On February 3, with no debate, the New Mexico House of Representatives voted unanimously to pass Senate Bill 1, the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Act.  SB 1 expands access to healthcare by allowing licensed, qualified providers in other states to serve New Mexicans through the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact.  The bill  will go a long way in addressing the state’s health care worker shortage.

The 64-0 vote comes after the New Mexico Senate approved the bill also with no opposition. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham  has 72 hours to sign the bill to make it law.  Once signed by the Governor, New Mexico would become the 38th state in the compact.

The House has passed seven additional compacts that would give patients access to out-of-state physical and occupational therapists, dentists, and social workers. Those bills are in the New Mexico Senate. State Representative Liz Thomson said the law will  increase access to telehealth options so people don’t have to travel far for appointments that can be held remotely.

Supporters, including co-sponsor Sen. Linda Trujillo (D-Santa Fe), have also been quick to acknowledge that SB1 isn’t a cure-all. She has  previously said  that she believes other measures, including loan forgiveness for health care workers and affordable housing, are sorely needed to attract and retain physicians.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle share that sentiment. In one of the only comments lawmakers issued from the floor of the House Tuesday, Rep. Gail Armstrong (R-Magdalena) said that entering the compact will make it exceedingly easy for New Mexico doctors to leave the state unless lawmakers also enact meaningful medical malpractice reform.

Representative Armstrong, who was a co-sponsor of SB 1,  said this after she voted yes to pass the bill:

“This is not a silver bullet. … We are with the signage of this, and if the governor signs it, we are giving them a full tank of gas to be able to go to other states, as well. Without medical malpractice reform, we will not fix this, and I am a little disappointed this has come before the other.” 

A medical malpractice proposal cleared its first hurdle in the Legislature when the House Health and Human Services Committee voted to advance it, but not before Republicans objected to an “unfriendly amendment” that would not cap punitive damages for corporate-owned hospitals. Physicians who practice in those hospitals would still be covered, though.

Patient safety advocates argue that giving hospitals more protection under the state’s medical malpractice laws will  undermine other necessary changes, such as improved hospital staffing levels.

Fred Nathan, the  founder and executive director of Think New Mexico, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the quality of life for New Mexicans, expressed strong support for Senate Bill 1. Nathan said this:

 “We have a serious doctor shortage in New Mexico. We’re the only state that’s lost doctors for the last five years, and Senate Bill One is an easy and smart way to begin to address that doctor shortage. … But with the compact, they’re accepted as if they’re New Mexico doctors.”

Nathan said  the bill will help alleviate the state’s doctor shortage by automatically licensing out-of-state doctors when they come to New Mexico. It also benefits patients who have specialists in other states, as currently, out-of-state doctors cannot provide advice over the phone without a New Mexico license

Kathy Love, who represents patients suffering due to malpractice, also supported Senate Bill One, provided that all doctors are held to the same standards as those licensed in New Mexico. Love said this:

 “As long as there are guardrails to make sure that if we’re bringing in doctors from out of state, we’re bringing in good doctors and not doctors who are running from problems in other states.”

Currently, 42 other states, along with D.C. and Guam, are part of the compact. Kathy Love, who represents patients suffering due to malpractice, also supports Senate Bill One, provided that all doctors are held to the same standards as those licensed in New Mexico.

Links to quoted or relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-bill-aims-to-tackle-doctor-shortage-with-medical-compact/70239021

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/legislature/bill-making-it-easier-for-medical-workers-to-work-in-new-mexico-heads-to-the-governors-desk/

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/roundhouse-rundown-interstate-medical-compact-immigrant-safety-act-greenhouse-gas-reduction/

https://sourcenm.com/2026/02/03/nm-house-unanimously-approves-interstate-medical-compact-bill/?fbclid=IwY2xjawPvl3xleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeDBwZX8Nd8V8LNL61WKj0tzi0oUbGaQagy2zX-vRQU-SBXz05HpT6dJYKwc4_aem_Q28OU-UBqxzS2ly8O3dkHg

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The fact that the  New Mexico House of Representatives and the New Mexico State Senate both unanimously and with little to no debate enacted  the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Act is testament to the seriousness of the shortage of licensed medical professionals in New Mexico. With any luck, the New Mexico legislature will also enact meaningful medical malpractice legislation which is still pending.

2026 NM Legislative Update: Bipartisan Medical Malpractice Reform Bill “Gutted” In Committee; Advances To Second Committee For Further Consideration; Governor MLG Threatens Special Session If No Legislation Past

On Friday, January 30, a bipartisan attempt to overhaul New Mexico’s medical malpractice laws cleared its first assigned NM Legislature committee, but only after a sweeping change was made to the bill over the sponsor’s opposition. House Bill 99 known as the Medical Malpractice Reform bill passed the House Health and Human Services Committee by a vote 7-3, but only after the committee passed an “unfriendly amendment” that  eliminated  caps on punitive damages for corporately owned hospitals. An “unfriendly amendment” is one  that the bill’s sponsor does not support.

House Bill 99 would set caps on punitive damages in malpractice cases, pay for plaintiffs’ medical costs as they’re incurred and increase the standard of proof needed to award damages. The amendment excludes hospital systems and hospitals owned by out-of-state corporations from a proposed $6 million cap on punitive damages. A smaller $1 million cap would be put in place for independent doctors.  The medical malpractice reform bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Christine Chandler (D-Los Alamos) and as  originally introduced is backed by New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

Rep. Christine Chandler, D-Los Alamos, who crafted  House Bill 99 and is sponsoring  it along with  two dozen other lawmakers, called the  amendment  to the bill “short-sighted.”  Chandler  pointed out most of New Mexico’s hospitals, including those run by Presbyterian Health Services,  would not be covered by the proposed punitive damages cap.  According to the New Mexico Hospital Association, the only hospitals covered by the cap would be hospitals in Taos, Grants, Gallup, Farmington and Las Cruces. Chandler told the Albuquerque Journal this  after the  hearing:

“I don’t think it strikes the right balance in the legislation we need. ”

Supporters of House Bill 99 argue that the bill is a key step in fixing the state’s health care worker shortage. Republicans and Democrats worked on the original  bill  in a unified effort. The unified effort was destroyed when Representative  Liz Thomson (D-Albuquerque), who proposed the amendment, said she believed it was important not to cap punitive damages for hospitals owned by out-of-state corporations or private equity firms. Thomson said this:

“We want to tell these huge national corporations that they cannot cut corners on medical care and leave people damaged.”

