I was working with senior council, senior council policy analyst.
And who basically, she basically sits on as the liaison of the early head start policy council
and serves as the liaison between policy council and city council.
So, in 2022, this individual basically put a hold on the quarterly reports.
And so that's why you're seeing the date range of this report.
And basically that hold was placed as a result of a council member wanting to establish a new platform for getting these reports to city council.
The concern with these reports were that the data that you all were receiving was historical.
By the time you received it, it was passed dated information.
And so with this particular report in 2023, I hadn't heard anything about lifting this hold up on these reports.
And so in 2023, I reached out to the same policy analyst to request an update of which point.
Again, I was told to kind of stand by information was still being thought of how we would proceed with these reports, according reports going forward.
In 2024, it's when the same council, I'm sorry, senior council policy analyst reached out saying to resume the reports.
So I would definitely say that the depth and the magnitude of from 2022 to 2024 quarterly reports, they weren't it wasn't as detailed as it would have been.
When reporting on a single quarter, I was this report was really trying to capture a couple years.
Thank you, Madam President, the questions that I asked you are all from the ordinance and that's the information that we're supposed to be receiving.
What you all did send us is a data dump.
It was not a report was just all of your documents, but it was not a good effort.
In my opinion, and it's two years too late, I think there's a real disconnect here and it's I'm.
The effort is is and respectfully it's not meant at you, but the department and and we have ordinances that we're supposed to be living by that we're supposed to be following and we don't get to get to pick and choose when we want to do that we're supposed to be following the ordinances.
I understand it's been a challenge to higher teachers.
And retain them as well.
I know that the state the legislature has increased payroll salaries for the teachers and so we don't have in the city we don't offer the same competitive salary and so.
We need this early head start program in our community desperately it's much needed, but I think that we need to consider.
Hiring some nonprofits some businesses that might be able to handle that do the job for us.
So can you explore the idea of hiring a non-profit contractor to do the work can could the grant funding that the city gets be spent on that.
What do you think about that.
Madam President, Councillor Grout, I think a director caught the sound of all unfortunately could not be here tonight, but I can say that her and Dr. Mosley have been making a very concerted effort.
To increase the enrollment as it relates to early childhood and they have been increasing those numbers every quarter and they've been closely monitoring those numbers.
And I know that they are closely working with state as well to increase the pay for teachers and that's been an ongoing conversation so they have definitely been making a concerted effort.
Everything is I respectfully hear your comments about the report that was submitted but I think Dr. Mosley was trying to do the best job she could and was actually trying to provide you guys more information than not because it had been several quarters since there had been a report given to you based on the request by city council staff.
Madam President, thank you. I think we need to get this back on track. It's an important division in the city that we have to have proper reporting and we need to be following guidelines and rules.
I'm disappointed in the report. I don't think it's much of one.
Those are Rogers. Thank you Madam President. Associate Dr. Mosley. Can you tell us a little bit about under your leadership. How this program is grown for federal funding.
And I don't I'm saying that because it's not reflected here and I know the immense amount of work that you've done to make sure that even though centers have closed that year over year you're increasing our federal grants that are coming into the city.
So can you talk a little bit about that and then maybe add it to the report because I think that for me in knowing about your work that was phenomenal to see what you've been able to do that. Can you talk a little bit about that.
So again, I was speaking specifically to the early head start grant specifically to the early head start grant.
When I came on board with the city, we were funded just just over 2.1 million.
The funding over the last five years has increased.
I want to say in total, we two 2.5 million to 0.5 million dollar grant.
We have because of the pandemic we were granted a reduction of slots while maintaining our same funding.
So the office of the head start offered all recipients nationwide the opportunity that they were having trouble with enrollment to reduce to reduce your funded number of slots.
But maintain the funded level and reinvest those funds into recruitment retention.
Upgrades to our facilities and so that's been, you know, very, very positive time for us.
Thank you, but I present and since the 22 22 have we reopened singing arrow and trouble.
Yes.
Both centers have reopened.
Yeah.
I think for me, to Councillor Grout's point, like that's the stuff I want to just knowing your work, that's the stuff I want to see in here too.
I know, and of course, including the stuff that's in the resolution, but you.
I know that we're doing the best that we can with the resources that we can, even though trouble for instance was closed for quite a bit of time.
I've seen recruiting efforts going out.
I've heard radio ads. I've seen commercials.
My mom's an early childhood educator and there's a buzz in the community about well should we leave where we're at now.
I won't say where that is and come over to the city.
And so I would also love to see that reflected what you're currently doing to help those staffing shortages and for those watching apply today.
We can keep taking care of our, our babies. So thank you so much.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just wanted to speak a little bit to the comments from Councillor Grout and just mentioned to you.
The entire council, you know, Councillor.
A son and I have been, have spoken about the report.
We've spoken about the work that we do together based upon the way the ordinance is written in terms of the accountability to the council president in terms of.
The signature that is expected into that head start report.
I've made a commitment to work together and meet to ensure that we are looking through a way to improve both.
Not only the reporting that we're doing, but but also the communication.
I think that in this circumstance we have staff with the city that took direction and worked with council services staff.
And we want to make sure we don't have any miscommunications in terms of how to ensure that we're meeting the ordinance and working at your direction.
So we will meet later this week or early next week to ensure that we work through these processes.
Our team is fully committed to not only improving related to the ordinance compliance and expectations, but clearly understanding who's the communicator on behalf of council.
Related to that and then third I think looking at the ordinance and how it is currently either.
How it we can ensure that is it is reflective of what the current setting is or how we should reinstate something if that is the preference or the path forward.
I just wanted to make sure we may express to all of you that that work is underway.
Helmsers that is a conversation that we did have earlier today and I know I had spoken with council.
Who's stressed interest in participating with the meeting that we have next week.
So please make sure to invite her as well and then I will say that this report is more of a data dump to me as well.
I don't disagree with that but at the same time I realize that we need to we need to get this back on track whatever that's going to take.
And so I think that's why it's very important for us to all meet and get together and a former council are used to really keep her thumb on this and I think that.
Who instantly it dawned on me today that when that council or left this council is also when things kind of started to get.
What seems like in the timeline a little defunct with everything so we got to work to get it better so next week if not this week I look forward to figuring out and ironing out some of those details.
But I do agree that this doesn't seem like a good report it's it's information but that is truly not meant to be disrespectful to anybody.
I think there's a lot that was put in there in the last.
Two and a half years or however long it was that was the evaluation for it so.
Councilors any other questions or comments.
The motion is for receipt be noted all those in favor raise your hand and say yes.
The opposed.
That passes unanimously.
All right.
Moving on to agenda item C EC318 request authorization of social service agreement with family endeavors incorporated DBA endeavors to provide recovery focused services to individuals overcoming opioid use.
Disorder and co occurring substance use disorder I move approval.
There's a second from council madam vice president.
And let's go to public comment first.
So I don't forget.
Thank you madam prison.
First we have a nami does followed by Janice Herrera on Z.
Madam president thank you for allowing me to speak on this.
Albuquerque status as an immigrant friendly city is something that we still have to earn.
We can't be reckless with the people that we contract with.
And an ice contractor is certainly not something that we need here handling opioid use disorder makes no sense.
We have people here who know how to handle opioid use disorder.
We have people here who know the problems that are local to Albuquerque.
We don't need anyone from San Antonio coming here.
And shipping our people away.
Or participating in any way in that process.
Thank you please vote no on this.
Janice Herrera followed by David Hernandez.
Thank you for listening to my comments on family endeavors.
Some of the other things I wanted to raise are that within the contract.
Because I do understand at this point I don't think there's an alternative I think we're going forward with this.
In the contract it says that the services rendered must be quote unquote essentially secular having participated in.
The surveys that were conducted as part of the opioid need assessment.
There were a number of people who talked about how they're specifically uncomfortable getting services that are religious or faith based in nature.
And so that word essentially needs to be stricken from the contract.
It should say the services should be secular.
I do understand that it also says that it should be offering a slash and a.
I believe that should say and a and a.
Because this money is coming from the opioid settlement funds.
They need to have an a and I understand that there's a desire to have treatment for cold currents.
And so in that case have both in a and a classes available.
So there's a couple of the things that I noticed within the contracts.
I do hope also it is not overly dependent on telehealth services.
Thank you.
Education assisted treatment, I think that's going to be a barrier for a lot of people and I encourage that to be revisited as well. That should be in some limited time.
Thank you, Ms. Hooray, your time is up as a part and not the entire service. Thank you.
Up next we have David Hernandez.
Madam President and Council, my name is Dr. David Hernandez.
I am the Senior Director for emergency services for family endeavors.
As a we are considered for agenda item, 25318, I would like to share that for more than 55 years.
And diverse has, I mean, steadfast in its mission to serve those in need, upholding the values of compassion and integrity, accountability and community.
Our work reflects our commitment to support the vulnerable.
And diverse provides a number of locally based services for communities nationwide.
We have a one year, we did have a one year contract in 2021, with I since that's been brought up.
That contract was specifically to temporary house families with children who were housing hotels and were not being detained.
And diverse has never had a contract to detention purposes.
I can speak to that because I helped with so those operations.
And at no time was any family prohibited from leaving if they chose to leave.
Most families stayed because the goal was to help them get to the next destination, which was to be with a family member.
I loved the one who was supporting them.
Our current contract, the Department of Health and Human Services.
And the most recent contract was awarded in November.
We served over 40,000 children who eventually connected with the family members.
Thank you.
Madam President for the record.
I am unable to locate Heather Fam and Lee Shepherd.
And that does conclude comment.
Thank you.
Mr. Hernandez, if you're still watching on Zoom, Council Rogers has a question for you.
Please, I'm still here.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just a question.
Is your incident ever able to build Medicaid in the state of New Mexico?
I, you know, it's a good question.
I don't know the answer directly for that one, but I can get that answer.
I know we built, we can, and other in Texas.
I don't know that we are set up here as up to date.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
One more question.
Can you tell me about your, like, your, what's the situation with your organization and federal funding from human services?
We currently have one, a contract that's come to an end with the health of human services.
That's a contract, a reference where we were serving unaccompanied children.
It, it threatened shelter for those children, served over 40,000 children.
But we currently, that contract has ended as of, I believe, a couple of weeks ago.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
I asked the question about Medicaid because in your application, it's that talks about client engagement.
And it says, our program will engage clients with Medicaid and the coordinated entry system.
And so for me, it's critical to know if you can actually build in the state of in the Mexico for Medicaid.
And I'm not sure that that's the case if you don't have an address in the Mexico.
I've, of the contract address not listed here is from Texas.
So, I think the first step we need to be able to put in your application is that you have established a business in the state of the Mexico.
So I would love to get that answer if possible.
I'm directly from endeavors if that's possible.
Thank you.
I don't have any questions for the administration.
I know we apply for it and I know that we're in the process of securing an office.
But I cannot tell you where we are in the application process because that's not something I handle.
Thank you very much.
Helps.
Any questions or comments?
No.
Helps of people corn.
Thank you, Madam President.
I have a couple questions and I'm not sure who to direct these to.
But I'll just say them and whoever knows the answer can jump in.
So.
Does endeavors currently have a contract with ice.
No, we do not.
Okay.
Thank you.
Hold on.
Calents are people corn.
If you can go ahead and mute our speakers so that we can go ahead and have admin.
Be the one to respond.
That would be great.
Thank you.
Okay.
So we do the endeavors does not currently have a contract with ice.
People corn.
No.
They do not.
And did they have one with ice previously?
Madam President.
Council.
People corn.
Yes.
So they had a one year contract in 2021 and my understanding along with many other providers.
And as he mentioned, they were assisting children who were.
It wasn't detention but they were assisting children who were involved in immigration issues.
And Madam President.
The type of work that they were doing for ice.
Is it similar to the type of work that the city of Albuquerque did with ice under the previous administration?
Yes.
Madam President.
Yes.
Council of people corn.
Exactly.
Okay.
And for their other federal government contracts.
They're in any contracts that have endeavors working on detention.
Madam President.
Council of people corn.
No.
The work they're doing clearly is not related to detention at all.
And their focus is actually on improving the lives of children and their families.
Thank you.
Madam President.
One more question.
I think this is first the CAO.
Is there any danger under this contract that endeavors will in any way shape or form.
Go against our immigrant friendly status by collaborating with ice against the citizens of Albuquerque.
Madam President.
Council of people corn.
I feel absolutely confident that there is no danger in endeavors working with ice to go against our immigrant-friendly city.
That is not there.
Been there, mission.
And it has not been what they have done in the past.
Thank you.
Madam President.
Councilors.
Any other questions?
Thank you, Madam President.
Again, I'm just going back to what endeavors said in their application.
And I would like to direct this to the representative from endeavors.
You're right about migrant care services.
Said that we have managed a 3,000 bed.
Peckles Children's Center.
And eight emergency family shelters across Texas and Arizona.
And a serving 85,000 plus individuals since 2021 with excellent C-par ratings from OR and ice.
Can you tell me what C-par ratings are and what is OR?
Yes, please.
For Mr. Hernandez.
Go ahead, Mr. Hernandez.
Thank you.
Yes.
Can you hear me?
I'm sorry.
Peter, you thank you.
C-par is a not sort of like an accreditation type of service that looks at our contracts and looks at how we conduct ourselves.
I can.
They use a five points scale to evaluate contractors performance and basically determine how we perform as a contractor.
That's the easiest way I can try to explain about getting to.
Thank you.
And what is OR?
OR?
The Office of Refugee and Resettlement.
Thank you.
Answers are the questions.
Comments.
So I had one concern about.
Well, I mean, I have multiple concerns, but the one that's worthy of speaking on has been remedied.
We definitely found it in the contract, but I do want to make sure to point it out.
When we passed this quite a while back, we appropriated as a council 500.
Five million dollars.
Sorry, there's a lot of moving parts tonight.
Five million dollars to this purpose specifically using opioid funds.
So when I see a contract that says up to 8.1 million in three years, it's concerning to me to hear, well, how are we going to do that?
When the council has appropriated five million dollars.
So I am going to ask to make sure that Miss Bradley later will forward the same email and information to the full council so that they have the information.
But in the contract, according to the draft contracts submitted with the EC, appropriations clause, and I'm not reading the whole thing, but that way everybody can know where to find it.
The appropriations clause, page four, paragraph 11, and termination for convenience without cause page 12 through 13 paragraph 32 both have in there that if the city needs to reappropriate funds, which they would have to do after the five million dollars of opioid funding is used.
Then they need to come to the council, and if they do not get more money from the council, then they don't get that additional 3.1 million dollars, and the contract can be terminated with the proper notice has written in here.
And I think that's important, it's not that anyone's intention to terminate the contract if that's the case, but we need to make sure to follow everything in the procedures within what we did appropriate on that and not.
I also was concerned about us making sure to commit a future council in a future administration albeit it might still look exactly like this, but that's not right for us to go above and beyond in that regard.
So I'm glad these clauses are in here.
I think it's really important to make sure that we are all aware of that for everyone's benefit so that we can ensure that we move forward with the two potential one year extensions that might occur afterwards.
Madam ZIO. Madam Chair, thank you. Just want to reiterate that in the FY26 budget that we will be working towards the contracts that we have including this one will, you know, will be appropriated in our budgets and I think that's important to note is that when we are as we did last year multiple contracts were obviously within the budget.
From the Department of Health Housing and homelessness we discussed several of those here during that budget process this would be obviously something that we would have included in the FY26 budget proposal that will come forward within of course in future years contracts would be appropriated in future budgets as well.
So Madam ZIO that leads me to ask you another question then on the so then in this FY26 budget is it the intention of the administration to include the 3.1 million dollars to cover it just in case.
Madam President.
I want to make sure I understand your question.
I think we appropriate funds for each fiscal year and now I'm looking to our CFO to make sure I don't miss speak.
And so we would be in this FY26 budget be clearly articulating and intent related to the FY26 budget requirements for all each of the contracts that we would be proposing for appropriation in FY26.
So I don't know that I'm answering exactly the 3.1 question but what I'm getting at is that the 5 million dollars that was appropriated for the micro community for recovery was used for both capital and
and the beginning of this operating budget operating contract. So we will come to you all through the FY26 for appropriations for the contracts of service providers that we will include in that FY26 budget.
So Madam ZIO how much money then or funding do we have or associate CEO how much funding do we have in that five million dollars that will be going to the actual operations of initiating this contract.
Madam President it would be approximately 1.7 million dollars.
And associate CEO so that will get us through the end of this year or the end of to the end of June.
Madam President actually passed you.
So I think the contract was for 1.1 million but we're delayed and getting it started.
So I don't know exactly but I would think it would get us close to the end of the year.
Okay and then what is the estimated cost to renovate the facility or are we all done with that?
Madam President we're close to being done and I think it was a total of 5.4 million to for capital investment.
And where did all of that money come from aside from the opioid funding?
There was opioid funds Madam President and then there was about 1.8 million dollars that came from the county.
And what are the fund sources that will be debited to pay for this contract including any construction costs?
Madam President is that going to be what we're talking about with the future FY26 budget.
Okay.
I mean I am concerned that we put in a whole bunch of money.
There we go again.
But I guess at this point.
I struggle because I don't have a better idea for how to help people and I know we need to but.
I think that it's something that we do need to consider and have aware.
Council Rogers.
Thank you Madam President my question same as last time who will be providing the recovery services because in the contract it says the endeavors is required to connect.
Um clients to services.
So who's going to actually be providing this on site if we're truly calling it a recovery gateway.
Who's providing those services if endeavors cannot.
Madam President council Rogers you're correct they would be providing linkage services.
And so to that specific question if you don't mind I would like to call up deputy director Ellen Graydon.
Good evening director.
Madam President.
Council Rogers.
So we have met with endeavors and endeavors is going to be hiring certified peers for workers clinicians as well as recovery coaches recovery coaches are also they go by a variety of.
So there's going to be endeavors staff who are providing on site recovery services as well as connecting the clients to services in the community because we want this to be ongoing care.
They shouldn't just get care while they're here but rather when they return to the community they should have established services.
What's both against? Okay, and we're to thank you Madam President. Where does it say that in the contract?
Because I'm reading page 16 where it talks about what they're supposed to offer on site on a 24-7 basis, and I don't see that.
Madam President, Councillor Rogers. So if you look on page 18, okay. He talks about that there's going to be recovery center case management, as well as within two weeks,
everyone will have a case manager and they'll have an individual service plan that is standard for case management.
And then further down they talk about a treatment plan where everyone will be assessed in screen for suicide risk.
I'll be able to use disorder and other types of behavioral health services.
And then the treatment plan is actual a clinical treatment plan provided by a clinician.
And so those services will be provided and connected reference there.
Do you understand you're correctly, or you're questioning correctly?
Thank you, Madam President. So so endeavors is hiring on staff clinicians.
Madam President, Councillor Rogers. Yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
Councillor's any other questions or comments?
The motion is to approve.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. I'll be quick.
I've been pushing endeavors for the past six months to try and get this thing open.
I feel like recovery centers needed to be done yesterday.
And it's a little concerning when we come up that maybe they've been running detention centers in another state.
So that gave me quite a bit of pause, but it does sound like they're not doing it.
We have some safe cars in place here to protect against that.
So I just kind of want to get that out as we move forward with this.
Thank you.
All right.
Councillor's, the motion is to approve EC318.
All those in favor to raise your hand and say yes.
Any opposed?
No.
That passes on a six to three vote.
Moving on to final actions.
Councillor Grout.
Oh, 63.
Thank you, Madam President.
Oh, 63.
This is by request.
Oh, 63 is repealing.
Chapter 11.
Article 1.
Parts 1 and 2.
Related to the news and subatement.
Replacing it with a new news and subatement ordinance.
I move a due pass.
Councillor's, there's a motion.
And there's a second from Councillor Champagne.
Councillor Grout to open.
Thank you, Madam President.
Mr. Cox.
Could you give us an update on these proposed changes?
Councillor President, Councillors.
Yes.
So, oh, 63 was originally heard on February 3rd, the council meeting.
And at that meeting, there were a number of amendments.
And so quickly, with the original bill, the intent was to clean up a lot of duplicative language
that is either covered by the state or in other ordinances at the city.
I brought in a number of ordinances that exist such as animal humane, fire code, etc.
Under the umbrella of the news and subatement ordinance, so that they are all controlled by one similar language.
Some of the larger changes outside of that are also the change in the fine and notification structure.
And so originally it was a three tier notification system that started at a maximum of $200 fine.
They went to a maximum of $300 and then $500.