Feliz Rael, President of the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association,  an organization that historically and consistently has opposed medical malpractice reform,  said this:
“While the bill isn’t perfect, we are very pleased to see protection for patients that are harmed by multi-billion-dollar corporations.”  

State Rep. Alan Martinez, R-Bernalillo, warned that the last-minute amendment was simply  unfair because Republicans and Democrats had agreed to the original bill text and it was  partially “gutted” by the amendment.

House Minority Whip Alan Martinez, R-Bernalillo, who voted against the committee amended bill, said this:

“It’s very hard for me to support the amended bill, because I think we gutted a good bill with that. … We were going to fix medical malpractice. Now we’re carving out certain people. … You have taken a good, negotiated bill and poisoned it with this amendment.”

Committee Democrats who voted to support the bill after the  “unfriendly amendment” said they believed it would empower plaintiffs. Rep. Joanne Ferrary (D-Las Cruces) said the amendment would give “the right back to the jury to hold multi-billion dollar corporations accountable.”

Representative Chandler  told reporters she believes the majority of physicians in the state work at the corporately owned hospitals that the amendment would impact. Although the amendment still extends protections to those practitioners, Chandler said she believes the lack of a cap for their employers could still affect whether doctors want to work there.

HB 99  approved as amended by the committee did make several other changes in addition to the punitive damages cap. That includes clarifying how many medical malpractice claims can be filed for a single medical injury and extending hospitals’ participation in a patient compensation fund through 2029.

During the January 30  hearing of the House Health and Human Services Committee, Chandler said the bill would be pushed forward regardless of the amendments and said this:

“I know many of us are concerned about the real and perceived health care shortage in the state. ”

After the committee hearing, Chandler was asked by the media if she thought the amendment threatened her bill’s future.  She said this:

“Not clear. I have to assess. … We may keep talking about this for a while.”

Representative Chandler said that  if HB 99 fails to get enacted, she would not be surprised if Lujan Grisham calls a special session later in the year to address malpractice.

House Bill 99 as amended will now be heard by the House Judiciary Committee which bill sponsor Rep. Christine Chandler chairs. The bill must pass the full House and Senate before the session ends Feb. 19.

DEAL ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES DIFFICULT

The state does have a cap on compensatory damages that cover actual losses such as medical bills and lost wages. However, New Mexico has no limit on punitive damages which  are awarded to address reckless and willful misconduct.  HB 99 bill supporters of say punitive damages have led to disproportionate awards of damages  against hospitals, attracted out-of-state malpractice attorneys to New Mexico and driven up the cost of malpractice insurance.  A legislative analysis of the bill says medical malpractice insurance premiums could drop by 3% if the measure is enacted.

Trial lawyers, hospital administrators and physician groups have taken part in closed-door negotiations organized by the Governor’s Office to try to strike a deal on changes to the medical malpractice laws.  Those talks stalled  due to disagreements over whether some of the largest hospital corporations in the state should get the same limits on punitive damages as independent physicians.

Links to quoted or relied upon news sources are here:

https://sourcenm.com/2026/01/30/new-mexico-medical-malpractice-bill-clears-its-first-hurdle/

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2026/01/30/democrats-surprise-with-amendment-to-exempt-doctors-but-not-hospitals-from-punitive-lawsuit-damages/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/medical-malpractice-bill-advances-after-committee-excludes-most-hospitals-from-punitive-damages-cap/2971595

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

New Mexico’s medical malpractice laws have for decades been at the center of “tort reform” efforts to place caps on punitive damages and attorney’s fees in lawsuits filed in medical malpractice cases.  Medical malpractice reform has emerged as hot-button issue during 2026 thirty day New Mexico Legislative session predominately because of a statewide health care provider shortage and rising hospital insurance costs.

Supporters of changing the state’s current medical malpractice laws have cited a recent legislative survey that found 65% of currently practicing physicians are considering leaving the state to practice elsewhere. Of those doctors, most cited the potential of stiff punitive damages stemming from medical malpractice cases as the reason.

Patient safety advocates argue that giving hospitals more protection under the state’s medical malpractice laws will undermine other necessary changes, such as improved hospital staffing levels.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has urged lawmakers to act on the issue  before the session ends February 19.  She also has  said she will  consider calling a Special Session if no bill on medical malpractice reform is  approved by the 2026 Legislature.

It’s a damn shame that so much progress was made with the bipartisan attempt to overhaul New Mexico’s medical malpractice laws only to be gutted in committee. Such is the politics of New Mexico that plays out in Santa Fe.

 

This “News and Commentary” article is a report on legislation introduced to be considered during the 30 day session of the 2026 New Mexico Legislature. The article was researched and written by private citizen Steve Holman who is a concerned citizen and a homeowner who resides in Albuquerque. He is very concerned about what is in the best interest of  his community.  Mr. Holman has not been compensated for his article and it is being published as a public service by the News and Commentary blog www.PeteDinelli.com.

House Bill 0103, Senate Bill 031 And HB-0138 Promote Statewide Real Property “Upzoning”; All 3 Bills Wrong For New Mexico, Favors Developers And Investors, Promotes Gentrification As State Policy

BY: Steve Holman, Albuquerque Resident

There is currently a major battle  brewing in the City of Albuquerque and now in the 2026 New Mexico Legislature over the enactment of major changes to all  zoning laws and to allow “upzoning” on how  all properties (residential, commercial and industrial property) are zoned for development. The upzoning will likely lead to gentrification and increased property taxes.

“Upzoning is a land-use planning tool that changes existing zoning regulations to permit more intensive development in specific areas already zoned. Zoning laws govern how property can be used, including housing density, minimum lot sizes, building heights, and parking requirements. Upzoning alters these rules to increase permitted density or intensity of use, allowing more units per acre, taller buildings, or different uses like commercial establishments in residential zones. This process does not directly create new housing but removes regulatory barriers, incentivizing new construction.”

The link to the quoted and relied upon source is here:

https://legalclarity.org/what-is-upzoning-and-how-does-the-legal-process-work/

Gentrification is the  process in which wealthier, privileged, typically white individuals move into neighborhoods that are largely populated by poor and working-class residents who are frequently and predominantly people of colour, the newcomers ultimately displacing the original residents. The privileged group includes both individuals and businesses, and often their interests in occupying a particular neighborhood  diverge from those of the neighbourhood’s original residents. Proponents of gentrification sometimes argue that an influx of affluent residents to disinvested neighborhoods brings much-needed investment into the area; however, this process often displaces most of the area’s longtime residents and businesses because of rising costs of living. 

The link to the quoted and relied upon source is here:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/gentrification

In Albuquerque, the attempt to implement upzoning was done via the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) which is all the city’s zoning laws. It faced strenuous opposition. Hundreds of residents contacted the city council, with letters and petition signatures submitted in opposition and with local neighborhood associations and community advocacy groups standing in opposition. During the Land Use Planning and Zoning committee hearing on January 28, 2026, upzoning was gutted from the IDO  amendments. On February18, the full 9 member Albuquerque City Council will vote on the final 140 amendments to the IDO.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Residential zoning covers 27% of Albuquerque’s land and 68% of its properties. City officials have said that 68% of the city’s existing housing is single-family detached homes with 120,000 existing residential lots with already built homes. The amendments to Albuquerque’s Integrated Development Ordinance was an attempt  to double or triple housing density in established neighborhoods by allowing duplex,  condominium or apartment development in all 120,000 residential lots in established and built out neighborhoods. The goal is to increase affordable housing. It will not. The proposed amendments to the IDO included a mandate for “upzoning” of all existing residential properties to double or triple density in established neighborhoods as permissive use requiring no city applications with no rights to contest nor appeal the upgrading by adjoining property owners. The mandatory upzoning would allow for the development of apartment or commercial use, such as bodegas, on all corner lots in residential areas bordering main thorough fares.

With Upzoning legislation thus far failing in Albuquerque, sinister political maneuvering has now begun with a few Democrat legislators sponsoring legislation to make Upzoning state-wide by introducing legislation into the 30 day 2026 New Mexico Legislature. Their goal is sweeping and dramatic. They want to remove many zoning powers from county governments and municipalities under the guise of increasing affordable housing. Powerful forces, both private and political, are at work seeking to ensure Upzoning and gentrification are  the new state policy under the false premise and in response to increasing affordable housing.

HB-0103 ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE STATE TAX LAW AFFECTING ALL COUNTY ASSESSORS

One controversy with Upzoning has been its impact on real property taxes, both residential and commercial property. The current state law says that if you re-zone a property, the 3% cap on how much your taxes may be increased would no longer apply. With Upzoning changes, many could see re-assessment on their taxes at market rate with significant property tax increases as a result.

House Representatives Cristina Parajon and Heather Berghmans have introduced house bill HB-0103 to make it so that zoning changes don’t take away the 3% cap. However, what is very damning to this bill is the fiscal impact report.

Within the fiscal impact report on HB-0103 much of its results are extremely worrying.  The report says this:

“Valuating the fiscal impact of this bill is difficult due to limited information on the scope of potentially affected properties and current assessor practices related to zoning changes. …  [T]he potential impact on property tax revenues cannot be reliably quantified.” 

The state is already seeing reduced personal property tax revenue due to expansions in exemptions. The collection of this revenue is important in funding public services. Because there is no reliable consistent data from any single county in the state, they cannot quantify how much of an impact this proposed change would have on tax revenue or how it could impact services.

Further into the impact report it points out several significant issues stating as follows:

“By removing zoning changes as a trigger for revaluation, the bill places greater emphasis on determining whether a change in use has occurred, which may require additional documentation, site review, or interpretation.” 

The report goes on to say this:

“The bill does not define “change in use,” which could increase administrative complexity, contribute to inconsistent application across counties, and result in additional valuation disputes or appeals.” 

By removing the zoning change as a trigger for reassessment this means that assessors would have to rely on their own interpretations of use and what could constitute a change of use as well. There is no single state-wide legal definition, so it varies between each municipality and county. 

It is more likely than not that this lack of definition and uniformity will lead to class action lawsuits and legal challenges against county assessors. This also means that your county assessor could potentially interpret change in use as the property now allowing for permissive uses like townhomes, apartments, duplexes, and retail if you were Upzoned.

Considering the impacts of these changes with unclear definitions and potential for loss of property tax revenue, local county assessors have thus far been derelict in their duties not to oppose the legislation.

The link to review House Bill 103 is here:

https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/26 Regular/bills/house/HB0103.html

SENATE BILL 0131 ATTEMPTS TO IMPLEMENT UPZONING STATE-WIDE

The purpose and concept behind Upzoning must be revisited.  The idea is that if you allow permissive use of townhomes, apartments, duplexes, and retail within single family zoning, it removes restrictions and allows for increased development that will hopefully lower costs and increase affordable housing. This is being touted as a solution to affordable housing, despite no mandate for any affordable housing to be built or any legislation to regulate price speculation.

Studies about Upzoning are still emerging and are limited in scope, but the data released is reflecting that Upzoning actually fosters gentrification.  It most often impacts low income and non-white communities. It also has been shown to have little impact on housing inventory and price.

This has been fought in Albuquerque, because it utilizes many tools of gentrification as Upzoning proposed in the IDO;

• Allows zoning changes for higher density
• Relaxes regulatory measures
• Does not mandate affordable housing of any type
• Excludes community involvement/empowerment by lawsuits being their only recourse
• Includes amenities like retail
• Places no measures against real estate price speculation
• Has no anti-displacement measures for existing residents
• Removes protections of historic neighborhoods and sites like The Petroglyphs via removal of height restrictions.