And under the change went to a one time notification and a maximum fee of $500.
At the February 3rd meeting, there were three amendments.
One of the amendments changed that the under the new language saying that a daily fine of $500 can be assessed when on any new sense after the first notification and that that time buffer has laps.
But the amendment changed to say that that this can only happen under a case that is deemed imminent hazard.
So the second amendment added or removed the litter ordinance from the list of the new ordinances brought under this umbrella language.
And the conversation or discussion around that was due that to the fact that the counselor did not feel we didn't litter were up to the same standards as the other ordinances in this list in terms of.
The third amendment brought in language that says no person shall be in violation of this ordinance if the new sense designation is based solely on allowing individuals to camp or store their belongings on private property.
And this shows up twice within this ordinance now and was to ensure that this could not be used to criminalize our homeless community or population.
Any questions.
Counselor got to open and we do have public comment.
Thank you.
Madam President should I offer them four minutes now.
Let's go ahead and hear from the comment to our first and then let's go to amendments.
Okay.
Thank you Madam President.
We have Lisa Christopherson followed by Ted Nieminski.
Thank you President Mason and counselors the only comment that I have with this is I really want to thank you all for listening and and pausing and including some of our concerns.
Thank you that really doesn't still trust etcetera so thank you very much from previously all the amendments it was very confusing hard to understand so I appreciate you all in taking our input and thank you to the city as well.
Don't often thank you all but thank you all for it you guys are working together we can work together right we can do this together so we appreciate you all thank you very much.
Ted Nieminski.
I mean it again.
Well we will go to district court.
And now I will just my house.
Very for sure.
1970.
The old and 1951.
Yeah I rebuild the small house.
I've been found as per feet.
Was there a I rebuild it by 1979 to altogether almost for.
3,000 laws where it is.
And this house was solved about for 10,800.
And this last year was solved for almost a shy or 100,000.
And that is 70 plus years old house.
That's winning a more time to outline it.
Issue appropriate as can be.
Thank you.
Madam President I am not seeing the shepherd in zoom so that concludes comment thank you.
Thank you.
Councilor Grout.
Do you want to move amendment number one.
Yes.
Mark's A in your packet.
Yes please.
Okay Madam President for amendment A.
Will set is in section one.
Dash one.
Dash three page two.
Starting on line 11.
Delete the following definition of imminent hazard and replace it as follows.
The situation that deems unusual or immediate action.
And which requires the city to circumvent usual procedures.
And warrant.
Requirements in order to protect a person's health.
Safety and life from harm.
And this amendment clarifies the definition of imminent hazard.
Here's a motion for amendment number one.
Is there a second.
There's a second from councilor Sanchez.
Councilor Feebokorn.
Thank you Madam President.
I'm just curious as they about the and previously it was or.
And it seems like putting and as the health safety and life.
Is a really really high bar.
That could just say life and it excludes a lot of things that could be just in jurists.
The people without.
You know, killing them.
And I'm just wondering why.
Does it grow.
Can we ask the attorney.
Miss.
Attorney.
Thank you.
Council President.
Councilor Feebokorn.
This was a request from the environmental health department.
This is the definition of the uniform housing code.
And they wanted the definitions to match because they rely on these provisions when they do their operations.
So to the extent that that is a defects and I think it is it's in the uniform housing code right now.
So might be something we want to address there as well.
Yes.
If you have a car.
Thank you Madam President.
I just.
I'm fine with this.
I think it makes it really high level of requirement.
It just doesn't seem to be doing what we anticipated.
But I'm fine with it either way.
Thank you.
Councilors any other questions or comments.
Councils are out to close.
Your support.
The motion for amendment number one is.
It has been moved.
Councilors those in favor raise your hand and say yes.
Yes.
Those opposed.
That passes on a nine zero vote.
Councils are out with amendment number two.
Mark to be in your packet.
Madam President.
I'm.
Let's see.
Starting online.
20 in certain new section is follows.
And read numbers of sequence sections.
Person shall not be deemed to have violated this ordinance.
If they are the victim.
Rather than the perpetrator.
Or any criminal activity that forms.
The basis of the nuisance determination.
Or if they are merely present when you suspect.
The explanation for this.
This amendment adds that victims of a crime will not be in violation of a crime based on new sense determination.
Councilors has been a motion is there a second.
Second from councilor feeble corn.
Councilors any questions or comments.
All right.
Councils are out.
You're just the point.
All those in favor of amendment number two to oh 63 raise your hand and say yes.
Yes.
Those opposed.
That passes on a nine zero vote.
Councils are out.
Amendment number three.
Mark C.
In your packet.
So let's see.
This one is.
In section 11.
Desche one.
Six.
Starting online.
15.
Delete.
Subsection C.
And it's entirety.
And add a new subsection.
As follows.
A person shall not be deemed to have violated this ordinance.
If the nuisance determination is based solely on incidence of domestic violence.
And the person is determined to be the victim in those incidents.
The explanation for this.
Is when a nuisance determination is based on domestic violence.
The victims will not be in violation of the ordinance.
But in similar.
Simple or language.
There's a motion.
Councilors.
There's a second from councilor Sanchez.
Any questions or comments.
Councils are out to close.
I urge your support.
All those in favor of amendment number three to oh 63 raise your hand and say yes.
Yes.
Any opposed.
All right.
That passes on a nine zero vote.
Councilor Grout amendment number four marked.
D in your packet.
Thank you.
For amendment D.
In section 11.
Desche one.
Desche seven.
Page six.
Starting online.
32.
A.
As follows.
Any person.
This is the added.
Found to have engaged in unlawful activity as established.
In section one.
Desche one.
Desche six.
Desche.
Shelby.
And then it continues.
This amendment adds the sister's specificity to the penalty provision of the ordinance.
Maybe do pass.
There's a motion from amendment number four is there a second.
Councilors, feeble Cornell Sanchez with the second.
Councilor's any questions or comments.
Councilor Grout.
Close.
I urge your support.
All those in favor of amendment four to oh 63 raise your hand and say yes.
Any opposed.
Passes.
Nine zero.
$9.00, Councilor Grow, amendment number 5, Markt E and your iPad.
Okay, floor amendment E, section 11-1-1-9, page 9, starting on line 27, amend section A as follows.
In addition to any other remedies available in this ordinance or under the common law, the mayor, mayor's
does it mean may impose a civil fine of $500 per day based on a determination that a person has engaged
in activity that constitutes a private nuisance as defined here in provided that the daily $500 fine
shall only be imposed in the case of imminent hazard.
This amendment adds clear fine language to the civil fine provision of this ordinance.
Move to pass.
There's a motion, is there a second from Council feeble corn?
There's a second.
Councilors, any questions or comments?
Councilor Grow, to close.
I urge your support.
The motion is for a due pass of amendment number 5 to O63.
Those in favor raise your hand and say yes.
Yes.
Anyone opposed?
That passes on an 8 to 1.
Councilor Grow, we are on amendment number 6, Markt F in your packet.
Thank you, Madam President.
Employment F.
I'm not going to read this whole thing, but it's as in section 11,
1-2-5, page 27, starting on line 25, amend sections.
The NDS follows.
This amendment removes requirements for APD and environmental health department.
You set in confirmed standards for cleanup.
For drug labs, since the ordinance requires clean up by professional industrial and environmental hygienists, they will ensure adherence to updated professional standards and you would be passed.
There is a motion for a due pass, and a second from council feeble court and councilors and any questions or comments.
Councilor Grout to close?
I urge your support.
Councilors, this is amendment 6 to 063. Those in favour, raise your hand and say yes?
Yes?
Yes.
Those opposed?
Councilor Lewis, I didn't see you, yes?
Okay, so that passes on an eight to one vote.
Moving on to amendment number seven, Councilor Grout.
It's G in the packet.
For amendment G, is in section 11-1-1-3, page 3, starting on line 28, delete, section 5,
entire, entirely. An in section 11-1-1-6, page 6, starting on line 28, deleting section D entirely.
The explanation for this is allowing individuals to camp on private property, unless the property is properly zoned,
and designated is a violation of the IDO and the public camping ordinance.
This amendment strikes this provision entirely.
I move a due pass.
There's a motion for amendment 7. Is there a second?
There's a council, council, champagne with a second.
Councilors, comments? Council feeble court.
Thank you, Madam President.
So this was originally my amendment last time.
It did pass. I believe eight to one, perhaps seven to two.
I did not have a chance to look that up.
And so I'm very disappointed to see it coming back.
I think we heard over and over and over again from the public.
Very, very strong concerns that this ordinance is about punishing our unhoused neighbors.
And I do not believe that that is the point of this ordinance.
I think this ordinance is needed by our planning department to really look at new sense properties and really help us clean up our city.
So this amendment was originally put in there to say,
like if there's other things going on as well, that's one thing.
But this this ordinance is not meant to be an additional tool against unhoused folks.
There are plenty of tools and as extensions in the explanation here,
it's already against the IDO.
It's already in the public camping ordinance.
And so the request at the last council meeting,
which, again, passed pretty unannems are seven to two, I believe,
was just to give folks some assurance that that is not the point of this new sense of statement ordinance.
And so I would really urge us to keep that in there so that we can move on with the new sense ordinance that really works for the planning department and allows us to do the work that they need to do under this ordinance.
Answer so the questions comments.
Councils are out to close.
I urge you support.
There is a motion for a due pass of amendment number 7 to 063.
Those in favor raise your hand and say yes.
Those opposed.
I didn't see.
I think it's five to four.
That passes on the five to four.
Moving on.
Council.
People corner amendment.
Number eight.
Thank you, Madam President.
I'll move floor amendment number eight on page two lines 30 and 31 amend the subsection.
To add the clause at the end, which is if the city is issued,
citations documenting that the criminal activities occurred on three prior occasions.
Reason for this.
Well, for so last for second.
Is there a second.
There's a motion to for amendment number eight.
Is there a second.
There's a second from fat Madam Vice President.
So this is something that we discussed a lot on the dias last time.
The way it's written right now was just any criminal activity.
Or in three or more occasions within a three month period.
And I'd asked what criminal activity was and the city attorney had said that probably
does need to be cleaned up.
I thought it was going to be in the packet that was brought forward.
It's not there.
So I threw this together right before because I do think that we need to clarify.
What criminal activity means in this ordinance.
Council.
Any questions or comments.
Madam.
Councillor Grout.
Madam President.
Thank you.
Can we ask the city attorney.
What do you think.
Miss Keith.
Um.
Council of Assign.
Councillor Grout.
Thank you.
I do.
I think this is fine.
I've just wondering.
Obviously sometimes APD issues citation.
Sometimes it makes arrests.
You know.
So I would just throw that out there to the council.
Whether they would want to include arrests as an option.
As opposed to only citations.
It's a people court.
Madam President.
I am fine with adding citations or arrests.
I again had not known that I needed to do this.
I had clearly followed up several times.
But adding in the words.
Citations or arrests.
I think that would be fine.
Madam Vice President.
Are you okay with that?
Yeah.
You have the second.
Thank you.
And you got that.
Okay.
So it will read if the city has issued citations or arrests.
Documenting that the criminal activity has occurred on three prior occasions.
Councillor Grout.
Anything to add.
Oh.
Okay.
Anyone else.
Council.
People.
Thank you, Madam President.
I.
I just urge your sport.
I think we need to be really clear about what this ordinance means.
The motion is for amendment.
Number eight to oh 63.
Those in favor raise your hand and say yes.
Anyone opposed.
That passes unanimously.
We're back on the bill.
As amended.
Council.
There's any additional questions or comments.
Council.
People.
Thank you, Madam President.
I.
I just want to say that I thought we were moving towards a really good document here that had.
What was needed to get.
New sense.
Situations taken care of in our.
Community.
And then we passed an order.
The amendment tonight that.
You know, and does what the citizens of our city had asked for.
It was a very good one.
Kind of that.
It's all.
I'm going to just be on.
I wanted to have the.
It's not only at the last meeting, so that unfortunately means that I won't be able to support this bill.
And again, I think that's a shame, because I do believe that the point of this bill was new sense buildings.
An allowing us to clean up our city.
Thank you.
Councilors.
Any other questions or comments.
All right.
Councilor Grout to close.
Tell us why this amendment or this nuisance
abatement ordinance needed to be updated?
Ms. Keefe?
Councillor Bessond, Councillor Grout.
Councillor President, sorry.
Thank you, city legal had raised this issue with the planning
department after a hearing in front of a judge,
where the judge expressed some concern about ambiguity
in the ordinance and whether it would be enforceable.
So we began trying to make some amendments
around the same time.
The planning department was looking into expanding its ability
to send some citations through the independent hearing office
instead of going to court that has been successful
in other areas.
So we combined those two efforts and made a series of amendments
through basic of three sections of the ordinance.
If you'll notice the last three sections
really are very much untouched.
To try and clarify the language to explain what a nuisance
is, and that's a due process requirement
is that when you have an ordinance,
it has to put the public on notice of what would violate
the ordinances, so that was what we were trying to do.
But then also do clarify what the different procedures are in part,
they were rearranged so that sort of from the lightest
to the heaviest, but to lay out the bundle of options
that the city has when confronted with the nuisance.
Thank you, is that Grout?
Thank you.
Bacon delapidated properties are a problem in our city.
I see them every day.
I know that you all do too.
Around my business alone, there are in a six-block radius.
There are six houses that have been real problems.
Two of them have burned down and have been removed
in the last year, and three of them have been burned.
On and off a lot, and so that dilapidation brings down
the neighborhood, and we just need to have better rules in place
and procedures for our officials to be able to enforce enforce rules.
I personally, I'm not looking at, I don't think that this,
I'm not the first thing I'm thinking about is not the property.
I'm not thinking about the folks that are on the street.
I want to get those people into homes, into shelters,
into treatment, into stable housing, and so this is about property itself.
And for me, that's why I'm supporting these changes.
I urge your support.
We are back on 063 as amended.
Councilors, those in favor, please raise your hand and say yes.
Yes.
Those opposed.
That looks like it passes on a 6 to 3 vote.
I think we can get through the next one relatively quickly.
Councilors, 070, is committee substitute amending ordinance chapter 2, Article 6, part 1,
relating to public boards, commissions, and committees.
I move a due pass.
There's a second from Madam Vice President.
Councilors, this passed through committee unanimously.
With a recommendation, I will say there's a couple of comments I'm going to say one about this
and one right after before we go to dinner for those of you that are attending tonight.
But it's my intention for those of you, and I've talked with our staff, that if something
passes with recommendation unanimously from committee, in order to avoid what I'm about
to do, I think that it's important that we respect that five councillors end up voting in favor
of something and recommending it, so therefore five councillors are probably going to vote in
favor of it here.
So to shorten some of the amount of time we discuss, amend, re-discuss all of the things,
I have instructed staff moving forward that if something passes committee unanimously
with recommendation, even if it's been amended to put things on consent agenda.
So then I urge you to pay attention and if you need to pull something from consent, I hope this
is going to help us utilize committees the way I was always told they were, and I know you've
all heard me say it before, so just know that that is my hope in intention with this.
But since it accidentally, I guess, I don't know, we hadn't had this conversation, I
guess very clearly, so now it's here, I am opening this can of worms and I have an amendment
to move, amendment number one is changing the amount of time, the original bill said three months
before one name can move forward to the mayor.
It was amended in committee to say 45 days, I would like to move it to 60 days.
This is to me a compromise, had I been asked at committee, I would have intended to say to all
of you that we have to allow constituents at least a decent amount of time to even apply
for these committees.
And so my concern is finding the balance of letting it be too long versus too short and where
do we strike that balance, so in making sure to work with admin as well, because this was something
that I worked with them on prior to all of it, becoming here, 60 days is something that's
in kind of the standard for how long we have with other things.
So I'm splitting the difference, I want to be able to allow people in Albuquerque to apply
for these boards and commissions, while giving us, or then that amount of time for us to
evaluate and then send forward one name.
I think 45 days is a real quick turnaround when you're talking about applications and government
time and introductions and agendas and all of the things.
So I'm moving forward, amendment number one to 70.
There's a second from Councillor Grout, any questions or comments, Councillor?
Councillor Rodgers.
Thank you, Madam President, just process question because I have several boards and commissions
that are vacant because I only have one applications.
And so the 60-day period is from the time that it's vacant to the time that we have an applicant.
And I'm going to defer to staff on this to make sure to clarify and correct me if I'm wrong,
but I believe that it is from when we're notified of its vacancy, then we can go ahead and
start seeking out applicants.
I'm seeing a nod from this one, Keel.
Madam President, Councillor Rodgers, that's correct.
Your clock with start ticking once the vacancy occurs.
Thank you, Madam President.
One more follow-up.
So it says within a 60-day period, which means we can send them up ahead of the 60-day deadline
if we, or we have to wait the full 60 days from the vacancy to send them a one applicant.
I'm going to refer to our attorney on that one.
Madam President, Councillor Rodgers, you would have to wait for the 60-day period to
lapse to just to leave that window open for applications to come in.
And then once that time passes, then you can go ahead and submit one name, if only one name is
received.
Councillor Rodgers, thank you, Madam President.
So if we do pass this tonight and I have vacancies already that have been vacant for longer
than 60 days than I can submit those.
That's right, Keel.
Madam President, Councillor Rodgers, this would not go into effect immediately so the bill
would have to become effective first.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Councillor, there's the attention, just as I said in committee two is to make sure that we can,
if we have one applicant for a year, we can minimize some of that and we can actually fill these
boards with volunteers who want to give us their time.
So I urge your support.
All those in favor of amendment number one to owe 70 raise your hand and say yes.
I'm going to post that passes on an eight to one vote.
We're back on 070 as amended and substituted, Councillor's any additional questions or comments.
I'm seeing that we have public comment.
We do have public comment.
Mr. Cornelius.
Thank you, Madam President.
And Nami Das, followed by Ted, the Amitsky.
Hi, y'all again, Madam President, thank you a lot for allowing me to speak on this.
The reason I contributed to this proposal ordinance is because this administration has a very
big interest in keeping everything up.
As cheap as possible, as unstaffed as possible, as you can see with what's going on with the fire department.
This contribution that I made with the section two of the ordinance was intended to make it so that board members would be better prepared to deal with the nonsense that comes with this administration.
Speaking of the administration's nonsense, how was it? How was it? I forgot what it was. Okay. Well, goodbye now.
Thank you. Well, looking here, what a cut of my earth attention.
Board's committees in commissioner who have to ask who are those people? What we get from them?
Zero, because all our special interests, including some biggest lawyer, it's fear in a decor, or in all this, when I was used to go to committee meeting.
Yes, I was reading, and they loved the fan link, a person who I would be so weak.
That's how corrupt that system is for it here, for action exist.
And every word you look at, we need a Trump and all the pieces of information. No, I will. Thank you.
Madam President, that concludes comment. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilors, any other comments or questions?
All right. We are on O70 as substituted and amended. Those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.
Anyone opposed? Passes on an A to one vote. Before we go to dinner break, I want to make sure to acknowledge that I know that we have a lot of important people in the chambers.
And that ranges from everyone that's here regularly, every meeting to the people that are here now for tonight.
I know that there's some important business to be had. It is not that I am hoping to delay or just respect anyone in your time frame.
However, I also want to set some consistency in making sure that people are aware that if you have an immediate action request, it is going to be my intention moving forward.
That all of the business that has gone through the process before has been heard in the order on the agenda, and any immediate actions will be the new items at towards the end.
So please understand, I know you work hard. I know all of you are giving us a great sort of deal of service to our city on every level from constituents to employees and services.
And so I think that it's important to acknowledge that. But at the same time, I do think that we have a level of expectation to set for everyone on a regular basis.
So with that, we're going to go to dinner for 30 minutes. We will be back here at 10 to 8.
Councilor Pena, Madam Vice President.
Thank you, Madam President. I am actually looking for my item, but in the meantime, I'm going to.
This is by request R1 16 at just in fiscal year 2025 appropriations for the money one out equity and community reinvestment fund items would do pass.
There's a motion and a second from Councilor Rogers. Councilor Pena open.
So I'll just briefly say that this resolution, just fiscal year 2025 appropriations by appropriating 4 million to the money one out equity and community reinvestment fund.
Under fund 202 under the Department of Finance administrative services, the fund supports programs aimed at equitable community reinvestment and expanding opportunities for populations historically impacted by money one out criminalization.
Well, formalizing the appropriation, the resolution.
Well, that's it. So I'm going to do pass.
All right, so we have an opening. Let's go ahead and go to public comment first and then we'll go to councilors comments and questions.