In essence, Upzoning is a deregulatory developer handout that removes many of the guardrails of zoning allowing developers to build what they want wherever they want.

Enter Senate Bill SB-0131 which has been proposed by Senator Antonio “Moe” Maestas.

SB-0131 seeks to implement Upzoning state-wide, but this bill has a massive amount of side effects.

THREE MAJOR DOWNSIDES TO SENATE BILL 0131

There are three major downsides to Senate Bill 0131 and they are:

FIRST: There would be the removal of powers from local municipalities by taking away their ability to manage the following:

 The height, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures

• The percent a lot may be occupied
• The size of yards, courts, and other open space
• The density of population
• The location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence or other purposes.
• The ability to divide the territory under its jurisdiction into districts
• Regulate or restrict the erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair or use of buildings, structures or land in each district

If SB-0131 is enacted, the above decisions on zoning would now reside with the state instead of local municipalities or counties, removing the ability of individual towns, cities and counties submitted to have any means of self-determination in addressing growth.

SECOND: The enactment of Upzoning by the state will require all county and state municipalities to:

• Accommodate one additional dwelling unit within each lot in a single-family zoning district as a permissive use;
• Eliminate restrictions on building height and number of stories
• Not prohibit residential apartments in commercial zones
• Not prohibit duplexes and townhouses in residential zones or on mixed-use lots
• Allow in residential zones development for small-scale commercial uses that provide neighborhood-scale convenience shopping, food, beverages, indoor entertainment or professional offices; provided that the uses comply with local rules governing traffic and noise
• Not implement minimum parking mandates (a law, a rule or an ordinance that specifies a minimum number of off-street vehicle parking spaces, including within a garage or other enclosed area)

THIRD: SB-0131 also seeks to move all disputes about zoning or complaints to state district courts instead of using local established means.  That means residents and municipalities only have filing a law suit as a response to any issues.

If you compare what SB-0131 enacts to what is currently being attempted in Albuquerque, you can see the desired results line up exactly, but now it removes local municipalities and counties of their autonomy and gives massive new zoning powers for the state to manage.

All of this is being done in the name of “affordable housing,” but it in no way allocates for any measures to address the affordability of homes and instead seeks to use our existing communities as a means for developers and investors to further buy up residential homes.  Now they can utilize existing infrastructure in established neighborhoods to build what they want wherever they want with market rate prices.

The link to review Senate Bill 0131 is here

https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/26 Regular/bills/senate/SB0131.HTML

HB-0138  REMOVES COUNTY AND MUCIPALITIES HISTORICAL POWER TO MANAGE LOT SIZE

Lastly, we have house bill HB-0138 introduced by State Representative Andrea Romero that adds to the list of legislative sleight of hand. Existing law gives all counties and municipalities the zoning authority to regulate and restrict building heights, number of stories and size of buildings on lots. Existing law gives counties and municipalities the authority to  regulate use and density and impose restrictions on the actual size of lots where development and construction can happen. HB-0138 would prohibit both county and municipal zoning authorities from imposing lot size requirements for residential property. HB-0138 essentially consolidates and gives power to the state and removes local self-determination from all counties and municipalities.

The link to review HB-0138 is here:

Click to access HB0138.pdf

ONLY DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS CAN AFFORD AND WILL BENEFIT

Most regular citizens can’t afford to convert their properties with Upzoning.  Developers and corporate interests certainly can and they see value in Albuquerque’s single-family homes in the amount of $14.2 billion alone.

According to the Homebuilders Digest construction costs cover everything from materials to the actual construction.  In Albuquerque there are four basic categories of construction:

1. A value-basedcustom home would start around $175 per square foot. This is a home that would have builder-grade finishes, such as ceramic tile, laminate flooring, basic cabinets, level one granite or quartz, aluminum or builder-grade vinyl windows, value series appliances, and basic plumbing and electrical fixtures.
2. A mid-range home would start at around $225 per square foot. Mid-range finishes would include porcelain tile, engineered wood, mid-level cabinets with soft close, level two or three granite or quartz, and a moderate budget for plumbing and electrical fixtures. It would also have premium vinyl or fiberglass windows and higher-end appliances.
3. A high-endcustom home would start at around $275 per square foot. This home would have all high-end custom finishes, fiberglass or wood windows, and professional appliances.
4. A home with energy efficiency featureswould range between $200 to $400 per square foot depending on selections for mechanical systems, windows, plumbing and lighting fixtures, cabinets, appliances, flooring, and more.

The link to the relied upon or quoted source is here:

https://www.homebuilderdigest.com/cost-guides/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-house-in-albuquerque/

The minimum hard construction cost to build a 750 square foot free standing casita or convert an existing residence to a duplex by adding on 750 square feet of living space at the value base cost of $175 or the mid-range cost of $225 would between $131,250 (750 square ft. X $175) or $168,750 (750 X $225). The homeowner who does not have the cash savings to pay the construction costs, a second or third mortgage on the residence would be required.

Simply put, only developers and investors who speculate will be able to double or triple density by buying up existing homes for purposes of building casitas or converting residences to a duplex or townhome.  After that is done, the profit motive will be to sell or rent at the highest level and not for affordable housing.

It is no wonder support of Upzoning is backed by pro-real estate and pro-developer groups like NAIOP (a Commercial Real Estate Development Association), the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, the New Mexico Home Builders Association and the Apartment Association of New Mexico. These are all major players in our real estate market that have furthered policies that have led to our current crisis of housing affordability.  They also have all openly pledged their support behind SB-0131 and Senator Antonio “Moe” Maestas in a piece they wrote published in the Albuquerque Journal.

Follow the money and you will see that our state is currently up for sale to the highest bidder.  They are having a hard time passing this in Albuquerque, so now the entire state has been made the sacrificial lamb to slaughter.

If these pieces of developer handout legislation were to be passed, only time will tell how the legal response from residents, local municipalities, and county assessors offices could be.

CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR

Please email the State of New Mexico House and Senate and tell them NO to HB-0103 and SB-0131.