Thank you, Madam President. First is Catherine McGill and followed by Emmanuel.
Madam President and counselors, the latest of the hours affecting my ability, the eloquent, but I'm going to do my best.
Catherine McGill, I'm the founder and director of the New Mexico Black Leadership Council and tonight we have an opportunity to move from talk to action.
Years ago, our community fought to keep witty or elementary open when it was on the brink of closure.
We won that battle for the children, but keeping the doors open wasn't enough.
It was the first step but not the finish line.
Now we have the chance to finish what we started to give these students and families a support they need to truly thrive.
Saying you support something is one thing, investing in it is quite another.
Partnering in isn't charity, it's strategic investment in reciprocal accountability where families, educators, city leaders and the community all have skin in the game.
There is no downside to saying yes, only significant returns.
Every dollar will be used to lift up our most vulnerable families.
Counselors, we are asking you to do the same.
Thank you very much and we urge your support.
Emmanuel Asange, followed by Alina Posas.
Alina Posas, on Zoom, followed by Anne Lynn Hall.
Hi, I hope everybody can hear me okay.
I'm the family liaison at Whittier Elementary School this year and I just want to express my excitement about this.
This proposal.
I do think that this will be a lot more rewarding in the long term than the alternative.
So we see a lot of data and a lot of evidence that proves this to be really successful in communities.
I would like to cite Magnolia mothers in Jackson, Mississippi as a really successful.
I guess, you know, example of this.
Looking at our kids, we have so many who are very disregulated.
They need a lot of support.
Financial support will give them the opportunity to engage with school and their community in a much more.
I guess healthier way.
Yeah, so I hope you guys support this bill.
Anne Lynn Hall, followed by Jodie McElvie.
Good evening, Madam President and Council members.
My name is Anne Lynn Hall and I am the CEO of Prosperity Works.
I'm here in strong support of R-1-16.
Prosperity Works has a 20 year history helping to eliminate poverty.
There are many policies, solutions that help address poverty.
One of the proven so policies is guaranteed basic income that is being proposed tonight.
And the research that has been done on guaranteed basic income pilots in the Mexico by the Mexico boys for children.
There were strong evidence for these types of programs including increase in job security,
improved housing security and noticeable improvements and educational outcomes.
guaranteed basic income helps us close the racial wealth gap in our state.
And for these reasons, I strongly encourage your support of R-1-16.
Thank you.
Jodie McElvie, followed by Diana Lopez.
If you think Madam President and Councilors,
the guaranteed income effort is a crucial part of strategy to enhance financial stability in our community.
By providing a guaranteed basic income, the financial stress that many families face
is addressed.
This initiative will not only help families meet their immediate needs,
but also empower them to build a more secure financial future.
When families have stability, they are better positioned to exceed their exclusive goals.
We need to learn a long-term employment and help outcomes.
By ensuring that families have a broader liable source of income,
we are helping them achieve greater financial security and stability.
This initiative is not just about providing financial aid.
It is about empowering families to thrive and succeed in the long-term.
For these reasons, United Way of North Central New Mexico,
she's guaranteed income as a means to achieving family stability,
and we support this initiative.
Thank you.
Diana Lopez, followed by Carla Cousie.
With the big Madam President and Council members,
I am speaking in support of our 25-116.
As a senior manager at Youth Development Incorporated,
we serve over 8,000 individuals a year,
and the division that I supervise 80% of the individuals presenting for service
at any of the 25 programs under the Prevention and Prevention and B.
We have a health division, our struggling with substance use and our mental health disorders.
It is my understanding that funds from the Marijuana Equity and Reinvestment Fund
will go to entities, can go to entities to expand and enhance services
in the Prevention and Prevention and Prevention and Treatment Arena,
which are sorely needed.
I strongly support your consideration and urge you to pass this resolution.
Thank you very much.
Carla Cousie, followed by Dr. Robert Sims.
Good evening, Madam President and Council members.
I'm Carla Cousie, President and CEO of the Black Shinder of Humber 7 in Mexico.
There are over 50 cities that are already doing guaranteed income programs,
and I believe that if we provide individuals and families with guaranteed
earned dependable monthly income, it will help to stabilize the unstable market
for our marginalized households.
This monthly income can mean the difference in mitigating food insecurity,
the ability to pay for needed medication, transportation, and easing issues regarding those
that are entering on an unhoused arena.
It's crucial now more than ever before that we lend a helping hand to our vulnerable
population.
It's important that the criteria are based on nonpartisan principles with secure portals
and applications, and we need to make sure we take care of those that need our assistance.
Thank you.
Dr. Robert Sims, followed by Alfred Matthewsson.
Good evening.
My name is Dr. Robert Sims.
I am the proud school principal, Woody Elementary.
I respectfully call to accident request.
I am a nine to zero unanimous vote, casting and supported this pilot program.
Instead of dispersion of how, why these children and their families became stricken with
systemic poverty and perilous times.
This is a hallmark moment in the spirit of humanity to courageously refuse our
wittier students.
And their parents would hope optimism and realistic pursuit of happiness while we
sat in their lives and opportunities to have their ends finally meet
how happy to rob Peter the Paypal.
You have an instrumental opportunity to have children grow up and remember you.
We're investing and voting yes instead of voting no for financial equity and justice
for them.
Thank you very much for your time, consideration.
Samantha Carillo, followed by Teresa Madrid.
Oh, I thought Alfred Matthewsson.
I'm sorry about that, Alfred.
Go ahead, sir.
I apologize.
Madam President and counselors, thank you for the opportunity to speak.
In support of our 25-116.
I am Alfred Matthewson and a marriages professor and former dean of the UNM School of Law.
An unpaid volunteer within the Mexico Black Leadership Council.
I come as today of my views and do not state a position of university.
GBI is a powerful safety road and I support this program.
They have been more than 100 pilot GBI projects across the country.
And we have learned from those programs, especially those that examine education
of benefits to children in designing this one.
This program is a double rated safety road, centering reducing chronic
absenteeism and improving educational outcomes for children.
It will provide one rate of unconditional cash payments and another
in the form of wraparound services.
This program, like all other GBI pilot programs,
gives families and individuals the freedom to make their own financial decisions
and thereby pathway to lift themselves out of poverty
and their children to education and success.
May your children pass the resolution.
Samantha Carillo, followed by Teresa Madrid.
Hello, my name is Samantha Carillo.
I work with New Mexico Black Leadership Council.
And I'm going to read this.
Dr. Dwayne L. Ross M. D.
The historical support for guaranteed basic income is known.
The economic impact has been demonstrated in several locations in this country.
But a guaranteed basic income also has a beneficial effect on people's health.
Extra money allows an individual or family to spend more on food,
reduces disease promoting stress and can contribute to medical co-payments.
The impact of a few dollars to those in most need cannot be overstated
and having those dollars rise from marijuana tax revenues is also a form of justice.
As an internal medicine physician,
I have treated patients who have had to make financial choices
that shouldn't be necessary in this process.
to the country. So I strongly encourage the city council to pass R25116. Thank you.
Theresa Madrid, followed by Bernadette Hardy.
My name is Tides Madrid. I am with the partnership for community action. At PCA, we believe in bold, proven solutions to support families.
From May 2022 to April 2023, we partnered with community-based organizations to provide no strings attached cash program to 333 families across the state.
The results speak for themselves. Families use these payments to cover essentials like rent, food and childcare, stabilizing their household and reducing financial stress.
In fact, 83% of participants reported improved while being and nearly half were able to reduce their debt. Most importantly, parents gained the breathing room.
They needed to invest in their futures, whether through education, job training or simply spending more quality time with their children.
The pilot confirmed what we already know. When families have the resources they need, they thrive.
Earning to you and come works. It's time to invest in long-term solutions that put money directly into the hands of those who need it most. Please support resolution.
25116. Thank you.
Bernadette Hardy.
Bernadette, can you please accept promotion to panelists?
Would you like to speak, Bernadette? Go ahead, if you would.
Madam President, perhaps there's some technical difficulties there. Just for the record. Jennifer Burke and Robert Alexander are not present.
Thank you.
We are back on to our 16 counselors. Questions or comments?
Thank you, Madam President.
So, reading through this, looks like the money will go through the one Albuquerque fund and then it then to the United Way. Why is it the round about method? Why are we doing it this way?
The associate's Yale.
The councilor grout. My understanding is that the city cannot directly give these payments so they're going through the Albuquerque Foundation.
Okay, thank you. Madam President, is the United Way charging overhead to distribute these funds and if so, how much?
Madam President, councilor grout. No, all of this is going to programming.
Okay, very good. Thank you. Just a couple more questions.
How will people be chosen to receive the guaranteed income?
The write-up says that Lydia and Carlos Ray Elementary were chosen.
Were these schools, especially impacted by marijuana prohibition?
Madam President, councilor grout. Yes, the schools were picked for the areas that they are in.
And the South Valley, one is in the southeast and they particularly have their underrepresented and published neighborhoods.
And so that's why they were selected.
Okay, thank you. What can the guaranteed income grants be used for?
Madam President, councilor grout. The money will be given to the households so that they have additional funds as some of the speakers spoke to, you know,
and the doctor spoke to, is that we want to ensure that people don't have to pick medicine over rent over other things.
So it is to help supplement their income.
And so in three years time, then what are they going to expect it at some more?
Is there any kind of help?
Because is there any kind of help for them to be able to learn that this is not guaranteed forever?
And so they need to be able to figure out their finances.
The reason why I ask is, with transitional, just kind of, or just going to the side a little bit,
the, when with transitional living vouchers, which I think are great, and they help people become stable, but at the same time,
the people that are using them, they also need to learn that they won't be there forever, and they have to be working on their finances and learning how to be independent and to be able to financially manage their finances.
So is there any kind of financial education going on when these folks are receiving these grants?
Madam President, Councillor Grout. Yes, so as a condition of the program, they have to work with the office of equity and inclusion in their office of financial empowerment,
and so they will be getting training, they will be getting education.
And then, are there any measured outcomes? Are there any kind of reporting or anything? What are we going to?
How do we know that this is working?
So Madam President, Councillor Grout, there's two components to it.
There's the piece that is with OEI related to the guaranteed basic income, and part of that will be tracking absenteeism.
So hopefully these individuals and students will not have chronic absenteeism.
The other piece is that they need to participate in the office of financial empowerment, so keeping track of that.
The piece that is related to triple H, you know, there are measures put into triple H's contracts to ensure that providers are meeting the needs of those particular contracts.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to talk a little bit about being a part of this project in OEI, and I cannot contain my excitement that we're here.
This is work that came directly from data and research, and so this would be considered a research project in working with an Alexa Black Leadership Council Dean Mathis and some other folks to make sure that we're tracking this as a research project.
Our mayor signed up for a pilot already under Mayor's for guaranteed income in 2020.
That is specifically in place to gather data across the whole country about how this works.
We've already done this in the U.S. During COVID, we all, and this was universal basic income.
Regardless of your income or your title one school status, everybody got our stimulus checks, right?
And we know from just that data alone, we cut childhood hunger in half by trusting families to make decisions for what they need for their families to thrive.
And there's a notion out there that people are going to use this money for things like drugs and alcohol, right?
But participants have to turn and research surveys saying what are you spending the money on and overwhelmingly it was rent food and transportation across the country when I did the research on the pilots.
The biggest thing to your point about the program ending participants absolutely know this is only for a certain amount of time.
And most of the participants surveyed about the program ending said that they were fine with the program ending.
Because of the program, they were able to get higher income because they, one particular story I heard from the Santa Fe's pilot, they were able to purchase a car that they couldn't afford before, which allowed them not to reply on the bus, which only took them to a certain part of Santa Fe.
And now because they're gainfully, they can be better employed, there's deemed better employees because they're not late because the public transit.
They were able to get a job increasing their income by $800.
So the $500 going away was okay because they were able to get higher paying jobs because they had access to transportation and things like that.
So this is, I always say we, we put a lot of money supporting folks who have no income, right?
But those families that are right in the middle, like my family, I'm not, I'm not eligible for this, just put that out there for anybody's like city council is trying to get guaranteed basic income.
But I am a single mom in poverty, right now.
We like to focus on the first black city councilor, but I'm probably the first single mom city councilor who's living in poverty right now.
And for my family, this would be life changing.
For to have that cushion of right now, I need breaks.
I have the ability to pay for those right now.
Well, guaranteed basic income would help me be able to do things like that.
So this isn't a handout, this is a handout up to families who don't qualify a lot of times for regular entitlement programs that were used to like snap or tennis.
So this is really, I think life changing and I'll stop there, but I just want I'm just excited that we could really take a stance on poverty because that is the root cause of a lot of the things that we're facing in our community when it comes to homelessness crime.
We have desperate people doing desperate things that they wouldn't normally do if they were in their right mic.
So for me, this is extremely exciting to have worked on it before and to be here to vote on it today.
And I think councilor Pena, because a lot of the original work on this, she really leaned into what the community wanted.
What the community asked for and then grateful for that because we don't always get to see that.
So thank you.
Thank you, Madam President.
Would you, would you describe the program as no strings attached, there's no strings attached to the guaranteed basic income.
Madam President, councilor Lewis, no.
As I mentioned, they would be marking or tracking the child's attendance at school and the other pieces ensuring that they're participating in programs within OEI and as councilor Rogers mentioned they would be filling out surveys.
So no, I would say it's not.
They do have, there's not, there's strings attached to it.
What's, so you're tracking, I guess if a student or they miss a few days or they are the program or miss a few weeks would be criteria there.
Madam Chair, councilor Lewis, I don't know the exact answer to that, but I would think that they would be looking at it and then finding now.
What's happening with the child in understanding the situation, but it's a marker that they are tracking.
Yeah, and they are required to do the training and the education.
And again, I guess is there a.
There are certain level of commitment to that.
Madam President and Councillor Lewis, I would ask that directors.
A lot of come up from OEI to answer that maybe in a little more detail for you.
Good evening director.
That's a list.
Yeah, I guess interested in just the level of commitment to the program, training, reporting, answering surveys.
Yes, Madam President, Councillor Lewis.
This project is a reflection of the ability for the people that will be participating to demonstrate their commitment to their own well being also.
And so the idea is that these folks would be able to have the supports through the wrap around piece that Dean Matthews and described.
In addition to those finances that wouldn't ensure the fidelity of the programming.
Okay, and I guess my question on just the overall spending on the entire pot of money that we have and.
The, of course, we listed on the job of training.
You know, rehabilitation, small businesses.
I guess just described the reason for, you know, about 50% of it going to guarantee basic income.
Sure, Madam President and Councillor Lewis.
We believe and it has been proven as a council Rogers is scribe that through these types of projects.
There are different interventions that are surface because people have the means to be very creative with identifying how to best off their problems.
And so in doing this, we anticipate and as ACO described this would be house under our office of financial empowerment.
We have director, the director, Dr Cooper back there who will lead that office with her team.
So this is a staff to roll a staff to work that we are placing a lot of priority on in the office of equity inclusion.
And so with this work, we'd be able to, to follow through and make sure that people as they are needing help and meeting supports or identifying gaps.
We'd have the resources to help people to navigate those and come beside them to give them that mental security support.
And Madam President, I've seen some studies on.
Like let's say given a certain amount to one, I guess a study group of people and then a certain amount, you know, maybe a smaller amount or a little amount of other group.
And track and track and how that money is spent.
And all that is at the intention here as well.
I mean, we're doing that kind of detail of tracking and reporting.
So what you're just sorry, Madam President and Councillor Lewis, you're describing like a type of AB testing of about.
I guess, uh, where you're measuring results, you're measuring some type of results.
Sure.
So with with your elementary school, that population, we would have, we would propose the entire third grade class.
With another school, such as Carlos Ray, that's a little bit larger.
And so we would definitely be able to have some of that described.
And so this experiment would be really informative to think about as we pursue this on a longer term scale.
How we can make adjustments and iterate from there.
In real quick, Madam President.
What other, what other, you listed some of it?
I mean, I guess a comprehensive list of what the strings that are attached.
I mean, as far as the requirements of someone who participates in this.
So the string.
The things that are attached, basically, there are just the involvement that I'm president and councilor Lewis.
The idea with this programming is that we will be able to provide wraparound supports that align with 02387 originally.
So the education around drug awareness, the ability to have access to mental health resources, the ability to have mentorship, programming, a workforce development.
All of those pieces are going to be designed and baked into this programming. It's really so much gratitude for the community organizations that have provided so much input into this project.
And have been able to commit to being able to support this as well.
To be qualified to be a part of it so you would, you have to go one of the, both of those schools, one of two of those schools.
Is there an income requirement that they already have?
Madam President, Councilor Lewis, there's not an income requirement. Those are both Title 1 schools. So the population of students there already are subject to limited income.
Yes.
You have to be a US citizen.
So we don't track that information. And so we wouldn't begin tracking that there either.
Okay.
And schools don't typically, you know, have that access.
Councilors, any other questions or comments?
Oh, the champagne.
Thank you, Madam President. Why wasn't any percentages put into the other stuff?
People re-entering incarceration from drug use.
Madam President.
What was it all?
I was there no percentages put into the four categories.
Madam President and Councillor Champagne.
The ordinance was written in a way that it was permissive.
And so it said, you may use it for these things.
I understand how it was written. Why did you choose that then?
Madam President and Councillor Champagne.
The reason as Councillor Rogers stated there was a lot of work that was put into the guaranteed basic income.
And we felt like that was a good place to have an impact as well as triple H because individuals that are affected by homelessness.
A lot of times are having other substance abuse issues.
So we felt like that was the best impact with the funds.
Thank you, Madam President.
Councillor Panyada close.
Thank you, Madam President.
Just before it closed, yes.
I mean, this is the, is the money, why not equity equity reimbursement for this.
So this has been for people who are disproportionately impacted by, you know, the criminalization of money
when I, in the past, obviously, we can't pinpoint exactly who those people are.
But many people in the schools that we're going to be serving are some of those people.
So when you look at it, I mean, obviously half of the money is going to this guaranteed basic income.
But what I'm most excited or not most excited, but what I'm also excited about is that, you know, I'm always talking about that we do not have
Inpatient detox for our youth and or for adults overall.
So 1.2 million is going to go for, for inpatient treatment for, for substance abuse.
So I think that's really important.
When we're looking at our other budgets and how much we're actually putting into our larger budgets that have this type of support, it's very pretty.
Pretty nominal, I'll say, and then also prevention intervention, you know, I think that's key when we're looking at our youth.
We didn't get here overnight and we really have to have, you know, prevention intervention programs education.
So I know it's 500,000 for those types of efforts, but again, like I said, the fact that we have.
Substance abuse treatment for youth is really paramount and then obviously helping these families that, you know, when we're here talking about criteria as in having them to have to adhere to certain.
Requirements, I think it's built into the program in terms of, you know, financial literacy and things like that that they have to adhere to, but really asking them to really have a lot of strings attached to something that's already disproportionately impacted them.
In a way, that's where we have to look at equity and that if that's equitable or not, right, and so this money is a side from our budget, it's a, an amount of money that we're going to be getting every year dedicated to really try to.
achieve.
Justice where there was injustice so I would urge your support.
The answer is the motion is for a due pass of our ones one six, all those in favor raise your hand and say yes.
All those opposed.
Passes on a five four vote.
And for the record on 070, I stated that it passed on an eight to one vote.
And Council people current started by making sure to tell me.
I was in my head, so it passed on a nine zero vote.
Moving on to agenda item s p seven council.
Thank you madam president adopting a proposition be sent to the voters at the 2025 regular local election proposing to repeal article 11 section seven charter see valve curkey regarding a.
Hoping to vote on a performing arts center move do pass.
There's a motion in a second from councilor Sanchez.
Council.
Thank you madam president.
As as I've said before.
A, it's such a weird anomaly to have this in our essentially our city's constitution.
You know, specifically pointing out one type of project that can't be done.
And so this is in a sense cleaning that up, which shouldn't be there.
And there's a whole history of that that's kind of ridiculous if you read into it.
As I've also said, you know, I'm a big believer, you know, we, we can handle crime and homelessness and simultaneously we can work on the quality of life for our kids for our families for the future of our city.
And I, I firmly believe that.
And so I urge everybody support on this.
Councilors any questions or comments on p seven.
All right, so all those in favor of p seven, please raise your hand and say yes.
That passes nine zero.
Councilor Boko with the companion resolution are one nineteen.
Thank you madam president.
This is just a companion resolution.
You want me to read it out for the record.