Please tell them that this handout to developer interests will allow for gentrification and takes power and self-determination away from residents and local municipalities.

house@nmlegis.gov

senate@nmlegis.gov

Senator Antonio “Moe” Maestas:

505-986-4373

antonio.maestas@nmlegis.gov

Representative Cristina Parajon:

505-986-4436

cristina.parajon@nmlegis.gov

Representative Heather Berghmans:

505-986-4726

heather.berghmans@nmlegis.gov

Representative Andrea Romero:

505-986-4327

andrea@andrearomero.com

Email Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/contact-the-governor/

Links to the legislation:

SB-0131 – https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/26 Regular/bills/senate/SB0131.HTML

HB-0103 – https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/26 Regular/bills/house/HB0103.html

Impact Report HB-0103 – https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/26 Regular/firs/HB0103.PDF

HB-0138 – https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/26 Regular/bills/house/HB0138.HTML

 

On December 9, 2025, Mayor Tim Keller was elected to a historic third consecutive four-year term as Mayor of Albuquerque. His election now provides him with the very unique  opportunity to completely reshape and reorganize the Albquerquerqu Police Department (APD) for a third time with a new generation of leaders and police officers to address the city’s crime efforts.

This article is an in-depth analysis of APD staffing with Commentary and Analysis.

INTERIM APD CHIEF APPOINTED

On December 31, Mayor Tim Keller announced his appointment of APD Deputy Chief Cecily Barker as Interim APD Chief after the retirement of former Chief Harold Medina on the same day.  Mayor Keller also announced he would do a national search for a new chief. The city hired the out of state  firm Public Sector Search & Consulting Inc. to assist in the search for a new Police Chief. The firm specializes in police executive searches. The firm’s contract began January  2 and has a maximum limit of $100,000. At least six people have applied and  Interim Chief Baker has said she will be applying.

APD REORGANIZATION

On January 9, APD Interim Chief Cecily Barker announced a reorganization of the APD. The reorganization includes new executive appointments and the elimination of 12 command staff positions. The  12 command staff potions are being eliminated are a combination of sworn personnel, such as  Deputy Commanders for both Internal Affairs division, and professional employees, such as the Director of Analytics.

The changes in staff are expected to save the city upwards of  $2.4 million.

Interim Chief Barker announced the following changes as part of her new executive team:

• Major Luke Languit was named Interim Deputy Chief of Field services.
• Medina’s former Chief of Staff Miker Hernandez was named  Interim Deputy Chief of Support Services.
• Commander Aaron Jones was named Interim Chief of Staff.
• Deputy  Chief George Vega will continue as Deputy Chief of the Investigations Bureau.
• Deputy Chief Josh Brown will continue as Deputy Chief of the Special Operations  Bureau.

Despite the announced cuts made by  Interim Chief Barker, APD is continuing to recruit sworn officers. The department has 47 people in training at the police academy. The next cadet class is scheduled to start in March. APD currently has 913 sworn officers, or 921 with a corrected number identified, and 93 police service aides.

Chief Barker said this about her announced appointments and the  reorganization:

“We have an experienced team in  place to lead the department forward , while we transition into a new era of public safety in Albuquerque.  We are  experiencing new  challenges in law enforcement , especially in response to the national political climate. We want our community to be assured that APD is prepared.”

“Many of these executive positions were created to help manage important initiatives as we navigated the final push to complete the settlement agreement with the Department of Justice.  We no longer need the same level of management. We need to prioritize our resources to maintain the cities reduction in crime.”

The link  to a quoted or relied upon news source is here:

https://citydesk.org/2026/01/09/apd-interim-chief-reorganizes-department-eliminates-12-command-positions/

The postscript also contains the link to a relied upon news source.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

This News and Commentary  article is an in-depth analysis  of APD’s organization and its personnel staffing  relying on the department’s organization chart, its personnel summary as well as discussions with confidential sources for fact checking and to confirm accuracy.

The link to review the most current APD organization chart that was updated on January 9, 2026 consisting of 9 pages is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/apd-division-org-chart-1-7-26-draft-pdf.pdf

The link to review the one page “Department Summary: Sworn Personnel”  which was replaced and updated as recently as January 23, 2026  is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/apd-staffing-numbers-2026.pdf

Examination and analysis  of  the APD Organization Chart and the Summary of APD’s personnel reflects a law enforcement agency that is clearly top heavy and  bloated with management in need of a major reorganization, deletion of positions, reassignment of personnel and the recruitment of a new generation of police officers.

BAKER APPOINTS DEPUTY CHIEFS

Interim Chief Baker has appointed or retained all former APD Chief Harold Medina’s loyalist as Deputy Chiefs. The  appointments Barker made are:

• Major Luke Languit named Interim Deputy Chief of Field Services
• Medina’s former Chief of Staff Miker Hernandez  named  Interim Deputy Chief of Support Services.
• Deputy  Chief George Vega  will continue  as Deputy Chief of the Investigations Bureau,
• Deputy Chief Josh Brown will continue as Deputy Chief of the Special Operations  Bureau.
• Commander Aaron Jones is named Interim Chief of Staff.

Mayor Keller should replace the entire Chief’s command staff and completely reorganize the department with  a new generation of leadership. If the entire command staff that Chief Medina put in is not replaced, including all the Deputy Chiefs, there is little to no chance APD will change. Medina management policies and style will remain. APD will revert back to the old ways that brought on the Department of Justice (DOJ)  consent decree that lasted for 10 years with the city paying millions of taxpayer dollars to institute constitutional policing practices.

APD is still reeling from 10 years of a DOJ consent decree and a DWI bribery dismissal scandal where 20 cops from 3 agencies have been implicated and 9 APD Officers have plead guilty and are still awaiting sentencing. What Mayor Keller should consider doing  to restore confidence in APD and restoring its reputation is appointing a new APD Chief and two, perhaps 3 Deputy Chief’s, who would be recruited from outside of APD ranks and hired at the same time as a whole new management team. They would be brought in together to assume command of APD. This would ensure a new era of command staff to restore confidence and faith in APD  and new ideas on how to run a department that has been run into the ground the last 16  years by Mayors Berry and Keller.

APPOINTMENT OF PERMANENT CHIEF

Interim Chief Cecily Barker is considered the strongest Medina loyalist. When Medina retired, he advocated for one of his appointed Deputy Chief’s to take his place and he said this: “I hope that I left a strong bench for mayor to look at and choose.”  It is common knowledge that Medina groomed Chief Barker to replace him. All 5 appointments underscore the need to do a national search for a new APD Chief and Deputy Chiefs and not just with Medina loyalists and cronies.

Speculation runs rampant  amongst City Hall and APD observers that despite Mayor Keller’s  public announcement  that he will do a national search for a new Chief, he has already made up his mind and will appoint and make Interim Chief  Barker permanent. The major reason people feel that Keller will make Barker permanent is that he is following the identical pattern he has followed with his appointments in the past: appoint an interim chief, announce a national search, going through the motions of accepting applications, having extensive public input, and doing interviews only to appoint his interim permanent saying the most qualified person for the job “was right in front of our eyes all along  who has been interim chief”.

After 8 years being Mayor and after appointing two APD Chief’s, Keller likely has no doubt what he is looking for in an APD Chief. One nagging rumor is that Mayor Keller is “champing at the bit” to appoint the first female chief of police thereby making Barker his favored choice.

Now that Mayor Keller has had the city hire a private firm to the tune of $100,000 to help with a national search, he should go forward himself, along with his Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney and do the interviews himself.  Mayor Keller needs to decide sooner rather than later who to appoint Chief.  If in fact Interim Chief Barker is who he really wants, he should  avoid wasting peoples time and the politcal sham of doing a national search and just go ahead and appoint Barker.

ELIMINATE UNECESSARY MID MANAGEMENT POSITIONS

APD  is  top heavy with mid-management positions that are very difficult to justify, who do administrative work, who do not take calls for service and who do not do basic police work. During the last four years, APD has created a whole new level of mid-management that is unnecessary, consisting of the positions of Major and Deputy Commander.  Spread out over the six APD Bureaus are 11 Deputy Commander positions and 3 Major positions for a total of 14 positions.  None of these officers are assigned to the field to patrol the streets, they do not respond to  calls for service, they make no arrests and they do not carry investigation caseloads. They perform administrative and support duties. All 14 positions should be eliminated and the personnel reassigned.

ANALYSIS OF SIX APD BUREAUS

Following is an Analysis and Commentary on APD’s six bureaus:

1. THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF

Simply put, the Office of the Chief is bloated. According to the APD  Department Summary of  Sworn  Personnel, it has a total of 43 fully staffed positions yet incorrectly reports a total of 35. This miscalculation would mean that the total staffing figure for APD sworn would be 921 and not the 913 reported. The Office of the Chief includes the executive staff of 10 comprised of the  Chief,1 Chief of Staff, 1 Executive Director and 4 Deputy Chiefs. There are 35 others assigned to the Office of the Chief which includes 3 Majors, 1 Commander, 7 Lieutenants, 5 Sergeants, all of which are lower or mid management positions. It also has  20 Officers/detectives listed as assigned to it.

The link to the “Department Summary: Sworn Personnel” is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/apd-staffing-numbers-2026.pdf

The Organization Chart for the Office of the Chief reflects it has three public spokespersons who do interviews, prepare press releases, respond to the media inquiries and who post on the department’s FACEBOOK page and social media outlets with all three reporting directly the Chief. APD should cease any and all of its social media efforts given the lengthy history of very negative antics an abuse by the main APD Spokesperson. Most city departments have only one spokesperson calling into question the need for 3 APD spokespersons when there should be only one. Three spokespersons for APD is nothing more than the APD’s effort to control the narrative with the media in the most positive light.

The Organization Chart for the Office of the Chief reflects that the Chief of Staff has direct “chain of command” over the Operations Review Division, APD’s Human Resources, Compliance & Oversight and APD Policy ostensibly staffed with sworn personnel including one Commander over the Operations Review  and one Lieutenant over Compliance & Oversight. The duties and functions of these sections should be assumed by trained civilian staff reporting to sworn mid management. The Mayors Detail consisting of 4 officers who provide Security for the Mayor is in the direct chain of command of the Chief.  They  should also provide security to the Albuquerque City Council when deemed necessary or appropriate during a public crisis or when elected city councilors are threatened.

The Office of Chief should be compromised of the very uppermost management of the department and include the Deputy Chiefs who oversee the APD Bureaus, the Chief of Staff along with designated APD civilian staff that are in charge of administrative matters, including budgets, grants, accounting and human resources matters. The fact that the Office of Chief  has 3 Majors, 1 Commander, 7 Lieutenants, 5 Sergeants, all of which  are mid management positions along with 20 Officers/detectives reflects that the Office of the Chief it is bloated with sworn police that are performing functions that trained civilian staff should be performing.

The Office of the Chief has the Compliance and Oversight Section managed by a Lieutenant with assigned sworn officers and detectives. This section  should be completely removed from the Office of the Chief and reassigned to the Office of Superintendent, which then should be reorganized and designated as the Internal Affairs, Compliance and Oversight Bureau.

2. THE OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDANT

The Organization Chart and Summary of Personnel for the Office of Superintendent reflects 29  sworn personnel who are assigned to the bureau. It  includes 1  Executive Director,  2 Majors, 2 Commanders, 3 Deputy Commanders, 2 Lieutenants, 10 Sergeants and 9 Officer/Detectives for a total of 29  sworn police personnel. The Office of Superintendent is divided into the  bureau of Police Reform/Professional Integrity, Behavioral Health and Peer Support.

The link to the “Department Summary: Sworn Personnel” is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/apd-staffing-numbers-2026.pdf

The most critical function of the Office of Superintendent is Internal Affair functions of investigating police misconduct. Three civilian monitors, which include 2 retired former judges, are on contract and monitor APD training, discipline and use of force misconduct and are believed to work only part time.