And adopting a proposition be submitted to the voters.
The next election be held in city of Albuquerque.
Concerning in amendment to article 11 section seven.
The Albuquerque city charter providing a form of a question and designation clause for such question on the ballot.
I move do pass.
There's a motion in a second from councilor Sanchez.
Councilor, if, if you want, you can open, but then I'm going to go to public comment and then we'll do your amendment.
Sure.
Okay.
Yeah, I'm good.
So let's go to public comment, please.
Thank you, madam president.
We have Lisa Christopherson to speak.
Mr. Court unless did she go to zoom at all or she's not here anymore.
Okay.
So then councilor Boko.
If you want to go ahead and move your amendment number one, mark day.
Thank you, madam president.
Amendment.
On page one, line nineteen, imagine a man section one as follows.
Section one, the city clerk is instructed to place the following proposal.
Twenty twenty five regular local election ballot.
And the qualified voters of the city of Albuquerque shall be permitted to vote for or against the following proposition.
Amendment adds in in consultation with Bernoulli O'Connor clerk and or secretary of state in the city clerk shall be authority.
Modify the proposal has to form.
As to form to conform with applicable law.
This amendment proposes to allow city clerk to collaborate with Bernoulli O'Connor clerk and or secretary of state to finalize placing this proposition on the twenty twenty five regular local election ballot.
Including making formatting it to ensure the proposition complies with legal requirements.
There's a motion for amendment number one with a second from councilor Sanchez.
I will say it's the clerk can make a correction in between the word authority and modify to add the word to.
I think.
No word.
Seems as well that's missing but it should just be a clerk's correction.
Councilors any questions or comments.
All right.
Councilor Boko to close.
All those.
Councilors all those in favor of amendment number one to our one nineteen.
Please raise your hand and say yes.
Anyone opposed that looks like it passes on a nine zero vote.
We are back on our one nineteen.
Councilors any questions or comments.
Councilor Boko to close.
Thank you, Madam President.
I urge your sport.
Councilors all those in favor of a due pass of our one nineteen as amended.
Please raise your hand and say yes.
Anyone opposed.
That passes on a nine zero vote.
Moving on to.
Agenda item D.
Moment you all most of you have been waiting for.
Councilor Lewis and Boko are one twenty two.
Madam President are one twenty two is establishing minimum staffing.
Primants for property fire rescue rescue apparatus.
Some overdue pass.
There is a motion for our one twenty two is their second.
There's a second from councilor Boko.
Councilor Lewis and Boko to open.
Thank you.
President.
Just a couple things about the resolution.
I want to just read a few comments.
I mean, first of all, the resolution.
It reaffirms.
The policy establishing the minimum standards for providing care.
In the city of advocacy.
The resolution actually complies with the charter.
Which says section eight council powers.
The council have to have the power to adopt all ordinances.
The resolution or other legislation can do so to the welfare.
Of the people of the city.
So our ordinance are charter.
You know, certainly gives us the ability to be able to.
Way in on any decision.
You know, relating to our ordinances and I would.
Also, just refer back to, you know, the bill involves really.
It's an amendment to R 1641.
In 2016 it was enacted.
And it established minimum staffing requirements for F.R.
For the Indian apparatus for rescue apparatus.
Latter hazardous material squads.
Heavy technical rescue squads quality assurance units.
That resolution.
Established.
Battalion commander units and support divisions.
The amendment applies to rescue apparatus.
And is intended to to maintain.
To codify.
The minimum of two paramedic firefighters per rescue apparatus unit.
Because rescue units have two firefighters.
Of the highest level.
Of pre-hospital licensure.
Paramedic delivered life saving.
Eight as swiftly as possible.
And so again, just to make point that, you know, the council has.
Had did in 2016 and often has given, you know, direction and and a policy related to.
Lated to AFR staffing.
ABD staffing.
To equipment.
To stations.
This is certainly what we, you know, we've, we've done in the past and continue to do.
Why immediate action on this tonight?
I mean, just real clearly.
The administration is, you know, looking to implement a pretty sweeping change.
You know, to the staffing requirements.
I mean, I mean, it'd be a sweeping change to the staffing requirements in my district.
Certainly all over the city.
And, you know, and so again, why the immediate action?
This gives us an opportunity to help make that decision.
As opposed to it, being made, you know, this week and and a pretty significant change to that.
And so I know there's a different difference in opinion.
But I think there's clearly a case that two medics on a rescue is the best possible.
The service given, you know, to our community.
And I believe the, you know, the firefighters, the medics, the experts that are providing the service every day.
Certainly feels strongly that way this way.
And again, this is our current system.
And I think it's something that's, it's really touted around the country, including by our department.
As, as you know, I mean, it's looked at as a real.
Mark around the country, a standard around the country, where other departments I know come to and look to us for the kind of expertise and the kind of staffing that makes a big impact.
And so.
So that's what this, I mean, again, the bill simply, you know, codifies what the current system that's in place.
I know there's been some pilot programs and there's some data regarding those pilot programs.
I don't believe there's any data that really shows any results of city wide or department wide.
Making the kind of changes that are that are being looked at to it.
So.
So Madam, Madam.
President, I think we have public comment and we can go from there.
Let's count your bucket.
Okay.
So we're going to move on.
We finished with the opening.
We're going to move on to public comment.
Mr. Cornelius.
Thank you, Madam President.
Our first speaker is Christopher Epley, followed by Alberto Ortega.
First, thank you to the council president and city council members for the time and platform to speak here tonight.
It's much appreciated.
My name is Christopher Epley.
I am the IFF local 244 secretary and had been with AFR for 15 years.
I will be speaking in favor of the resolution.
We've heard from our administration in the last several months that their proposed changes to our staffing model will deliver a higher level of service.
I do not share this opinion.
The proposed changes will dilute an industry leading model effectively lowering the bar with which we measure our success.
Additionally, our fire admins proposal represents the largest operational change.
Which has changed the AFR in 40 years. Six months, six months, a repeated request and outreach from the local 244 has been met with refusal to have an open conversation, and a collaborative discussion on the issue.
In fact, we were told that they were not obligated to have this conversation with us. I could not disagree more, not obligated.
And it's an interesting concept that you don't hear in the fire station, the implication that
you don't have to do, or that you only do what is required and no more.
That's for us.
Our foundation of eyes begin and end with sacrifice and doing what is right.
Sacrifice and doing what is right.
Thank you.
Alberto Ortega, followed by Greg Montoya, council president of the Sun, members of the Council.
My name is Alberto Ortega.
I stand here before you as a citizen of Albuquerque and also retired captain from Albuquerque
Fire, former vice president of local 24.
I strongly support R25-122.
I'm a third generation firefighter.
My family has a deep tradition of serving our city, generation after generation.
We have given our lives and services to this department and our community.
I mentioned service and tradition because that's what I believe we're talking about here.
A tradition of writing the best fire and fire-based EMS service in the country.
The tradition of AFD, AFR, started when EMS and ALS service began here.
It was here that the gold standard of fire-based EMS service was installed.
The tradition of having two highly trained paramedics on one rescue, transport, capable truck
in every corner of the city.
The tradition of providing the best care and medical treatment anyone in Albuquerque could ask for.
The tradition of going above and beyond our citizens deserve nothing less.
I want to thank Council members Lewis and Baca for bringing this to the Council for and their leadership.
Thank you.
Greg Montoya, followed by Sam Trujillo.
Thank you, Madam President, Councillors.
My name is Greg Montoya, the captain of Albuquerque Fire and also local 244 vice president.
I want to thank the Councillors, Councillor Lewis and Councillor Baca for sponsoring this resolution.
It speaks volumes for us to maintain this level of care to our citizens.
And it is about safety, like Councillor Lewis said.
That's why this resolution was implemented back in 2016 to maintain these safe staff and levels.
It's about safety for our paramedics.
We have to make those split decisions on seeing whether across checking medication, coordinating patient care.
The safety of the patient, your constituent, is getting that high level of care.
And more importantly, it's about our safety as well.
You know, God forbid one of my brother's sisters goes down in a fire.
We have that two medic rescue that's there to treat them as well.
So it's about our safety.
That's a big component of it.
You know, even in our staffing policy on page 10, it clearly states that we respond with two paramedics on a rescue.
One is non-prepared.
So thank you.
I would just support on this resolution.
Sam Truhill, followed by Rob Spella.
We try to be a little quicker this time.
You know, as a paramedic, there's two times in your life that you witness the miracle.
One is childbirth.
And the other one is when you can bring somebody back from the other side.
Childbirth, the mother does a majority of the work but with her to assist.
In the other situation, one paramedic alone has a hard time in bringing somebody back immediately.
That's why it requires two people to arrive in at the same time to get the lifesaving techniques going and so forth.
I encourage you to please, please maintain the hermedic rescue,
planning that you have right now with improvement, medication, technology.
And of course, triage by the dispatches and so forth.
We can better serve the community knowing when to dispatch and where to dispatch.
A two-man rescue.
Thank you.
Rob Spella, followed by Robert Hironio.
Hello, I just wanted to add that some of the criticisms you might hear about the current model that we have is that it's a luxury.
It's a luxury that's unsustainable that's afforded to us.
There's nothing luxurious about what we do in our line of work.
And there's nothing afforded to us at all.
With the current model we have, we are protected, we look out for each other, we cover each other through a level of accountability, the highest degree of our licensure.
I'm thinking that if this passes, that will go away, but what goes away even more is something that's held to your constituents.
The degree of care that they're giving, that will go away as well, and certain aspects.
And if you want to talk about sustainability, we've been doing this already, like the Councilman said for decades.
For as long as I've been in this department, that has been the model that has been the standard of care.
We're simply asking you guys to vote to keep it.
Thank you.
Robert Haramiel, followed by Ashley Long.
Ashley Long, followed by Guest Pidradi.
Good evening, Madam President.
Counselors, let me first say it's really really wonderful to be on the same side.
Counselor Lewis will really glad we're collaborating on this front.
I'm the President of the International Association of Machineess and Aerospace Workers, and obviously I represent the overall labor community as well.
And there's nothing better and I'm sorry, and I'm also a constituent of counselors such as there's nothing better that you need to hear than what the workers that are actually doing the job are telling you.
So please stand with them, stand with our paramedics, stand with our first responders, stand with the International Association of firefighters.
Thank you.
Guest Pidradi, followed by Christian me.
Counsel President, Counselors, thank you for having me back to this podium.
There are two things that I think are really important to understand about the minimum system.
First of all, yours is operating a triage to dispatch system.
So that means we're working really hard to discern what's happening on scene and get the right resource to the right call, right?
A Fender Bender is a car accident, so is a rollover.
They don't get the same trucks, right?
We don't deploy our heavy technical rescue to the Fender Bender.
This is the exact same issue we're facing with this idea of resource medical licensure.
We want to keep medics available for patients.
If you don't have a true expansion, if you don't have two paramedics on that rescue and then another ALS provider on the engine, you are diluting.
You are putting that medical licensure on a dumpster fire.
You are putting that medical licensure on down to power lines for hours waiting for P&M.
They can't respond to a patient.
You are putting that licensure on fire watch, waiting to see if something will rekindle, sitting at night.
What this is offering us today in the current model of supposed expansion is a trade-off.
Are you willing to trade the two medics that serve that family last night for somebody watching a dumpster fire?
For us, that price isn't worth it.
True no expansion is worth it, this is delusion.
Thank you.
Christiane, followed by John Round.
John Round, followed by Joaquin Grego.
Thank you, Council President and Council.
My name is John Round.
I'm a current battalion chief at Albuquerque Fire.
I'm here with my union brothers and sisters.
I would like to speak about the importance of our two paramedic rescue system.
I believe in the two paramedic rescue system for every high-cute call for aid.
I'm a battalion chief covering the Northeast Hides, including District 4, 7 and 8.
Under the Fire Chief Plan, if Rescue 15 on Academy response to the air is north or east of there with another district's engine company,
there will only be a single paramedic driver on that response.
One, only one medic on scene for cardiac arrest in the Northeast Hides or anywhere in our city is an unacceptable
diminishment of services to our citizens.
If enacted, I believe there will be absolutely, there will absolutely be an unnecessary desk that occur as a direct result of this decision.
This will place the city at risk for multimillion dollar lawsuits.
Paramedics under this will burn out quicker, and with no other options may lead the department all together.
Those that stay have an increased likelihood of depression, anxiety, and suicide.
Thank you.
Madam President, members of the board.
Thank you for having me here today.
My name is Joaquin Griello.
I've been serving this city with the Albuquerque Fire Rescue for 18 years currently at the rank of captain,
proudly serving in one of those busiest stations in the city station five.
I serve alongside the men and women behind me, and I have the opportunity to work in the field
and talk on a daily basis with the rank and file.
An issue that concerns me that I'd like to express and share with you is the issue of morale.
In the 18 years that I've been a part of this department, there have been many highs and many lows,
but never have I seen what's going on with the delusion of the rescues.
We're seeing paramedics drop their licensure because that's a direct result of this splitting of the rescue.
We're seeing senior firefighters attributing their retirement to this, and many more considering and re-evaluating their tenure at AFR.
Those are seasoned veterans that shape mold the young firefighters that come out today into the field.
I ask that you take care of those that take care of you in yours and support the gold standard,
which is our 2512.
Thank you.
Miguel Tittman, followed by Brian Priswine.
Madam President and Councillors, we have heard from the people in the front lines.
We're going to hear an industry SME. We've heard from our retirees.
We're here to be heard, and we thank you for the opportunity to be heard in this public forum.
And even though we do not feel heard by our administration, we will continue to work in good faith to approve our service.
Just in the past six weeks, we've had a 244 E-board member, also feeling unheard, but working to secure millions of dollars in capital outlet money on behalf of our department.
We sit on the joint organization of education working group to provide solutions to the statewide EMS training challenges.
We are working the problems in providing the solutions in good faith, because more paramedics is the goal.
A-less expansions of the goal with three paramedics of the station, not with two. That's delusion.
Yet the proposed operational change is an abandonment for what is our firefighters values and let it be clear.
The intention of this administration is to abandon our two paramedic registry system.
The first proposal by management included every rescue to be split, the gold standard and service delivery.
And you must ask yourself, why would management be imposing an abandonment of the gold standard?
We were here in 2016 when management also tried to impose a deluding our service to connecting with our staffing.
This resolution is referenced in our staffing policy. We urge your support, allows to continue providing the best service and help us save more lives.
The stories told by a brother Pajradi is an everyday occurrence.
We urge your support.
Brian Breeze wine followed by Robert McClentock on Zoom.
Robert McClentock followed by Matt Watkins.
Good evening.
Speaking on behalf of the local 244 as a subject matter expert from a national perspective on resolution 25122.
My name is Rob McClentock on the acting assistant to the general president of the technical assistance and information resource division with the International Association of Firefighters.
Part of our services that we provide are local affiliates and fire departments.
And we build the MS system delivery models on the ground up as well as analyze that as sport the enhancement of services.
Firebase the MS the palms are about to their citizens.
Well, there are many fire departments across the country that maintain a two paramedic transport ambulance.
Your fire department, MS system is truly providing your city with this gold standard of care for your residents and guests by deploying two paramedics on the transport ambulance.
And any reduction in this service can be detrimental to patient outcomes.
Two paramedics arrive on transport ambulance provide optimum and timely patient care for critically ill and injured.
These are life-saving measures that require multiple paramedic interventions that can occur simultaneously with two paramedics.
Two paramedics arrive on transport ambulance provide the ability to initiate and begin patient care on several critical patients until further system arrives on scene.
The final line medical direction is in need of but can be reached the paramedics have an equal partner to share protocols and procedures and gives the proper attention to the patient.
And conclusion I just would like to say that I offer the support and I hope you offer support for the Alberta.
Abercurti fire rescue continue with this two person transport model.
Thank you.
Madam President and Councillor members.
My name is Matt Watkins.
I've served for 12 years with the fire and currently hold the rank of paramedic captain.
The unit in AFR leadership both agree that LS expansion is absolutely needed for the citizens of Albuquerque.
We are currently in disagreement on how to go about it.
We are one of the fortunate departments around the country that still have the ability to run a double medic rescue.
I'm serving on the rescue for over half a mic for repair.
I'm confident that we should keep as many double medic rescue staff as possible.
However, getting more paramedics and intermediates on engines is just as important.
We currently have 62 members assigned to fire suppression apparatus who hold a paramedic or intermediate license.
30 of them being paramedics.
If we utilize these members wisely, we could keep our double medic rescue and have increased ALS coverage in districts where it is absolutely needed.
Regardless of this resolution passing, I hope this at least gets the conversation back to the table with both AFR and union leadership, so that we can provide the best service possible for both the citizens and AFR members.
Thank you.
Matthew, answered a few words in.
Could you please raise your hand?
I see him Matthew.
Madam President, those that are not President and Zoom.
Item at this time is Salida Herrera, Diane Richards, Cynthia Sade, Michael Zipkovitch and Kayla Nelson and Matthew
Asher. Thank you. That concludes comment.
Thank you. I'm going to go to Councillor Baca if he wants to do his open, but then I want to go to
Adamann with the CAO and us by our chief Hottomeo to give their input as well.
Does he want to start it?
Thank you, Madam President. Ideally, the union and leadership would have figured this out long
before we ever got to this point.
Chief Hottomeo is repeatedly come up here and talk about how we are the national model.
We are the gold standard.
I do find a concern that the changes that are being proposed.
More than that, look to the men and women who take care of our city, our people and everybody.
And I'm listening to what they have to say.
And so I stand with our union when they say this is what we need here in our city.
This is what we need to maintain.
Thank you.
Madam President, members of the council, thank you for a few moments to talk.
Related to this topic, obviously.
As a professional administrator, I've had many years of working with unions.
And obviously, now work across the city with all of our unions and have a clear track record of supporting the tenants of collective bargaining.
I think it's really frankly concerning that IFF is now going back on.
And it was a negotiated CBA that I think was a favorable CBA.
We worked very hard to ensure that we met with their goals within this most recent negotiation.
I honor the work of our firefighters and the work that they do.
And as we said at the table to negotiate and ensure that we're hearing what is important to them and working through that.
In the CBA that was signed by IFF, IFF President,
The agreement clearly states that it does not limit the management rights as stated during the labor management relations ordinance.
That ordinance that you all have passed.
It states that Fire Chief Automio has the right to determine staffing requirements.
And that's done through that what we know is our bid process.
It also states that the labor board as is the body that has the authority to alter the scope and that we would adhere to if the labor board makes it.
The labor board makes a decision and an ultimately as well if a court that has jurisdiction that overturns that scope.
It's also true that this CBA that was signed into effect on July 1st for 2024 through June 30th,
2027 provides for paramedic pay that the union indicated was necessary when they signed the MOU for the pilot operation that we had.
And we ensured that we provided a fund pay for paramedics in this alternate model with the split.
Rescus and where we have tested in multiple stations.
I don't want to take the facts and away from what I think is important for Chief Automio to have the opportunity to talk through with you all.
But I do want to address the specifically are 1641.
When it was passed in 2016 here in these chambers with with Councillor Lewis as president of the board or at least chair of that board meeting.
That council meeting.
Both a city counselor and the CAO at the time acknowledged that the resolution itself likely infringed on the separation of powers.
They agreed to the resolution at the time that you today are attempting to amend.
They agreed to the amendment to that resolution based upon the removal of the word paramedic.
So specifically the word today that you all are considering in that meeting the administration.
When that was struck, they agreed to the resolution because they felt that it reflected the administration's current staffing.
And so they were willing to accept the separate powers concerns that were acknowledged during that meeting.
I think it's just important to note that in believing in the labor management process, the collective bargaining process and the role of the labor management of the labor board.
It is critical that we allow the issues that are before us to be determined through that process.
As a city council, you do not typically, you don't determine how many food safety inspectors or electrical inspectors have to be on site both safety matters.
You don't determine whether or not office AP officers, how many APD officers right in a vehicle.
And those staffing decisions are left to the directors of our departments who are here.
Also, because this is concern, as we said, staffing decisions through legislation that could impact every director and the departments that live that they lead.
We've said that those decisions are department director decisions.
I think the last thing at point I just want to make is that you have received a memo that I share with you based upon our city attorneys review and a legal opinion related to multiple.
It's related to multiple items related to this resolution, tripping up with multiple ordinances that we have.
That is the labor management relations ordinance, the merit system ordinance, both of which outline the processes by which we would.
Deliver on our staffing decisions as well as how we would resolve these matters before the labor board.
This is a prohibitive practice complaint pending before our labor board filed by IFF and you're aware that we have filed of course a prohibitive practice complaint related to the actions of.
IFF as well as the city councils in terms of interference with the labor management process fundamentally we have a decision to make tonight around where the decision process lies in determining staffing whether it's we agree that it's an executive function within the city.
Whether we believe these disputes and and disagreements should be handled through the labor management process with our labor management board who makes those decisions.
And ultimately those upholding the process of what we all have agreed we believe in which is the collective bargaining process that the union and management have worked together to negotiate a contract including paramedic pay that upholds our.
Management rights to staffing I do want to you of course leave the technical focus determination and discussion to chief how to me, but I do want to meant say that we have multiple pieces of information that have been provided to you.
And I think it's important to note that I are we are making a decision tonight about the addition of this model that has been tested.
And that has been tested in multiple stations and it's an addition to a smaller number of stations with an addition of four versus a department wide implementation based upon our chiefs decision to listen to feedback from within the department.
And with that I would like to make sure that we have give the opportunity to chief how to me.
Thank you, Councillors I'm going to come back to questions to the council but I do want to hear from chief how to me and then miss Keith and then we'll come back to councils I'm sure that.
We also have Mr. Tippman here that can speak and answer questions from all of us I imagine we're going to have quite a.
Quite an in depth dialogue but we're going to go to chief and then miss Keith and then back to the council.
I'm that in president councilors thank you for giving us this time to speak a little bit about our changes.
I also want to thank all of you when I when I learned of this resolution on Friday night I want to thank all of you that responded that we were able to set up some time today to meet I know that I was unable to connect with everybody.
And they think that because these changes are so important that's part of the reason I as the fire chief have concerns about any.
Immediate action to a resolution or ordinance that does not involve input from the fire chief in our administration under medical director.
I want to just address a few things that we're said in the introduction of this.
Calling it a sweeping change that's inaccurate we have it currently at two fire stations we implemented two years ago with this model.
Previously 10 year a little over 10 years ago at engine 10 which is off of Rio Grande.
It's a single engine house single paramedic on the engine there we've operated with the single paramedic on that engine for over a decade.
We did an extensive department wide survey to get input from firefighters in 2021.
And as a result of that survey there was quite a bit of information that we used to help pilot program.
That was that two stations and then we took feedback from that pilot program and implemented an operational change in 2023 at two fire stations.
Which is off of i25 and gives an area and station three in not hill off of Gerard and University.
At these stations we have one paramedic on the engine and we have one paramedic on the transport capable units.
When we made those changes of in discussions with labor the request was to ensure that there was pay associated with that work.
I agree with we agree with paying our firefighters.
Good wages for the work that they do they work very hard.
We have a very busy system and so we entered into an MOU to establish pay that was the only request from labor.
And we established that pay in an MOU.
So for two years we've operated at those two fire stations.
I have not received a complaint from labor related to those changes at those two stations.
I had several firefighters reach out from those stations and we have lots of meetings with them.
There's lots of input that went into this and so.
But what I don't have are any grievances I don't have any complaints related to those two fire stations and the operational system that we have there.
So that's forward into our negotiations for our last contract.
And pay was requested for paramedics on any trucks that they work on from the rank of captain and below.
And my request during that was can I use them we need to use our paramedics and we we.
Select our areas very carefully and these are things that I would really like to have the opportunity to sit down with each of you to talk about the station selection.
I did come out with an initial plan to make the changes across all stations.
And then proceeded to have over 12 hours of meetings with firefighters to get input from firefighters.
There were still discussions at that time with labor and when I rolled out the plan.
Our union leadership were some of the first people to learn of that plan.
Before I rolled it out to the rest of AFR leadership they had two days notice of that and I know that doesn't sound like a lot of time.
But over those two days I did not get one phone call we need to we need to slow this down we need to talk.
From the president from union leadership.
We had all of we had our meetings and I did come up with a compromise and so to say this is a sweeping change.
We went from what I initially and still stand by had a lot of benefits to a plan that I'm actually more comfortable with now and I think has even more benefits.
We get too much into the weeds for tonight if I was to get into these details and that's why I would really appreciate the time to meet with each one of you especially those that I haven't had an opportunity to sit down with and talk about.
But I want to make it very clear this is not a sweeping change this is four more stations we have 22 fire stations and to be 23.
This is four more fire stations where we will have this model.
I have our medical director here today to talk to me about the benefits of the model that we that we that we're trying to implement.
And I want to address just related to the fact that we keep calling this the gold standard.
I actually believe that our staffing plan provides more than a gold standard.
I think at these stations where we have one on each truck and I want to talk a little bit about why I believe that.
Right now I'll use I'll use a station 12 as an example.
Station 12 has an engine and a rescue.
We have two paramedics on the rescue and we have four firefighters that are EMT basics on the engine.
Station 12 is pretty far from the hospitals and the rescue and the engines divide up EMS calls are engines also take medical calls are roughly 85% of our call volume is medical calls.
When our rescue is tied up on a call in that district it could be a low acuity call or a high acuity call.
The engine if they're not on a call they are going to be dispatched to that call whether it's low acuity or high acuity.
Let's say.
We, Charlie calls, came up. So let's say that rescue with the two paramedics is tied up on a Charlie call for a stroke.
Let's say now a cardiac arrest goes out in that district.
The engine will respond and our firefighters are EMT basics. They provide excellent care, but they do not have a paramedic on that truck.
The benefits of this plan are that now that engines are able to get on scene faster and get paramedics on scene faster while another district is responding into a system.
We, like I said, we've implemented that at the two stations and we've seen a lot of success with it.
The other part of this that I don't think was made clear in the earlier talking points is that on a critical call both of those trucks will still respond, providing a two paramedic response.
So at station 12, if both of those trucks are in house and they get a cardiac arrest, a shooting, both of those trucks will still respond and provide that two paramedic response.
The mentorship piece had come up in talking points and a lot of the mentorship actually happens at the station.
I've been a paramedic for 20 years.
I was forced into paramedic school, which is the whole other conversation about the issues that we've had with recruitment and interest in paramedic school.
About 20 years ago, and we've been talking about the same issue my entire career.
And when the resolution was passed in 2016, all of these conversations were had in our department and the plans to grow paramedics and all of these things have been tried.
We're in over by administrations and we are still here having the same conversation with a much busier system with the same staffing challenges with my paramedic workforce struggling to with burnout on the rescue and not having that ability.
So thank you, Chief.
I know you're going to end up having a lot more questions, so I'm going to stop you there so that we can keep moving on as well.
Miss Keith, and then we're going to come to councilors.
Thank you, council president. I just want to make a few preliminary comments first.
One is that I will not speak to any issue related to the PPCs that we're filed today when there is an action by the administration against a counselor.
I will not be involved.
Number two, I cannot speak to any issue related to the policy question before this council related to who has the better proposal for a staffing arrangement for apparatus.
And there's number three, I did want to make clear, you know, any member of council can request my opinion on any question and that has happened in the past and I have given that opinion without consultation with with with the administration.
This resolution came in at five o'clock on Friday the administration asked for my analysis and I gave them my analysis and I raised three issues.
Number one is is separation of powers and as Dr. single pointed out when you see who watched the video from 2016 when the first version of this resolution was introduced.
CAO Perry said this is an obvious separation of powers question because staffing is and generally speaking an executive function and our charter and general principles of separation of power assigned executive functions to the administration.
Now that's not to say there's not this is a question I'm not I'm not saying I can answer this question definitively here today.
If these proceedings go further you know ultimately somebody may have to decide this question and what they'll balance is the administration's right to determine staffing versus the council's right to legislate on safety.
But generally speaking again most cases have said that staffing belongs to the executive and that in particular.
This isn't a question of staffing levels but of the arrangement and placement and dispersion of staffing which generally go to the executive branch.
So get I can't answer this question specifically that will probably have to be done at some point in time those are the things that they will have to balance but there is authority out there to say that this belongs to the administration.
The second issue relates to the fact that there is a current ordinance and that ordinance gives the right to determine staffing to the chief administrative officer and this resolution seems to attempt to override or.
For revenge that ordinance but it's a resolution and it's not an amendment to the merit service ordinance and I'm not sure that's this is really the appropriate way for the if the council wants to now reserve for itself.
Some questions regarding staffing because it thinks there's relate to safety the better approaches to amend the merit system ordinance to specify that.
And then finally these are rights that management bargained for and and I.
I was just wanted to flag that for the council that this is a new new CBA it was signed in July and management specifically bargain for the right to make.
Assignments and locations and that was bargained for in exchange for pay increases and so this resolution would effectively take away rights that management just bargained for.
And so I think it's a and I'm not sure there's a specific rule of law that says the council can't step in and take away rights that were bargained for by management or the union.
I just think the council should think about whether that's what it wants to do.
Thank you council Lewis.
I mean all these are differences differences of opinions even even difference of legal opinion.
Miss keep you gave your opinion your legal opinion.
I think if I would ask you about section eight council powers the council should have the power to adopt all ordinances resolutions or other legislation conducive to the welfare of the people of the city.
I think there's a legal opinion regarding that the council does have that ability has on many occasions.
I'm going to apply that to staffing issues and ordinances that this council votes on so again legal opinion I think if I asked Mr. Marrow or any other.
Attorney to look at it in that light I think we'd probably have different opinions in that regard.
I'm still talking.
So you know I think that's I think that's pretty clear but let me let me ask ask the chief.
And let me say this too that I've had conversations about this with multiple chiefs over the years conversations with many firefighters over the years about it.
I think that the first time I really heard and just like I think you know you could say that and the firepires might be able to say it was sprung on them with a few days notice or you know we could say that may Tuesday the memo that you gave us.
I guess really brought to light you know that this was the direction you were going with this change.
You know we could characterize that as spring it at honest but I didn't go to the media and I didn't I didn't call a press conference as you did.
Somehow you know complaining about that you know.
But but you did give me a call I called you back but at the same time you know you called a press conference before that and and.
And I also say too that I've heard from a lot of firefighters we've heard from a lot of firefighters tonight medics.
I haven't heard from any of them that have been of support of some of these changes.
The ones that I did hear from were some emails that you know you're your deputy chief sent out some emails calling us reckless that this council was reckless for considering this.
And then you know I got some emails from people that were regurgitating and repeating some of that some of that email and so.
But I also didn't respond to some of those things I didn't you know respond in ways that it'd be appropriate time and I really wanted to honor our firefighters and honor.
The people who just see it differently see a different matter opinion and honor them tonight by being able to you know for this council to weigh in honor our union honor our firefighters to be able to say.
We could we could we could make a decision on this tonight help but this rather than just letting it go in the decision would be made for them.
Because that's what will happen if we you know if we don't.
You know in act this this legislation tonight this bill.
But chief would you would you say that it's ideal is an ideal to have.
Two medics on a rescue.
Madam President would would I be able to let.
Miss Keith miss Keith miss Keith I'm going to come back to miss Keith when you're done answering this and then we're going to move on.
Thank you.
Madam President Councillor Lewis I want to start out since the resolution was brought up before that question.
The resolution from 2016 in section four also states that should the chief make operational changes.
That the resolution of modification to the resolution would include conferring with the fire chief with the administration and with the council.
I found out about this resolution at 430 on Friday night.
Did not have any time to to get ready for that.
I I did I did have a courtesy phone call to Councillor Lewis and take Councillor Baca.
My phone my phone call was not returned till the next day and I didn't miss the phone call.
It was the next day.
I call about an hour later.
And please let me finish and please finish and then I want you to answer his question please.
And the issue that I had with this is that I I was not called before a resolution with staffing to answer the question.
And I've also actually brought our medical director who is the expert because she's a physician an emergency room physician that dictates all of our operations and our licensure and.
As as our medical director we all work under her license.
Any time we have any type of training whether it's paramedics whether it's intermediates.
I believe she's answering this though is if I'm correct you're answering if you think that it's ideal for two medics to be on the rescue.
Madam President Councillor Lewis yes this is not just the yes or no question there's context and I would appreciate not being interrupted while I'm finishing.
Please I don't if we can just answer the question I appreciate I understand there's context but we have to be able to get through this and I know that we can't I mean we can be here back and forth all night but we all need information and I do think that Chief is trying to answer the question.
Madam President Councillor Lewis.
Any time we have firefighters with higher levels of training that is providing a better service.
How we distribute those firefighters is where we get creative where we look at our system and we look at how can we best respond to what we are seeing in Albuquerque.
This is Albuquerque that will still have two paramedics on a rescue under this plan because that is what that district needs so yes in some areas.
We have determined that that staffing level is important there's other areas that we have researched are better under this model where there's a paramedic on each apparatus and so it's dependent on the area.
But I will agree that any time we have people with higher licensure that's better you can't dispute that thank you Chief.
Madam President I mean Chief you said that it's ideal it is ideal or to have two medics on a rescue.
Did you not say it's ideal to have two minutes on rescue I mean I think that was one quote that I heard from you in the paper.
President Councilor Lewis I did not say I don't know what quote you're talking about I did not just say that now.
Also Lewis.
Is it ideal to have two to rescue is on a two medics on a rescue.
Okay I think that Chief answered to the best of her ability it seems.
Okay Madam President that might not be what we want to hear.
Chief were you.
Were you on the negotiating team for the CBA.
Madam President Councillor Lewis I know I was not on the negotiating team and missing over you on that negotiating team.
Madam President Councillor Lewis know I was not.
Do you all know if splitting rescues was ever negotiated into the CBA.
Madam President Councillor Lewis splitting rescues was not negotiated into the CBA what was negotiated.
Was language for the fire chief to be able to use available paramedics and intermediates.
As needed for the for the operations of our department as well as my management right to make staffing determination.
Okay but I do think because it wasn't for here tonight that that somehow splitting rescues was negotiated in the CBA.
Just my understanding is it just was not and I think it's misleading to say it.
By saying you have the right to make operational changes but to somehow say that applies to a pretty major staffing.
Chains like that that has to do with other things that would need to be negotiated within that CBA as well.
I guess I just have to correct you I mean I did call you back the hour later and you acknowledge that you acknowledge that you didn't get that message.
You acknowledge it in email you said I did get your message and hour later but when you called me and you also know that you scheduled press conference before that before you ever reached out to me on that you know so.
And a lot of misleading things in that press conference and lot of misleading things that were sent out by your staff.
Regarding the council's involvement in this so but again I I refrained from engaging with that in that in the media because I think I wanted to give you know to really honor the firefighters and already those to have different opinions and I think this is certainly the best form for it.
Some.
I do want to mention the complaint.
Everybody in those negotiating table has the ability to.
It's offered to make a complaint before the labor management relationship board, relations board, and that's certainly the right of the administration. So to name the union chief, as well as councilor Baca and I, I guess that's your right. Go ahead and do that. I mean, that was done. I mean, that's, again, I guess that's for the labor management board to work out along with negotiations that you all would have in that regard. It definitely was used as a threat against us.
You know, as the sponsors of the bill, that you know, hey, we're going to name you in this, this, this, this labor complaint. So, but I guess that's how it goes as well. And I guess it, you know, it'll end up on that board and you guys can, you know, work it out in that regard.
It mentioned our 1641, and there was a lot of conversations regarding, you know, in 2016, but, but also say that that issue is related to staffing to equipment, to structure of the department.
All those, all those things were revealed in that resolution. All those things were weighed in by this council, part of that ordinance.
And so again, to somehow say that this is now, and by the way, there might have been insinuations that there was a separation of powers and some of that, but, you know, that was never decided upon.
I mean, again, those are differing opinions in that regard. And yet, you know, the current staffing, you know, right now is something that was, you know, I mean, approved by this council. And so again, I think those are arguments that are more of just.
You know, I would rather spend time, you know, talking about the true, you know, changes are the true, you know, different thing of opinions and some, I guess, some facts to back it up rather than some of these things just have to do with, you know, the council's ability to weigh in on this, but.
For now, Madam President, let's move on to the council's asking questions.
Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I want to go to misceive to respond to the earlier and then to be fair. I want President to have a moment to be able to speak a little bit as well.
Thank you, Councillor President. I have said, I do do think there is an argument here that this is within council's right to regulate safety, and that this will be an issue to be decided. But the councilor's quotation of section eight was incomplete and I think somewhat misleading.
In that section eight says the council shall have the power to adopt all ordinances, resolutions or other legislation can do so to the welfare of the people of the city and not inconsistent with this charter and the council shall not perform any executive functions, except those functions assigned to the council by this charter.
Thank you, Miss Keith.
President Timon, if you want to take a few hundred minutes, just teasing these, I know this is very serious, but please have your moment to be able to have an equal share of time.
Sure, I think a lot of a lot of things have been said.
And I think we all want the same thing, which is to provide the best service to the capacity to your constituents and the services.
The spirit of negotiations, because that's been brought up by Dr. Shingol and the director of Farchef.
We have always agreed with ALS expansion.
ALS expansion under the auspice that we can continue to maintain two paramedics on rest use and be able to expand with a paramedic fire fodder on the engine.
In our contract, we cannot even do that until July 1st of this year.
We can use paramedic firefighters and we can use paramedic captains, but we can't do it until July.
So it's a great determine and split all 20 rescue to me is bargaining in bad faith, because we never agreed like the council said to split in the rescue and contract.
Just language.
Thank you, Mr. Timon.
Going to, I'm going to, let's see, Rogers was next, but she's not here. I'm going to go to council.
Thank you, Madam President.
This is for chief army ho.
Harham, you hope.
Have you worked with the union on any of these issues that were brought up today regarding paramedics and staffing?
Madam President, Councilor Grout.
Yes, yes, we have.
We actually do have a paper and the contract that goes all the way up to paramedics.
It says rescue paramedics captains in the in the current language and then any position that we designate as a paramedic position does come with the pay with pay.
So I want to clarify that any paramedic that is working in the capacity of a paramedic is getting paid in those positions.
We, you know, I, I also along with that, just want to say appreciate the engagement from our firefighters tonight that we have so many people that are here.
I know it was mentioned there is nobody here speaking.
The other side and one of the things about when and I was in the union before I promoted as well when the union organizes there is a common message that is shared.
Every heart if somebody doesn't have sure that common message you have to go to a union needing to express that that the sending opinion.
This wouldn't be the appropriate place with our union standing behind me organized for anyone to come up and express the dissenting opinion.
So I do hope that if any of our firefighters did reach out to you it sounds like some of them may have reached out that you do listen to anything that might come through via email.
We, it came up that I'm refusing to give labor as seat at the table or or or talk with labor.
I believe that's a misrepresentation and disingenuous.
We have had lots of conversations both at labor management on the record off the record.
When the ask is for me to give away a management right to staffing.
It's hard for me to agree with that and so there's a sticking point and maybe a point of interpretation is that me refusing to talk.
The flavor or is that me refusing to give away a right to staff the department.
But as far as input and I've been part of the administration for a while.
I've always taken feedback and worked with our union and with our firefighters.
I was a group.
Thank you madam president I have a couple more questions.
And I think you have agreed with that.
Why would you want to move away from that?
I would like to actually have our medical director talks a little bit as our expert about the benefits of what we're trying to do because they think I've already articulated some of the reasons that I was like to.
To do this so I would like to call our medical director doctor Kimberly Pruitt up to speak to a little bit more of the benefits of what we're trying to do.
Dr. Pruitt can you go ahead and help answer assist with answering counts across question.
Yes ma'am madam president council.
Thank you for this opportunity.
I just want to start by saying that I'm so proud of the work that everyone in the department does we focus a lot on parlorics but I don't want to diminish the work that our intermediates and our basics do as well.
Everyone works is a really good team and I think they do a good job changes hard and it can be a little scary.
And everyone here wants to do the basic hand for patients including administration I've watched these conversations unfold for since even before October and.
First and foremost and everyone's mind has been what's best for the community what's best for patients.
We're going to do this safely but also staff are trucks with ever increasing call volume and ever increasing.
Accuity and transport so we're doing to knowing that those rescues before when you have the luxury of having.
Two paramedics there they're going to be leaving that district taking a patient to the hospital leaving that district without that coverage for a while with both of them on the same apparatus.
And so.
To your question is it safe can it be done.
The way paramedics are trained is with the expectation that they will operate independently.
If this is a luxury I don't know of any documentation that it's necessarily the gold standard I don't think that's been defined anywhere in any literature.
Is it nice to have yes is it the way it's been yes but the way that these folks are trained and I train them I teach them every Thursday.
The expectation when they take their tests for their license the expectation when I sit across from the table with them and give them scenarios to make sure they're safe to operate in the community and give them a patch.