Under the APD Organization Chart, the Superintendent of Police Reform  reports directly first to the  Associate Chief Administrative Officer who reports directly to the City’s Chief Administrative Officer. The Superintendent does not report to the APD Chief nor to the Mayor which is how it should be to ensure complete autonomy and to avoid even the appearance of undue influence by the Chief or the Mayor. Three civilian monitors, which include 2 retired former judges, who are on contract, report directly to the civilian Associate Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Administrative Officer and are not within the chain of command of the Superintendent.

The Superintendent position was created in response to implementation of the Federal Court Approved Settlement Agreement, and the primary function is Internal Affair functions to investigate police misconduct, including use of force and deadly force. In May 2025, the  U.S. District Court approval the termination of  the federal consent decree known as the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) covering the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) since 2015.

The Office of Superintendent should be streamlined, reorganized and designated as the Internal Affairs Compliance and Oversight Bureau with a Deputy Chief who would not be in the Chief’s direct chain of command, but who would  report to the  Associate Chief Administrative Officer and  the City’s Chief Administrative Officer.

The 2 Majors and 3 Deputy Commanders positions and 8 Sergeant positions, should be removed and reassigned, leaving two Sergeant positions and the 29  sworn police personnel. The position of Superintendent would be abolished and the new Internal Affairs Compliance and Oversight Bureau created that does not report to the Chief but the Chief Administrative Officer.

The three contract monitors over police training, discipline and use of force should be consolidated into one full time contract position.

3. THE FIELD SERVICES BUREAU

The Field Services Bureau is by far the largest of all the six major bureaus of APD. It should  be reorganized to include the Problem Response Teams (PRT) and Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT) do more patrols of area commands and to take more calls for service.

The Field Services Bureau has assigned to it 519 sworn personnel out of the whole department of 913 or a 927 adjusted figure. The Field Services Bureau includes APD’s seven area commands (Foothills, Northeast, Northwest, Valley, Southwest, Southeast, University). The number of officers assigned to the area commands is contingent upon the calls for service volume in the area commands.

The link to the “Department Summary: Sworn Personnel” is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/apd-staffing-numbers-2026.pdf

There are 351 out of 519 sworn, or 67%, sworn police assigned to the six area commands in the Field Service Bureau patrolling the streets, with the balance of 168 being management. The 351 are the sworn officers who  bid for the assignment. The 351 are  broken down into 3 shifts and patrol the streets and neighborhoods responding to hundreds of thousands of calls for service a year.

STAGGERING NUMBER OF CALLS FOR SERVICE

The 2025-2026 approved APD budget reports on the staggering number of calls for service APD responded to throughout the city for the years 2023, 2024 and mid year 2025 as follows:

Number of 911 calls received:

• 2023 Actual Calls Received:           434,083
• 2024 Actual Calls Received:           421,907
• 2025 Mid-year Calls Received:       214,948

Number of 911 calls answered:

• 2023 Actual Calls Answered:          386,014
• 2024 Actual Calls  Answered:         385,200
• 2025 Mid-year Calls Answered:      192,784

EDITORS NOTE:  Many 911 calls are diverted  to the Albuquerque Community Safety Division and Transit security, but they have no arrest authority.

FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR ARRESTS 

The 2025-2026 approved APD budget contains statistics on felony arrests and misdemeanor arrests made by all APD sworn and it is presumed that a good portion of those arrests were made by area command sworn police. Following are the statistics

Number of Felony Arrests:

• 2023:   8,034
• 2024:   7,519
• 2025 Mid-year:  4,331

Number of Misdemeanor Arrests:

• 2023:  11,293
• 2024:   13,573
• 2025 Mid-year:  7,094

Source: APD 2025-2026 approved budget, page 161.

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy26-proposed-budget-web-version.pdf

GROSS UNDERSTAFFING

Simply put, 351 sworn police officers spread out over the entire city over 3 shifts handling  hundreds of thousands of calls for service amounts to gross understaffing. Actual shift numbers working  are repeatedly reduced because of annual leave, sick leave, military duty leave, terminations, retirements, voluntary departures or other reasons.

Area Commanders are known to attend and report to Neighborhood Associations and Coalitions on crime statistics and staffing levels. It is not uncommon for Area Commanders or other APD staff to report during neighborhood association meetings that staffing  levels during shifts are extremely low and that too many times only 2 or 3 sworn police are patrolling entire command areas.

A.   PROBLEM RESPONSE TEAMS

The Field Services Bureau includes APD’s Problem Response Teams (PRT). The PRTs staffing includes 6 PRT Sergeants and 42 PRT sworn officers who conduct proactive enforcement in crime areas and community engagement and outreach. They work mostly in inform but can work in plain cloths capacity, at times undercover, and they are assigned government take home vehicles. Their primary law enforcement duties do not officially include being dispatched and responding to  911 calls for service nor doing  regular patrols of the streets and neighborhoods like field officers. The PRT teams can likely do more responding and being dispatched to  911 calls for service and to do regular patrols of the streets and neighborhoods. All 42 PRT Officers should be in the loop and made available to be immediately dispatched to take 911 Calls for service.

B.   CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAMS

The Field Services Bureau includes Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT). There is a total of 25 sworn police assigned to the Crisis Intervention Teams consisting of 1 CIT Commander, 2 CIT Deputy Commanders, 3 CIT Sergeants and 18 CIT Officer/Detectives. The CIT Teams should be streamlined with the elimination of Deputy Commanders. Sworn Officers assigned to CIT are not in uniform, work in plain clothes and are assigned government take home vehicles. Sworn police assigned to CIT do not do regular patrols of  the streets and neighborhoods like field officers. The Crisis Intervention Teams work with people who are subject of emergency calls for service and who exhibit chronic behavior patterns or who are suffering from psychotic episodes that may pose risks to themselves or others. One of the primary goals of Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT) is to ensure that situations involving people in crisis are diffused so that use of force and deadly force may be avoided and that proper medical attention can be provided or referrals made to appropriate service agencies. The duties and responsibilities of the Problem Response Teams should include being in the loop taking 911 calls for service and to regularly patrol the streets and neighborhoods like all  field officers.