That that is a loan that's that's leading a team the role of a paramedic is leading a team directing a team directing patient care coaching mentoring and it's nice to have a partner there when you're when you're faced with a life or death situation.
It's nice to have a peer there that has the same level of training.
But the expectation is they can handle that themselves now with this model with.
Any high acute call like like the chief had said any high acute call going shot stabbing cardiac arrest any severe shortness of breath unconscious all of those calls still have.
Two paramedics arriving on that scene.
No no care is diminished the they're literally just arriving on a different.
And in addition to that and in our city.
With Albuquerque ambulance on seeing sometimes we have a third paramedic and many of the acute calls we get you have a supervisor too.
So you're looking at four or five paramedics sometimes paramedics that's not even counting the extra hands on scene so.
It's not it's not going to diminish care there still will be two paramedics on critical calls and honestly what this will do by by spreading out that higher level of care.
Not they're to the lower if you would he calls actually like let's say somebody has a broken ankle or even a fender vendor.
What take the broken ankle right now the apparatus that responds is an engine and sometimes they don't carry narcotics so they don't have that higher level of care because they don't have a paramedic and with this expansion.
Having an engine that brings a paramedic to that scene to the lower acute calls we can actually provide.
That extra extra level of patient care.
Thank you doctor.
Thank you just a couple more.
What will the effects of.
At the fire department if this resolution passes what will the effects be.
Madam president counselor grow there's several effects some of them that we currently already seeing that we're trying to fix and some other effects that I have concerns about especially as I kind of dug into.
Some of the opinion that is come out since this resolution was in was published on Friday.
So there is a lot of consequences related to just changing that one word paramedics it really hamstrings our organization in a lot of ways just this weekend.
We had challenges to try to staff a rescue there was not enough time a paramedics signed up for over time and and so we had a vacant paramedic slot on one of our rescues this is pretty common occurrence.
And so what we do is we move our basic over to to work as the partner on that rescue so that we maintain that minimum of to staffing my concern.
If this resolution passes and I'm bound by having to paramedics on every rescue that when I don't have enough paramedics signed up for over time that our force hiring will increase.
Meaning that paramedics are going to carry the bulk of this burden where I have a little bit more flexibility because a lot more firefighters and our department right now are.
Basics and so I can move somebody over to keep that unit on service.
And a lot of this is all going to circle back to my concern about burnout with with our paramedics side of of the department.
Going through all of the releases I saw quote from our previous fire chief Paul Dow that was used in the unions press release in 2019 he actually dropped our in house paramedic program where we were able to train.
Paramedics at the AFR Academy we were able to control the numbers of paramedics that we were we had a lot more control.
I it was it was against my recommendation I tried to keep that program in house I knew the value of that my team I was the EMS deputy chief at the time knew the value of keeping that program.
It's been a challenge to train and I appreciate the AFF is also sitting on the Joe it's I don't want to get too much into it but it's a it's a way for us to to work together to get more paramedics but I'm worried about.
An effect of recruitment internally if my only pass in this department is to stay on that rescue we have without having the numbers we can't grow the numbers on the engine and so now all of these paramedics are.
I think that's the best you and they're only pathway off his promotion and for some that creates a loss of job satisfaction and burn out and lastly my one of my main concerns from reading through the literature.
I've seen I've seen through press releases released by labor it really seems to paint our rescues that they only serve a medical role we are fire base EMS our firefighters on the rest use also have.
fire ground responsibilities and I'm very concerned about the language that I'm seeing that makes it look like there's an intro.
Justice in us being a single-roll transport entity, which means the MS staff are not also working
as firefighters. I keep seeing the keybress use available for medical calls. Every fire
trust takes medical calls. Our ladders are squads. They all take medical calls. And all of
this just goes back to, I would just like to be a part of the conversation, our staffing, our
operations is so complex. If this goes through, it's going to really hamstring us, and I'm really
worried about paramedic burnout, and just all the other implications of having a resolution go
through that I was not a part of the conversation. Thank you, Chief Kelsergraders. Thank you, Madam President.
Chief, just like you wanted to put on this resolution, your team wanted to put on this change. I spent
the afternoon at firefighter fire stations. I went to a station that's currently running this way,
and stations that were not. I'm open the door. Others did not. I want to start by saying,
having a little bit of knowledge as an EMT basic in this role, my grandfather being the state fire
marshal, having a lot of fire family, this topic is near and dear to my heart specifically.
You, and just to jog your memory, Albuquerque Journal article on March 1st, you're quoted as saying,
quote, Hottamiel said, while it's ideal, it's not necessary to have two paramedics on the rescue unit.
So do you recall that now? Madam President, Councilor Rajas, that sounds more like what
something I would have said. Okay, so can you tell me why we're making this change? Because we've
had conversations on this diet about atypical staffing and response times. And you've over and over and
over and over said that we are, I won't use the words called standard, but we are absolutely meeting
those metrics and exceeding those metrics. So I'm just curious why, if it's ideal, why the change now?
Madam President, Councilor Rajas, the discussion about atypical apparatus in here was related to
our engines, three Matt, three personnel on the engine. The discussion in here was never surrounding our
paramedics staffing on the rescue. And so I just want to make sure, like, just a kind of clear up,
that the discussions that we had here, when I was reporting that information with our monthly reports,
that should hopefully be coming back soon, it was related to the atypical engine. Okay.
To your other question on the benefit, especially, especially in our busier districts that may have higher
transports, I'm really trying to do a couple of things here. I'm trying to take what we have,
which is a very precious resource, and divided up so that we can expand that response. And what I've
seen, since we started this two years ago, is that some of our firefighters that are participating
have had that increase in job satisfaction, but some of our firefighters, they don't have to think
that if they go to paramedics school early in their career that they're going to be stuck on the rescue.
They're seeing that light at the end of the tunnel that there's a way to rotate off. So we're kind of
solving for a couple of issues at the same time, rather than just staying in this revolving
issue that we've had for the past 20 years. And so I see those as being two of the main benefits,
and I think if we work on them in tandem, then we do build up that paramedics staffing and we are
able to build up more intermediate, and then we grow it from there. But if we continue to hamstring
rescues, I'm sorry, paramedics into the rescue division, I think that in five, 10 years,
it's very likely that we'll still be having this conversation, because paramedics are very hard to
recruit, and they're very, very hard to train, especially when people don't want to go to paramedics school.
I think I just want to separate the two issues. The paramedic pay structure has nothing to do with
your staffing of how you utilize those resources. I think for the first time, because we've changed
that pay structure, which doesn't start until July 1st, by the way. Now you have, is it true that you
had to turn away people from being in medics school now, because you had so many people say I want to be
a medic, because the pay structure was fixed, seeing a lot of nodding for my government. Madam President,
so Madam President, Councilor Rogers, I'm sorry to cut you off. So we were forcing paramedics into,
sorry, firefighters into paramedic school all the way up till about two years ago.
And I've been in the EMS division since my whole career, but in that leadership position, I was there
having to force these probationary firefighters to go all the way up till two years ago.
That is when we implemented the pilot. And that year, I can get those numbers because we have them
on record with our training division. But in 2023, when we implemented the staffing changes,
at those two stations, one of our highest years of interest in paramedic school. This contract was passed
in July, and we just opened up for a one program for the Santa Fe program. I think last week. So
I don't know what the effects of this new contract will be. I can only talk about the effects that we saw
after we made those two changes in 2023. Thank you, Madam President. So you're saying that this last
class, you did not have to turn away people from paramedic school, because I heard that loud and clear
from folks who wanted to go and who could not go. And that in person, the Council of Rogers, that's
correct. And that was after the operational changes, not after the contract. Okay.
A couple more questions, Madam President. So you talked a lot about your managerial rates.
Did, and I think because you weren't in the bargaining in our CAO within the bargaining, I want to ask
President Tipman this question, if I could. You were a part of the negotiations?
Councillor Rogers, I was not. You were not. Okay. So that's harder for me to ask the question of who
was the negotiations. But to your knowledge, who was, who was the negotiations that can answer a
question about that? Come on up, please. Thank you. This is a key question for me.
Councillor Rogers, there's, it, here, potentially one, I'm going to assume, from both sides of
this. So I think that it would be there to hear an answer from both. Sure. So both of you were involved.
Thank you, Madam President, in negotiations for this issue, for this last contract negotiation,
Madam President and Councillor Rogers. Thank you. During those negotiations, did,
did you make it clear that you were going to make this big of an operational change when we were negotiating
for your managerial rates? Madam President and Councillor Rogers, that was not discussed as far as
a change like that. Okay. Okay. Okay. No, that's perfect. That's perfect. Mr. Brigadierotti,
did you have knowledge during negotiations that this change was coming and that you had just given
away your rates to negotiate on this particular issue? Madam President, Councillor Rogers, no,
had we been aware of that? I don't think we would. In, in all due fairness, if you're not going to let
him add on to his last part of the comment, I don't think it's fair to continue adding on on both sides.
So, you want to just simply yes or no, I think it would be fair to keep it fair on both sides. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you.
Can I? Councillor Rogers. Thank you. Chief, how many empty basics do we have in the department right now?
Madam President, Councillor Rogers, I do not have that number in front of me. I have that number in my computer,
but I don't like, I can have my identity chiefs of operations like that number. Perfect. Let's look up
EMT basics, intermediates, and medics because I'm just interested in what it looks like as far as
our, because the point I'm trying to make, and then we'll just get straight to the point. We are talking
about a shortage of medics. And I just need to see the numbers to look to see if that's, we actually
have a shortage. They think we're making changes to meet a shortage that we may not necessarily always
have. The last question that I have, so you just had a most recent bid. If this changes,
what happens to that bid? Madam President, Councillor Rogers, I haven't had time to look into that
because I haven't witnessed the resolution being dropped so quickly, so I don't have an answer,
but that's something that we will obviously be exploring. Do you think you'd have Madam President, do you think
you'd have to go back to a bidding process based on your structures for medics being split? I would
imagine that's why you'd set up the bid. Madam President, Councillor Rogers, in our bid process memo,
I have complete authority over any staffing decision, so I don't know if we would have to go back to
the bid. I'll need some time to answer that question. Thank you, Madam President. Before we move on,
do you see, Molyette, did you have those or are we going to circle back in a little bit?
Yes, Councillor President, and Councillor members. As of today, we have 341 EMT basics in the
department. We have 31 intermediates, and we have 161 paramedics who are assigned to the field,
which includes our captains. Thank you, Madam President, so that's a shortage.
So, that's not a problem. And Councillor Rogers, when you look at, when you have to count our
vacations, sickly, PLF, definitely, different times our firefighters are off. Typically, we need to also
backfill those. So, when you look at having a number of 141 that we need, the projections that we have,
that we need to maintain our staffing is 187 on a daily basis. And also just to note, I included that's
all of our captains. We're not currently utilizing all of our paramedic captains because we've
used them in our specialty divisions. Oh, that. Thank you, Madam President. That brings up another
question. Councillor Rogers. Okay, so in this new, in this new setup and what captains have to go back to
the rescue?
Chair of Council President, Councillor Rogers. In the new setup, it would, there may be some challenges
with how that staffing would unfold, and how we would have to account for backfill that are very
concerning to me, which is, again, why we would just like to have time to discuss before something
one word change, because we might have to look at all paramedics from the rank of captain and
below to account for the needs we have. We also, over 40 paramedics eligible to retire by the end of
the year, will they, they will not. Like, we will not have 40 paramedics retire, but it is another
staffing concern that I have. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Madam President, so that brings me to
another question. So many layers here. And I think, because I understand the layers, like,
I know we're getting more and the weeds than I think you wanted to, but this is important for my vote to
decide. Given that, what's the process for folks to test off the rescue? So they've gone through,
and they don't want to be on the rescue anymore, and to be fair, I did go to a station that's currently
running this way, and they did like it. The people that are doing this pilot, I heard from them,
the things that they just to be balanced here, and the voice of reason, hopefully. They liked the ability
to be cross-trained, and that they could get experience on all three different trucks that they had
opportunity to work on. And for me, that is, that was the biggest thing that I heard from them,
but what I heard loud and clear was they also wanted more of a say in speaking to their fellow
firefighters about what this felt like, what it was like for them, and they didn't feel like they had that opportunity.
So I just want to ask of the folks in the audience how many of you were able to attend one of
Chief's meetings about and give your input, special hands. Okay, thank you.
All right, Councillor Champagne. Thank you, Madam President. Miss Keith, just in your opinion,
real quick, I know that I wasn't here in 2016, and this was presented. This is being presented as an
amendment tonight, and it's being mentioned that it's an over step of boundaries from this council.
How was this different, how was this an over step of boundaries now when 2016 was it?
Now, if Councillor President, Councillor Champagne, if you watched the video from 2016,
CAO Perry clearly states that he believes that it was an over step, but that he is not going to make an
objection because he and the fire chief negotiated with the union over the terms of R-1641 and agreed to
them in advance. And so they, and functionally, what R-1641 was doing was memorializing the staffing levels that
were in place. And in fact, R-1641 was amended to take out the word paramedic because the union and the
administration were still negotiating over paramedics at the time and they recognized that it
would not be proper to have a resolution that spoke to a topic that was under negotiation at the time.
So, that's the context if you watched the video that they had, they had negotiated agreement in advance
of the council meeting and then agreed to vote for the resolution. Councillor Champagne?
Thank you, Madam President. Chief, you had mentioned something that a paramedic added to a rescue,
I'm sorry, a paramedic.
And then I added to you, it said, paramedic, on an engine, that engine would be able to respond quicker. How is that so?
Councillor Bassan, I'm sorry, Madam President, Councillor Shaman. The engine cannot respond any quicker with a paramedic on it.
So I appreciate that question, so I can clarify. What that means is that if that district, if the rescue is out on a transport, if they're out on another call,
that leaves that district with just that engine to respond. And having a paramedic on that engine means that you can get a paramedic to that scene quicker,
because the way that we use our dispatch is we might be sending out of district rescues with paramedics to that district to run the call, but we'll send that in district.
Engine, if it's a critical call to start stabilizing that patient until the rescue can get there. So we can get a paramedic there quicker, but it doesn't make the engine magically get there any faster.
Okay, Madam President, how often do you cross dispatch out of district?
Madam President, Councillor Shaman, it's fairly frequent in certain areas of Albuquerque, especially our Southeast area.
There's pretty frequent cross dispatching or response into other districts that's something that's actually a data set that we could pull and provide with our CAD system to show how often that is happening.
But it's fairly regular in parts of the city, and then other parts of the city are have different challenges, so some of our west side stations have a little bit of a different challenge, because they're a little bit more like our Southeast stations are really close together.
Our west side stations are a little further apart, and so it, when we do cross dispatching to that district, it might take a while to get that provider into that district.
And so, another benefit of having that advanced person on the engine.
Madam President, so Chief ideally, if you separate and you put two paramedic on the engine and paramedic on the rescue,
is my understanding that the, now the paramedic can tend if they have to transport, they can attend to the person, and the lower basic person, I don't know what the term is, basic can drive.
Madam correct, is that ideally what you're trying to accomplish in some extent.
Madam President, Councillor Champagne, that is correct in generally if there's two people on the rescue and they're transporting and they're not asking for a writer from the other truck.
The driver would drive and then the officer or the paramedic would be in the back, so in the instance that it's an EMT basic working with a paramedic.
The EMT basic is driving.
The other paramedic is in the back.
Now, if that rescue is transporting in a dual medic and there's nobody else jumping into assist.
We have a paramedic driving and then we have a paramedic in the back, tending to the patient.
Madam President, we just recall it months ago.
We started charging back when we transport the medicare, is that correct?
How much do we charge each time AFR has to transport?
Madam President, Councillor Champagne, we respond.
Sorry, we bill off of the state tariff.
Medicated reimbursement right now for a transport.
I believe it's about what we recoup is about.
I would have to get that number.
I also have that.
I had it for the medicade questions.
But we do bill for transport and then.
Okay.
Madam President, how much do we annually since we started billing?
Since we started reimbursing us or getting the money back, how much have we got back?
Madam President, Councillor Champagne, I have those numbers.
They don't have them in front of me and they fluctuate based on the demands of the system.
So they were really high.
Then we went through a year where they dropped and then this is really busy.
So we're high again.
But I can provide you with that.
You know that it fluctuates.
So would give me a guest in it then, please.
Okay.
Madam President, Councillor Champagne.
So looking at this break down here in FY22.
We had 2,731 transports and we received 648,000.
And then I'll just bring us to FY24.
We had 2,139 transports.
And that was 875,000 in reimbursement.
And then FY25 total payments received for 2,100 transports is.
372 right now.
Okay.
Just a few more madam President, if you don't mind.
So it's safe to say that if you're able to transport more, we're able to build more and it could generate more money.
Correct.
Madam President, Councillor Champagne.
Yes.
But as the primary response agency for the city, we really value our partnership with Albuquerque ambulance to try to keep fire resources in district.
And not because as we transport, then we're pulling the fire resources out of our district.
And so we really tried to work with Albuquerque ambulance to transport mainly based off of the needs of the system.
But not to generate revenue because then an entire district could be stripped of our services.
And we're a two tiered system, which I don't want to get into the weeds because I could talk to you for hours about that.
And I recall, I mean, rescue would wait, you know, they would, unless it was a category one rescue would wait for Albuquerque ambulance to show up 15, 20 minutes at a time.
I recall.
What's the policy right now as far as Madam Chair, what's the Madam President?
You have a policy right now that it's minimum staffing levels.
How does this change that policy if you're able to implement this?
No.
Madam Chair, Councillor Champagne.
We have several policies that will need to be changed and one of which would be the minimum levels on the rescue.
It would stay two firefighters.
We cannot operate or rescue without two firefighters on it so that that will stay the same.
But the levels of licensure for minimum requirements could change where we don't consider not having two paramedics as as an atypical rescue.
And Madam President, you currently have over time available for rescue is obviously to fill in spots and are paramedics for fill in spots and so how much is that over time budget anywhere.
Madam President, Councillor Champagne, are over time budget looking at my.
Is what we're budgeted for.
Our over time is very hard to explain, but we're budget if anybody has never looked at our.
Our over time and break down, but anywhere for one, one to two million is what we're budgeted for for over.
And by Madam President by splitting this up, that would reduce that to some extent, you wouldn't.
You can manipulate the manning levels a little better so that that isn't used as much correct.
Madam President, Councillor Champagne.
We would still backfill paramedics with paramedics and so it would it would not make a huge impact on our over time because the the paramedics that is moved to the engine.
We would still backfill that paramedic sorry we still yes we still backfill that paramedic with the paramedic.
Thank you Madam President.
Thank you Madam President. Thank you everybody. I know this is a long discussion.
I have to admit I have absolutely no knowledge of staffing and I until Friday night when I saw this proposal.
Didn't know that I needed to know about staffing at AFR.
So please forgive the basic questions, but I'm trying to learn.
Since we were apparently going to vote on this when I learned about this on Friday night.
So we heard earlier that paramedics are dropping their certificates because of this change.
Is that true? Have you seen folks that are saying I don't want to keep this certification?
Madam President, Councillor.
We have had paramedics drop their licenses in the past a few years and it's a difficult process depending on your your rank and the department.
But we have had some paramedics drop their licenses.
Thank you.
And you said that you've had two stations that were already using this this model.
Have you and I know that you said that there hadn't been any grievances filed about that.
But I think for me what's more important is have you seen any data that suggest that people are dying more often that there are more.
You know impacts on the people of Albuquerque rather than impacts on staff.
Madam President, Councillor.
We have looked at our response in those two areas and we do not have any trends that in either of those districts that people are dying at higher rates.
Thank you for that Madam President and then the changing the policy that would change on this weekend on the eighth.
You said there before more stations. How are those four stations chosen?
Madam President, Councillor.
Yes.
When the staffing changes would go into effect it would be March 8 with the with the with the with the with the with the paid period and the four stations that we selected with this model.
We're selected using a combination of factors one of which was their level of of higher acuity calls.
So the second was their amounts of transports.
And then we also factored in slightly factored in a transport time to the hospital into the selection of these four.
Thank you Madam President and the rest of the stations would remain with the two paramedic model for the foreseeable future council president.
Councillor.
Yes, the rest of the stations not including these six because the other two stations will remain in this model.
So the rest of our stations are the rest of our 22 stations would remain with the model with two paramedics on the rescue.
Thank you, Madam President, couple more questions.
So why don't we just hire more paramedics and solve this problem.
Madam Chair, Councillor Feeble.
That's the million dollar question.
We have a signing bonus for paramedics to come.
We're lucky if we get one to that that make it through to our academy.
We really rely on internal recruitment for our paramedic program.
And it can be a struggle when you see all the issues that go into our staffing and our operations.
It can be a struggle to recruit.
And so we are working with the colleges, like we said, the IFF and us are sitting on a committee with the Joe to work on more opportunities to train paramedics.
But we also have to make sure that there's job satisfaction for our paramedics.
Whether they prefer working in the dual model or for our paramedics that are very excited that they've been able to bid over into a position on the engine.
Thank you, Madam President.
So I would say that I got about half of the emails I got today were against this change and the other half were I want this change.
So I'm very confused.
Why is it so hard to hire paramedics? Is there some culture change that needs to happen? Do we need to pay more? Do we need.
What else needs to happen?
Madam President, Councillor Teebelkorn, there is there is an interesting culture in our department around our rescues as a as a lifelong paramedic.
We've been called nurses. We've been, you know, it's in our in our firefighter culture. The rescue has an incredibly important role on the fire ground.
They're generally the ones that go in and do search for victims.
But you're not writing on the engine. You're not getting that time on the ladder. The big fire trucks.
And so, so I think there's firefighters that say other departments where they are utilizing firefighters on other trucks.
And in this day, in age where we have more competitive neighboring departments with recruitment. We're really kind of all competing for that very precious resource in those paramedics.
And so this a big part of this change and probably why you saw divided emails. Is it is a very divided issue?
Depending on if you talk to the paramedic that has two years on the job. If you talk to the paramedic that is 24 years on the job.
I have that opportunity to work in other divisions or have they then trying I keep denying certain individuals positions in our training divisions because their paramedics.
And I can't allow them the opportunity to have some lateral flexibility into other positions in our department and their current rank.
They can only promote off of that truck. And so I think there's a lot of culture issues there that is probably why you saw those divided emails.
From our firefighters. Thank you, Madam President. And so can you just walk me through how this is supposed to happen.
These types of changes are supposed to be negotiated when council is not involved. Because I've never been involved one of these have been here for over three years.
I would be happy to never be involved in another one. Can you talk us through what that process is supposed to be?
Madam President, Councillor, we make frequent change in our department. And we try to make change with data based on the needs of our department.
We just moved a battalion chief role into another division. We brought that to labor management. We made sure they understood that we were going to change the role of that battalion chief.
There's a lot of dialogue that goes into any of our changes, data, things like that.
I think my concern here is that I'm not aware of a time that any change in the department in any public safety department in the fire department is being dictated by elected officials.
I think that I'm always open for dialogue. Obviously we have a lot of dialogue tonight. And there's a lot of issues that go into how we make our staffing decisions.
When we get to a point with labor where we just have a disagreement, there's a whole other process in the negotiation process that involves the labor board.
And the labor board has a lot of authority when there's disagreement between what labor is feeling and what management is feeling.
And that is a more effective or a more in my opinion, a more appropriate place to resolve a discrepancy. It's clear it's clear tonight with everybody that has spoken that there's a difference in opinion on communication.
And the labor board is skilled and appropriate to rule on that.
In this, having a resolution that dictates lifelong changes for our department to find out about it on a Friday for immediate action on a Monday without all of this dialogue is very concerning precedent to set as a fire chief.
I think that it's clear we need more dialogue. We want to discuss this resolution. We want to discuss those implications with everybody involved.
It even states that in the current resolution that those discussions should have happened prior to the amendment and they didn't.
And so there is a process I think the labor board is very appropriate, but I also do not want to not point out that we would be willing to discuss the the language in the resolution as it states in the current resolution.
But that we have not had that opportunity.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. One last question. And I'm not sure if this is for chief or for perhaps, Miss Keith. I'm just curious if if this passes.
And we say, you know, the city council is now setting staffing requirements or levels or whatever we want to say.
Does this set of really in my opinion, scary president of if things don't go right in the next.
Negotiation is this now the next stop for every staffing problem that we have in the city of Albuquerque because I truly am not qualified to be voting on this.
I did not I have no knowledge of staffing on any departments.
I did not run for council to be in HR and so I just want to make sure we setting ourselves up to become kind of de facto HR with this type of legislation.
I think the answer to that question goes back to the answer the question that you just asked the chief, which is where is this supposed to go.
There is a procedure or when the union does not agree with management is to how that's dealt with.
There are in-pass procedures they can go to the labor board the labor board can appoint a mediator the later labor board can send them to arbitration but there are ways for the union to get relief.
And I do believe that the terms of the labor management relations ordinance which is an ordinance passed by this council.
The board the labor board is created by this council these impasse procedures are created by this council.
That ordinance also says that that the elected officials are not supposed to get involved in these disputes when they're when they're under negotiation.
I did want to clarify two councilor Rogers point we're not talking about the negotiations that resulted in the CBA last summer there have been negotiation between the chief and the union or management and the union.
On going about this specific issue.
Okay thank you for those questions thank you for all that information have learned a lot tonight thank you Madam President.
Okay so councilor Lewis you did want to say something specifically related to this but I would like to also make sure to keep that as you know you get your turn but some councilors haven't spoken at all and then I'm going to go to that.
Just briefly and I'm not definitely want to hear Madam President from the some of the representatives of the firefighters again tonight you know based on some of the responses.
I do want to say that you know are 1641 included staffing it included staffing of apparatus I mean all throughout it all throughout it I mean so this there is precedence for all of this we're not said any precedence tonight I just want to make sure that that's very clear and everything from.
I mean we want to do things all the time and so there's precedence and by the way to our 1641 was signed by the merit the time as well and so it's kind of hard to make the argument that the administration didn't agree that the council have this ability as well.
because there may have been some some differing of opinions but the mayor ended up signing that resolution that included staffing.
Changes and staff it is staffing and by the way chief that have lifelong those had some like as you said lifelong implications you know so we've done all that we've done that and we have an opportunity to do that tonight.
and by by voting on this resolution tonight by approving this resolution tonight we give you the opportunity to go back and actually get some consensus with the firefighters we do.
If we don't approve this tonight then you have the ability and I think you're going to go ahead and just go ahead and move on.
you know through and make these changes without the consensus of the firefighters and other side so I think you know tonight we're really honoring you know the people that serve us.
that have some differing opinions on on the best way to provide these kind of services so that that's it this present thank you.
Councillor councilor councilor Sanchez.
Thank you Madam President.
Lots of discussion going on here so I have a quick question for the fire chief actually three questions.
First of all you actually said you had two fire stations station two three with one paramedic engine that correct.
Councilor Madam President Councilor Sanchez we have two stations with the the split model with them on the engine and the rescue and then I want to make sure we don't forget about station 10 off your ground but there's only an engine there and they have one paramedic on that engine but I want to make sure we don't forget about them they just don't have a rescue there.
Okay is is a rescue paramedic unit ever dispatched to assist with any of those units.
Madam President and Councilor Sanchez.
Yes there's rescue at those stations and if everybody is tied up then an out of district rescue would respond.
Okay so they do respond to those districts or those stations to help those firefighters that actually might need help if there if there's if they need to.
Madam President Councilor Sanchez yes there's some auto dispatch there and then also any time any of our units request additional assistance.
They're able to get that granted through our dispatch center as well so it there's some auto built in where rescue can assist and then there's also the ability to request.
Okay so there is so there they will get help okay so the next thing you actually mentioned that there was a survey.
Madam President Council.
Madam President Councilor Sanchez.
There was a survey that we released in 2021 I have we there was several questions that were asked before we started even.
Deciding to pilot this I'd be really happy to share the survey results if you I know we tried to connect today and we weren't able to but I'd be really happy to to show you those results I can at a high levels speak that.
Madam President do you have the actual results of the survey do you know what what the breakdown was on that survey that being weren't for us as well.
Madam President Councilor Sanchez this survey was sent to then CAO 3 to Nire in October of 2021 with the proposal for our pilot to start this.
This model at two stations and the survey results I'll just highlight some of them I'd be happy to share the whole survey it's broken died by licensure level.
Here's what are which are which of the following do you feel would motivate members to enroll in paramedic school most.
Our entire department was surveyed 735 responses at that time.
The number one answer with 37% of our department was having the ability to work on all apparatus in the system followed by 33% increased in paramedic pay which we did accomplish.
Followed by 14% monetary incentives for attending paramedic school for current members 14% we do have that we have a bonus and following that is that 15% I would only go to paramedic school if I was forced.
Another relevant question in the survey.
Hold on one second.
In all fairness I don't want to go through the whole survey.
Yeah that's a no.
She can put into us at another time but we're not going to do anything.
What some of the results were but.
Here's the thing that I'm seeing when I've been here.
I'm sitting here listening to everything that's gone on sitting here listening to you sitting here listening to our firefighters and the audience.
What I'm hearing and I'm going to ask you a question at the end of this is I'm hearing things like.
Two paramedics checking and double checking meds.
I'm hearing step backwards.
Well equipped and well maintained transport options.
That means you can transport.
I'm hearing things like.
Deep history service for addition best service in the country gold standard.
I'm hearing things like safety about paramedics.
If you have two or three paramedics on site they prevent mistakes and save each other from costly lawsuits and and things like that.
So if you have a single paramedic and he makes it and he makes a mistake he's not getting any backup or maybe any kind of direction from somebody who might have.
That institutional knowledge.
I'm hearing medical licensure on the line by having backup protecting each other's licenses as they treat individuals.
I'm hearing 90% EMS calls 35 years can run effective unit with only one paramedic deluding the care.
And when you when you hear all these things that we've been hearing in reference to this this it makes it sound to me that.
That the biggest issue that we're dealing with is the safety of our constituents.
The safety of the paramedics.
The safety of other of other public safety individuals when you have a gold standard of care.
Deal with it dealing with experience and have that in institutional knowledge based on a cardiac arrest event.
These these paramedics can confer with each other to provide an excellent care.
I expect this kind of delivery to my fellow brothers and sisters on the police department.
One of the things that we have that the paramedics have that the fire trucks do not have is they have the ability to scoop and go and can carry somebody straight to the hospital immediately.
The fire truck doesn't have a journey and we and we obviously know that.
I really want the best coverage and my district for my family for my constituents.
And even the firefighters are out there delivering that.
And I think that deluding the services is is going to hurt us.
We've seen deluded services on the other side on public safety side and APD.
When I was a police officer at APD in a squad I had 15 officers as a sergeant.
Now these guys are working with five so I have a real big problem when we start deluding services to the public and putting their lives at risk.
And that's what's going on on the other side at least.
You know we're not getting calls for service answers there's not enough police officers there's things that are that are going on that are preventing officers from going to work there.
Right now we want to make sure that they have the best.
The constituents of Albuquerque have the best service that we can get and.
Right now, I think it's really important that we really consider that this issue is about the safety of our constituents.
And so based on that, the last question I have, are your heels stuck in the ground? Are you going to deal with this after hearing all of what we've gone on?
Is there a way that you're going to be able to negotiate with these folks to maybe find a way so that we don't dilute the service so that we have a situation
where these rescues are still providing that gold standard and can maybe protect each other?
You know, as an APD officer, when you call for backup, your backups there to back you up.
If you're on a rescue squad and you don't have that backup, you're going to have an issue.
You know, whether you're providing life saving treatment, how in the world are you going to be able to do that if that other person is not backing you up?
So I think that having backup is extremely important in these situations and again.
I'm just asking, are your heels dug in the sand? Are you going to just continue with this?
Or are you going to help the citizens, the constituents of Albuquerque and reference to their safety?
Because I am hearing that their safety is at risk.
Madam President, Councilor Sanchez.
I actually believe that what we have is a best practice.
I think we're actually delivering a better service with this plan to the constituents.
So I have done extensive research.
We have our county, our counterparts at county who are also represented by this union run single paramedic.
Rescue is actually run a very different system, but the fire chief want to meet a pass along.
What you are proposing has been what we have been operating for as year for years.
And the level of service we provide is no less than what is provided with a two medic rescue.
I hope you're able to convince your counselors and let them and have them let you manage your staffing.
If I took my job and when I took my job, I took it very serious.
It's my job to make sure we provide a good service to the public.
I wouldn't be standing here if I didn't believe that this would provide a better service.
And as busy as we are to be able to have resources on both trucks,
able to take on more of those calls with higher levels of training.
And so it's hard for me to answer that question because I do believe that I'm standing here with a plan that will serve the public.
Better.
Thank you.
I have one more question.
Me working the streets of Albuquerque, time and time again.
Have been involved in situations where I've seen officers get picked up and there's a scoop and go.
Can you scoop and go on a fire truck with a journey?
Is there a journey on a fire truck and can you scoop and go?
Madam President, Councillor Sanchez, no, but if that rescue was not in district and that officer needed to be stabilized until an out of district rescue could show up to scoop them up.
They would have a paramedic immediately available to start to initiate that care because our trucks are not available 100% of the time.
And so what we're trying to do is say if that rescue is tied up and we need to respond to an officer,
then we have that that paramedic on that truck that can start stabilizing until the next district rescue can come in.
I'm sorry Chief, I don't buy that because if any of one of these people were out there dealing with their brothers and sisters,
you'd probably have three or four paramedic units responding to that officer.
Councillors, I'd like to make a motion to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to midnight.
There's a second for Madam Vice President, all those in favor raise your hand and say yes.
Anyone opposed?
That motion passes.
Madam Vice President.
Thank you Madam President, so I have a few questions not for you Chief, but probably our attorneys, I think I'll start with Kevin and then
and Miss Keith, if you can answer the questions as well.
So just a couple of things, you know, I mean we're talking about the separation power, I have the memo from Miss Keith and friend of me.
And so I don't want to get into any of the staffing stuff because yeah, that's above my pay grade, so same thing.
But just to ask that, you know, I just recently met with AFSME and they actually showed me in the contract because they were coming to us,
asking us for pay for this next budget cycle.
And they were asking and saying that they hadn't negotiated in their pay that the administration hadn't negotiated in their pay.
I mean for their pay that they could come negotiate with council.
So I think I mentioned that to CAO, I think I don't know who else has that information on no Kevin, if you have that, but that was negotiated in there.
So when we're talking about separation of powers, I think it really confuses me in terms of, well,
so can we negotiate AFSME or can we, which we have no business doing, so I don't know how that got in there, but they showed me the reference.
I was actually trying to look for the email that had that in there.
So then the second thing is that, you know, we actually set presidents, I think another council said that earlier with R41, whatever was discussed during the meeting, the resolution passed.
So that's what's in the books. And so whether there was different context or what people interpreted it to be or what they were discussing,
at the meeting really doesn't really matter. We have a resolution that's set presidents and that it passed.
And then, so then if this is an ideal way of staffing, then why would we, why would we strike it?
How does the union then renegotiated back in? Because as you all know, with union contracts, it's really hard to negotiate something once you kind of let go of it, right?
And then, so I guess Mr. Marrow, my question is with the separation of power, I'm reading the memo and the memo actually says that it's likely, but this is a difficult question, right?
So really, there's no determination within this memo about separation of powers. It's really, I mean, even Miss Keith, you cite that it should actually probably, if we voted on it, it would go to the IGC or to court, right?
And then when you go to the second issue, it says a conflict with existing ordinances. So here, here again,
I mean, it doesn't really conflict in terms of the resolution that was passed. I mean, so we've already set presidents that we've done this.
I have, I have the mindset that, how can we, I guess here's my question, how can we then have an asked me contract that says that they can come to counsel to negotiate their pay?
And then, yet, here, be questioned about the separation of power when we have set presidents and have passed this resolution in the past.
Okay, and counsel, President Basan and Councillor Paine, yeah.
First, I need to let you know that I have not seen that the asked me bargaining agreement, so I'm not sure if it was negotiated in there.
As you say, that that certainly would provide clear guidance that counsel could make these decisions.
I think that the argument for counsel's participation in this conversation is that counsel is establishing a policy based on the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the city.
There, there has been a previous resolution that is passed. I would agree with Ms. Keith that this is not typical.
It's not typical for city council to be involved in these sorts of things, but there is clearly president that it has happened before, and it is something that would likely,
as a complaint has been filed by the administration against a couple of city counselors and the union president, we can,
with almost certainly know that both the labor management review board will look into this to make it a determination, and then also the Intergovernmental Conference Committee could be made available or and or eventually district court, but this is.
There's not a clear answer, but I also don't think there's any clear prohibition on council's participation in this matter.
So Mr. Marrow, so you know, I mean, we're hearing from.
During the negotiation process that they weren't aware of this staffing that was going to, so I think the union is basically saying that this was negotiated kind of in bad faith, right.
So, I guess.
What we need to do here tonight is either vote, and, and you know, whatever happens happens in terms of what the outcome of the vote is, and then I think it would absolutely go either as Ms. Keith says to quarter to the IG, the IGC.
But the other thing is is, what about just going back and going back into negotiations and figuring out, figuring out how to work this rather than to have a big old drawn out process and and.
And I think I had mentioned that to the CAO before about really going back and talking to the firefighters because I think this is really important and my my.
I would pause to say that I would probably likely support the firefighters in terms of filling that they don't they didn't feel like that they weren't negotiating in bad faith.
So, Miss Keith.
Madam President, Councillor.
You suggested that the IFF believes that management is bargaining in bad faith, and in fact they have asserted that they have filed their own PBC it was filed a month ago taking that very position that management was bargaining in bad faith.
And so I guess I would say that I think that's a decision for the labor board and is already before the labor board.
And that that is a process that the council created where that attention of bad faith goes to the labor board in a labor board decides you know whether whether their management had a sufficient number of meetings whether people had access to meetings and whether they should reopen negotiation on this point.
Madam President, that's all I have now thank you.
I have a couple of questions.
So.
Hold on, I'll get back to you.
I promise I'm circling back, but for those of us that hadn't spoken work finishing.
And you have eventually just wanted to speak to the ask me language if it's possible just because I'm looking at one now.
Okay, go ahead and speak to it. I'm sorry. I can wait if you would go ahead.
Okay, thank you. I have one of the contracts in front of me. I do not know Madam President, Councillor Pena. This is exactly what the language is that you're referencing.
What I have is an under the salary schedule provisions, which is pay provisions. It says the mayor's proposed budget for FY 25 will include the minimum 3.0 increase in the hourly rate of pay.
It is understood by the parties that the implementation of any wage and or benefit increases are subject to city council budget appropriation.
But there shall be no retroactive compensation benefit in the agreement. And so I just want to make a reference that it does also then, I'm sorry, says wages are contingent on the terms of section 3 to 19 of the city's labor management relations ordinance and also approval and appropriation in and for the FY 25 budget by the city council and signature by the mayor.
That is the reference I see related to city council's role, which is of course, I think in almost every one of our contracts to ensure that we obviously don't have appropriating rights.
We proposed there what has been negotiated in the budget that we present.
I'm happy to continue to look for that additional language. I'm not aware of anywhere in which it states that.
So without having it in front of me, what they showed me and gave to me, then I couldn't say whether that was the reference or not. I wish I had it. I was looking at was searching a searching, but I can't find it.
But but part of the reason they came to me with us is because and this was verbally, but they said that the administration told them to come talk to us.
If so this is just what was said, so this is why we're a map right now. Thank you.
Thank you.
Currently we have 22 currently we have 22 fire stations.
2 well 3 2.5ish are working on this non dual paramedic model on rescue apparatus.
You're proposing to add four more to this new model.
What and I know you said it earlier, but where you don't have an intention of adding in the rest of the stations to this model at this time.
I know this is going to be like a big what if, but how long because I mean I would imagine that once this is broached it already has started.
Now we're adding four more eventually you're going to maybe I would imagine add more more and more more and more more.
So when is that going to happen? What does that look like?
How soon can people expect I mean because not saying this about you, but I've sat here before and been told we're not going to do that.
And then as soon as it passes six months later suddenly it's later so that's good enough.
What do you have to say about when the rest of the stations might see this kind of change?
Council president Madam President we I like to make changes on that cycle it's unless we're adding resources with within new fire station.
Or something like that. It's less disruptive to make changes during good cycles. We have two-year
bid cycles. So we would be looking out two years from now. We have seen overwhelming success with our
two stations where we've done this model. And so it would be my intention to continue to look at
that outcomes that we have to make sure that this is working in our system.
Because we're very unique here. And so part of that also has been dialogue with our union
that we would be how it's going. And then one of the things that we had offered them is we
would make sure that we sat down prior to the next bid cycle to have discussions if we
need to continue to expand. Okay, so if you're going to expand past this next four,
if that were to be the case. You're saying that in another couple of years there would be a
re-valuation, a new conversation with labor and everyone else involved to determine whether or not.
So four more were added. Everyone can expect not to see even more added in the next couple of years.
Madam President, it would go back to what we would decide with labor at that point and what we would
decide with the best interest of the department. Thank you. So on one side we hear we're already doing this.
So it's not really changing anything by adding the word paramedic to the safe staffing resolution.
And on the other side we're hearing, well it actually does make a difference because it might
you know, I'm going to use the term. It's not something that I've heard from the other side, but to me
it's, you know, we're going to be a little bit restrictive over restrictive in some cases
possibly. And my big concern that I've shared with both sides is that I think the council is getting
really good at doing stuff and then almost immediately having to undo it. And it's disappointing.
And so I don't want us to put in this and pass this only to have us turn around in a few weeks or maybe
never, but end up in what is written in here as the exception of temporary extendencies or emergencies
as determined by the chief. So with that being said, I don't know if this is a question for you or if
it's somebody else that knows more of the data on staffing, but how many times if this were in place
and you were doing this already with this resolution with the two paramedics, how many times would we
be in violation or would we be in violation? Because again, I'm hearing two different sides and they
actually are not matching up. So I just would like some data on would this be something that we are
implementing that we have been, would we be in violation of it if we were to have had already had this in place
or not? Madam President, I'm going to have Deputy Chief, not like answer that question. He's involved
in most of our staffing. Okay, thank you. Deputy Chief. Madam President, Councillors, thank you.
My concern with the way this is currently written or if it's passed, the way it's written,
I'm 100% confident we will not be able to follow it. We would exhaust every possible option that we have
and we would not be able to guarantee that we could do this. Just one week ago, we had to show
a fire truck on Super Bowl Sunday, we shut down multiple trucks, not because we were short paramedics,
because we were short personnel. We're even worse short on paramedics than our personnel,
so that is my concern. Okay, so the data then, I guess is what I'm looking for too,
is if this were to have already passed, would we be able to fulfill this? But I'm present in
fellow Councillors, so I did run some numbers and looked at this. If this were to be in place,
say we take out Station 2 and Station 3, where we're using this one paramedic model. If we took that out of
a place and did that count that year to date, unless in two months we would have had over 24 violations.
If we go to your 2024 and this was in place after exhausting all options, not counting the trucks
that we were talking about, then we would have had over 600 violations of this ordinance. Okay, thank you.
Thank you, WW Chief. So I guess to me, I guess if we were to pass this, then what would prohibit you
from just saying that everything as a temporary exception of a temporary extended zero emergency if you
need it to? Madam President, I think that would be, that would be, that's a tough question to answer,
right? Like we would, we have abilities to force people into positions. We don't like to do that.
I think there would be a lot of, I'm sorry, I've been talking a lot and that's a hard word to say.
I think there would be either that, or we would be in a situation where I don't have enough
paramedic sign of for a retirement. That's why we have these situations that she's melodic brought up,
that we don't have the paramedic to staff, and that's one of my concerns with the lack of flexibility
in the amendment. I mean, they're not in compliance or I'm having to force into those positions
to make sure that we're compliant. Okay, and so I guess my last thing is on one side of this,
I see that we can go ahead and mandate this term and change the safe-stopping resolution,
and there's an exit strategy. I mean, it's written in here that there could be these extended circumstances,
but then on the other end of it, I hear that we're going to have four more, so six,
I don't mean to count. Station 10 is a point five, but to me it's kind of like saying that.
So we're going to have six stations that are operating this way. With the other still having the two
paramedics on the rescue apparatus, and my struggle is that both sides, I think have very valid arguments,
but I am a big fan of things or somewhere the truth is in the middle, right? And so to me, I'm worried
that we're going to put ourselves and back ourselves into a corner one way or the other,
and that's a concern to me. So councilor Lewis. Thank you, Mayor President. I'd like to ask Mr.
Tipon to just comment up and just follow up. Maybe we respond to song a lot of time for the
chief administration, and if you would address just ideal staffing on on on rescues also like you
to address, you know, how we how we increase our firefighters and medics and how we train them. I think
you guys have some pretty incredible ideas on that, as well as increasing our response times without
the looting our service on the rescue.
Madam Vice President, Councilor Lewis, thank you for the opportunity.
It's one of address a couple things. Based off of what the director said, we currently have a policy
in place for agencies and seek of answers. We have agencies and circumstances with our engines,
which is why you sometimes get phone calls from me saying, you have a engine running with
people on your district today. That is why we have that policy. The policy that refers to
rescues also has an avenue to staff it, typically. In the policy is referred, or preferred staffing
on the rescue medics units is two paramedics, non-perferred staffing on the medics rescue units is one
paramedics. In the same policy defines every single station besides two and three,
the full staffing is two paramedics. That's how we are operating right now with a policy in place
for the circumstances when we can't fill it. We do identify that it is a priority to fill those
paramedic rescues with paramedics first. We have a typical apparatus staffing policy. We have an over-time
field policy that gives priority to those paramedics before we fill it, typically. We do everything
that we can to fill those rescues with paramedics right now. This will change nothing. This
resolution has an agency policy in place for it. A couple of things also I want to address the transport
and I respect the heck out of I think she's great. She brought up a great point that a lot of this
change has to do with the transport and we're transporting a lot more. That has to do with AES and they're
staffing and they are what we call critically staff more times than not and when they're clinically
staff we transport. So she's making a change sorry the directors making a change based off of a private
company's inability to provide services and we're going to do our services because of that. I'm not
okay with that. My firefighters are not okay with that. She also referenced the job sharing.
That was the intention of the contracts to be able to pay paramedics wherever they're at.
On whatever truck they're at. We can have a paramedics firefighter be a career firefighter and enjoy a
life riding on agencies as ladders and responding as a paramedic and get paid that 50% starting to life first.
That's going to attract more paramedics in the long run and that's the big thing here and I'm glad
this is brought big brought up because I hope that this translates into budget priorities for more staffing.
Because that's how your constituents become more safer, become safer, more stations and thank you to
Councillor PANIA for station 23 and all of your support additional stations and more firefighters. That's
what's going to get you to make your constituents safer. More paramedics, more intermediates which is the bridge.
We also included in this contract 5% for intermediates. That's the bridge. We can pay those
paramedics and intermediate firefighters on whatever truck they're at. They can job share. Also the
paramedic captains are in July 1st. That is a way off of the wrestling and the advanced
live support EMS model. We can do that. We were doing that in some of the stations that we already had.
We had a station station 1 that had 4 paramedics there. We had a paramedic captain that that fostered an
environment of job sharing and rotating. We were doing the work. We were getting the momentum and then came
20 stations are going to get split and morale went into the tank and now we're back to square one. So what we
ask of you tonight is to preserve this model so we can still do the good work, get the momentum, get more
paramedics and expand ALS the right way. I think that was the three things I wanted to talk about in
present. Would you talk just briefly about getting more firefighters through the training,
through medic training, how do we increase our capacity to be able to do that? Absolutely. So thank you
for the question. I'm at a present council Lewis. Right now we have a couple of different avenues to
train paramedics through UNN through CNM through Santa Fe. We are working with the joint organization
on education to provide more opportunities for EMS advancement and we promote that. So you know when the
question was asked by Councilor Fidelcorn about the culture. I think that was a little
disservice to all of the things that we've done in our department to mitigate that and my 21 years.
We don't look, we haven't, we haven't, I haven't heard somebody call somebody a paramedic on a nurse in 15
plus years. We are doing the work to bridge the gap and to release the wedge that has historically
culturally in place and in the far surface between paramedic and suppression. We're doing that with
the things that are working with the Joe provide more opportunities by working with UNN to get our
satellite program back and we're pretty close. I'm not a purely aware of those negotiations but from
what I've heard, we are closer to getting our satellite backs where we can have these classes with our
instructors, UNN's curriculum and we can invite and foster more recruitment to those classes. So we're
doing lots of things to promote the larger conversation, to get more paramedic in the long run,
more enemies in the long run, higher service delivery, but we want to maintain our cattle act, we want
to maintain that service delivery that we think we are providing. The amount of present and thank you, Mr.
Timberland. I just want to give another opportunity a little bit of a miss long or if anybody else would
like to say a few other were just in response to all the discussion tonight. Not that's okay.
Thank you. Real quick, Councillor Lewis. I do have a question based off of one of the comments.
You just said, can you? So we just heard a little bit ago that this, we have 22 states. 22 stations,
two of which are operating on this single model, four are going to come online. So can you explain
President Timberman how you see it that 20 stations are going to be split?
How I see it that 20 stations? I mean, because you just said that we're going to now split all the
20 stations or 20 stations is what you said. I mean, the chief said not all stations are going to be split.
Her plan is to split four more stations for a total of six, but then you said all of them are going to
be split. So I'm curious. But where is the where's the disconnect between those two sides? Because they're
very different. Madam President, appreciate it. The original plan was to split all 20
rescues. The current plan is to split four plus the two that are involved in the product currently.
So I think that's what I was revered to. So we would have six ends. So you're under the impression that
with this current planned model, it would be six stations of the current 22 that would go to this,
not all of them. Okay. Thank you. You have any more questions? Madam President,
and again, I think it's clear though that the original plan was 20 all stations, right? And so that's
I mean, it's clear that the administration's moving that direction and...
I think those are some great questions. Madam President, I think Councillor Bokkin, I would close unless there's any others.
There is actually we still have Councillor Rogers and then Councillor Bokkin.
Thank you, Madam President. I just want to turn my paper and found my other question. So I just wanted to ask Chief.
For your ECMO, are you planning to put the split up ECMO to not have two paramedics running ECMO?
Can you explain what ECMO is for the folks who may not know?
Madam President Councillor Rogers, we haven't had an ECMO program then.
Right before COVID, from around 2019, it is the program, it's not staffed.
For ECMO, the firefighters that work at the station are able to get discharged and take ECMO.
Thank you. But my question is, is that going to be two medics still running ECMO? If you make this change, can you explain what ECMO is?
So people understand the severity or doctor, please.
Madam President, I was at UNM when we were rolling it out in AFR, even in hospital and so this is concerning to me if we are going to split up the ECMO trip.
Madam President, Councillor, thank you. So ECMO is basically the first in the nation where the standard of care in the hospital and there's a cardiac arrest.
It's a machine that can basically take over the heart and lung functions in the body, so it pumps for the heart and it reads for the lungs and a patient who can't do that for themselves.
Normally, that happens in the hospital, in Albuquerque, for certain very select few patients that need the right criteria, we can do that in the field.
But that is a very complex process that involves literally bringing ICU doctors to the CMMS physicians as well as the core response unit from AFR.
What we've done because it is at station three, we've trained everybody in that station to be able to help with that.
So it doesn't matter the level of licensure there.
They're all trained to be able to assist the ICU doctors as they're doing that procedure.
Thank you, and then Dr. Perry, happy to stay up if you like you.
You made a statement that I thought was shocking, especially working at UNM, our research hospital that you have not heard of research that shows two medics on a rig is better.
And I just want to I luckily I and I just want to point out we have two on over 200 people watching online right now.
My 17 year old was like, man, I've never seen this many people watching an issue, so that shows how many people are really invested in this topic.
And so my nurse researcher friends, let me 10 research studies from 2010 to 2022.
All of which say survival rates are improved when two paramedics are pressed on a scene, particularly like we talked about for advanced interventions.
But they talked about advanced airway management, hemorrhage control, medication interventions.
There are better survival rates when managed by two paramedics instead of a paramedic EMT team.
There is research upon research, upon research that shows that.
So I just wanted to point that out for the public, no no question, but there is lots of data to show that.
And then chief, what you said about when asked about how you made the decision, which stations to convert to this, you said it's high to cutie calls and call volume generally.
And what I'm reading here, that's the wrong place to make these changes, you want to do it at stations that don't take the acute high acuity calls.
If you're going to make this change rather than, or which probably are in my district, right?
I also have just had in October, I had to run a code as an EMT basic, okay by myself.
I didn't have adequate equipment, I didn't have adequate personnel to help me.
And I just personally, like I can imagine, have you cannot guarantee based on all of the variables in the field that they'll never be a call with only one medic if we make this change.
And for me, that's too, too much when it comes to patient care to play with, especially since we've been doing this for 40 years.
So, no question there, just the statement that I don't think we should be prioritizing which stations by high acuity calls and call volume.
It should be the opposite.
And to counselor opinion's point, what I heard from the fire brightest in an I'm going to say exactly what they said, this is how a lot of them felt.
We have mom and dad fighting, right, over an issue and we're in the middle.
That's literally what I heard today.
The fact that we've publicized this, gone on the media train, like it puts our firefighters in the middle of an issue that is seriously affecting them and their work and our communities outcomes.
I just wanted to point out the research that shows that it is better.
And we've already heard the opinion from Dr. Purit about her opinion.
But I just wanted to go back to the research.
When I worked at the hospital in nursing excellence, one of the biggest changes I had to make in the process was concentration for pediatrics.
I could not go to leadership with any any solutions without it being evidence based and having the research to show why we're making the change.
And I just want to see the same here.
Thank you.
Okay, last comment tonight and then we're going to Councilor Bakker to close and I'm not making another exception.
Councilor Champagne Madam President, thank you for the one exception tonight.
Sitting here and listening to a lot of things from both this side and and the other I reminisce back to my former career.
And and how they said that we're trained independently and to survive independently and we are but yet.
As an officer you're dispatched with the felt with your with your fellow officer not only for safety reasons for yourself but safety reasons for the call you're going to.
So yes, I'm independently trained to act on my own but.
We don't do that we have partners and in this day and age and the way things are going and this is why I thank you for the exception is that.
I worry if you put in one single person with the way things are going and you have first responders being sentenced to prison suit personally.
Because they've had to make decisions on their own that here's a paramedic that's going to be in issuing drugs.
And caught up in a situation that they're watching not only the situation but the the person the other backup that's there that's not on the same level that if a mistake's made they're hung out to dry and and.
In this day and age it's going to happen way too often and I'm scared of that so I thank you that's.
You know how they say never seen ever.
Council Rogers would you like to move amendment number one yes man and president my apologies I have amendment number one that is in your iPad.
And again this amendment will put it on the screen is just adding a whereas I didn't feel comfortable adding this to the actual body of the resolution because it's not just dependent on us.
So this says we're on page one line 25 insert the following whereas we're as to ensure full staffing of the two paramedic rescue apparatus system.
The city must take proactive steps to and train its own paramedics by working with our education partners to bring back our own training program.
This gets to the root of the issue we need to be able to be nimble and not have to send our firefighters to Santa Fe for instance to get training that we could do here.
So I'm just adding is on a whereas because for me I want to get to the root of the issue and the root of the issues we need to be nimble on getting and growing our own metrics and so I will make a motion to move amendment number one.
There's a motion there's a second from Madame vice president.
Edmund madam CIO do you have a opinion madam president.
Thank you Ed like chief.
How do you to speak to the impact of that specifically.
Madam president.
I don't have most of the control over adding our paramedic program back.
This has been something that we've been actively working on and there is I don't think anybody wants to hear 30 more minutes about how difficult it is to get it back.
That's why it was such a proponent of not losing it when we dropped it because I knew it was not going to come back to us the way that it currently was.
We were grandfathered in to a program that no longer exists through the accreditation process.
It looks very different and I am really holding to our educational institutions to get that program back.
So it has been a top priority for us to try to expand those options, but it's not something that in a resolution that I have the majority of the control over.
Thank you madam president that's exactly why I put in as a whereas because like we can't hold ourselves to something that we don't have sole control over.
But I have faith with Dr. Single coming from CNN and her connections there to all of the things our medical director being at UNM.
You I've already heard that you're already working on trying to figure out how to make this happen and so I just felt it important to put it in there that we would like this to happen because we know that that's the solution to what we're talking about today.
And you already agreed to that so I don't think it's a problem adding it as a whereas that was strategic because I know working in the field you we are not solely responsible for that.
I didn't want to put all that on YouTube. Thank you.
Council there's any other questions or comments about amendment number one.
Council I just since we've had a lot of discussion with everybody to nice will make sure any issues with this amendment.
Okay. Okay. So the motion is for amendment number one to R122.
Councilors all those in favor please raise your hand and say yes.
Those opposed.
That passes on the need to one.
Councilor Baca for the close on R122 as amended.
Thank you madam president just want to start by saying thank you chief.
If you find a meal all the deputy chiefs and all the firefighters out there this is clearly an important issue.
We will not a small issue.
So I want to thank everybody for their time and energy.
You know I've heard the chief tonight say it's ideal to have two paramedics.
Dr. Pruits state that we we can provide solid service with one but we've been fortunate to have had the luxury of two for all these decades again implying to is the best.
So clearly we've had the best for decades.
So given that this is going to be implemented in a week and there are no negotiations decision on changing to new models been made.
A decision that was discussed during that was not discussed during the previous negotiations per both representatives tonight.
Ideally more negotiations could occur but I imagine decision for implementing the new model would need to be postponed.
So now I just want to be clear on one statement that politicians are making decisions here clearly there's precedence is this has an amendment to an existing resolution we've had multiple opinions on that tonight.
More than that you know none of us are an expert on anything on all issues nobody is an expert on all issues.
We all look to experts tonight we've listened quite a few experts right here.
I've seen the firefighters nod their heads or not them in opposition to the chief oftentimes in the in the in the support of it.
So so this isn't something that you know we make these decisions for the governing body.
And and the decision makers are right or I'm sorry the experts are right there so it's not it's not like a politician is making this decision I want to clear about that to folks.
Yeah, this is a tough one is outside of negotiation starting again.
I don't see how I don't sit with a men and women who've been doing this boots on the ground for decades.
All that said.
Just work.
Council of the West.
Madam President you know we all agree with ALS expansion and court you in every way you know chief on helping with that I mean just I think just just not everybody agrees on on delusion you know I mean deluding.
Our rescue is in that way and so certainly want to help with expansion and I think that happens through you know higher and more firefighters training more medical and continuing to really expand our our stations you know in the city that's continuing to grow.
Fire just for thinking.
Councilors, we are on a motion for a due pass of R122 as amended, all those in favour
raise your hand and say yes. Yes. All those opposed? That passes on a 72 vote. We're moving
on to agenda item e. Councilor Bocca and Sanchez are 124. Thank you, Madam President. P7, adopting a proposition
be sent to the voters. Is that where we're not? Sorry. This is amending the adopted capital
implementation program of the city of Albuquerque by supplementing current appropriation.
Thank you, Madam President. That last one took a long time. R124, many of the adopted capital
implementation program of the city of Albuquerque by supplementing current appropriations.
This is ongoing discussions with all of us. The whole rail trail thing, which I thought went way out of
proportion and could be solved just by sitting down and talking. This is the solution to that. I urge your
support. Council before you urge us a close. Can we get a motion? Thank you. There's a motion in a second.
We're going to go with this second from Councillor Lewis or Sanchez. Councilors, any questions or comments?
Someone actually stay on. Mr. Cornelius, if you'll go to the public commenter. Thank you, Madam President. I'm going to call Mark by loan to speak.
Hello, council. Tough act to follow up. Got to be honest. But despite that, I'm still here.
I just want to begin by quickly noting that a penny saved is a penny earned, and even if half a million dollars is arounding error in some places, which is crazy.
Those dollars still represent tangible infrastructure as evidenced by the fact that $500,000 was then moved to a different project.
I also just want to mention that if we continue moving funds kind of willy-nilly in these kind of ways, it just kind of makes this city seem unserious about funding projects that are in motion, and just completing those projects.
It's I think it's really important that we complete the projects that we start.
However, like I said before, I'm just glad that the pennies are being put back, whether it be through this legislation through the mayor's veto, however it happens, I'm just glad it's all coming back.
So appreciate the counselors for putting the money back. Thank you.
Madam President, that was our loan speaker. Thank you.
Councilors, any other questions or comments?
All right, Councillor Boko or Sanchez to close.
All right, Councillors, the motion is for a due pass of R124. All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.
Yes. Anyone opposed? That passes unanimously.
We're now moving on to administration, question and answer period.
Councilors, any questions for the administration?
See how effective this is? All done. So in addition to that, I forgot to thank everybody that stayed.
I think that that was important. So even though they already left, that was a strong dialogue, and I want to say thank you to all of those who participated.
The Councillors are there being no further business. This city council meeting is adjourned.