4. THE SPECIAL OPERATIONS BUREAU

According to the APD organization chart, the Special Operations Bureau has a total staffing of 123 sworn personnel as follows:

• 1 Deputy Chief
• 4 Commanders
• 2 Deputy Commanders
• 6 Lieutenants
• 19 Sergeants
• 91 sworn officers/detectives

The link to the “Department Summary: Sworn Personnel” is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/apd-staffing-numbers-2026.pdf

The Special Operations Bureau is divided into the four separate divisions of Special Services Division, the Aviation Division, the Tactical Division and the Metro Traffic Division with each having a Commander.

The Special Services Division includes the specialized units of  Homeland Security Unit, the Horse Mounted Unit, the Air Support Unit, the Open Space Unit, the Special Services Unit, the Metro Court Protection Unit and the Emergency Response Team.

The Aviation Unit is believed to be the unit that provides security for Albuquerque International Airport.

The Tactical Division includes Tactical Support, SWAT Unit and the K-9 unit.

The Metro Traffic Division includes the Motors Unit, the Aggressive Driving Unit, the Abandon Vehicles Unit the Fatal Accident Team, the Swing Motors Unit and the DWI Unit

The 2025-2026 approved APD budget contains statistics on the Number of DWI arrests as follows:

• 2023:                 1,385
• 2024:                 1,063
• 2025 Mid-year:    479

Source: APD 2025-2026 approved budget, page 161.

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy26-proposed-budget-web-version.pdf

The two Deputy Commander positions should be eliminated. Given the eclectic functions of this bureau, and after the elimination of the two Deputy Commander positions, the ratio of command staff to sworn officers is deemed necessary and at appropriate levels.

5. INVESTIGATIVE BUREAU

According to the APD Organization Chart, the Investigations Bureau consists of the 3 Sections: the Criminal Investigations Division, the Scientific Evidence Division and the Investigative Services Division.  Investigations Bureau has a total staffing of 145 sworn personnel  as follows:

• 1 Deputy Chief
• 3 Commanders
• 3 Deputy Commanders
• 5 Lieutenants
• 19 Sergeants
• 114 Officers/ Detectives

The link to the “Department Summary: Sworn Personnel” is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/apd-staffing-numbers-2026.pdf

The Investigative Bureau should be reorganized and personnel cuts made. The 3 Deputy Commander positions are unnecessary and should be eliminated with their duties and responsibilities assumed by the Commanders and the Lieutenants.

The 19 Sergeant positions should be cut to 10 and the 114 Officer/Detectives should be cut to 60 with the 133 balance of sergeants and Officer/Detectives positions reassigned to Field Services area commands to respond to calls for service in patrol.

The duties and responsibilities of the Scientific Evidence Division should be performed and assumed by civilian staff, and all sworn reassigned and the one vacant Lieutenant position should be eliminated.

The Investigative Services Division should be streamlined and designated as the Property Crimes Division to  deal exclusively with the Auto Theft, Organized Crime, Burglary, Robbery and Narcotics and Intelligence. The Investigative Support and Electronics Support services officers should be replaced with trained civilian staff to do these support services.

6. SUPPORT SERVICES BUREAU

According to the “Department Summary of Sworn Personnel” the  APD Support Services Bureaus has 62 assigned sworn police officers consisting of the following 1 Deputy Chief, 1 Major, 2 Commanders, 1 Deputy Commander, 3 Lieutenants, 6 Sergeants, 18 Officers/Detectives and Cadet and Lateral Hire Classes totaling 30.

The link to the “Department Summary: Sworn Personnel” is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/apd-staffing-numbers-2026.pdf

The Support Services Bureau is divided into the Real Time Crime Center Division with a Major in charge and the APD Academy Division with a Commander in charge.

The Real Time Crime Center Division includes the Emergency Communications Center ( the 911 Dispatch, Telephone Report Unit, Records and data), the Crime Analysis Center, the Records Division (Crime Statistics, NCIC).

The Academy Division includes the APD Academy itself and is  responsible for all basic and professional training classes and cadet training classes.

Commanders should be in charge of  Real Time Crime Center Division and the Academy Division. The positions  of Major and Deputy Commander should be eliminated, with the Major position reclassified as a Commander.

The link to the “Department Summary: Sworn Personnel” is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/apd-staffing-numbers-2026.pdf

RECRUITE OF A NEW GENERATION OF POLICE OFFICER

On December 1, 2009, when former Mayor Richard Berry was sworn into office for his first term, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) was the best trained, best equipped, best funded department in its history. APD was fully funded and staffed with 1,100 sworn police officers. Over the 8 years of Berry’s two terms, APD went from 1,100 sworn police and hit a rock bottom of  853 sworn police.

When then New Mexico State Auditor Tim Keller ran for Mayor, he ran in part on the platform of increasing the size of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) to 1,200 police and returning to “community-based policing” by the end of his first term. When Mayor Tim Keller assumed office on December 1, 2017, there were 861 full time sworn police according to the 2017-2018 city budget figures and payroll records at the time.

To keep his campaign promises on APD, Mayor Keller order his Administration to begin implementing an $88 million-dollar police department expansion program. The announced goal was to increase the number of sworn police officers from 861 positions filled to 1,200, or by 339 sworn police officers, over a 4-year period. Keller promised to increase the number of sworn police in the department to 1,200 by the end of his first term, pledging to hire 100 new police officers a year. It  never happened but  Keller was elected to a second term.

Over his entire 8 years and two terms, Mayor Keller has never successfully achieved the goal of 1,000 sworn police let alone the 1,200 he promised 8 years ago. The closst Mayor Keller came to 1,000 sworn  was on February 8, 2021 when it was reported to the  City Council  by then Interim Chief Harold Medina that  APD had 957 sworn police.

Mayor Keller has said that the goal of achieving 1,000 police is too elusive, and it’s a unicorn never to be seen. Notwithstanding Mayor Keller’s opinion, APD over at least the last  3 years has been given funding for1,000 sworn police positions  only to have as many as 100 positions or more go vacant because APD is unable to keep up with retirements. Rather than allowing the funding for the vacant positions to revert to the general fund, APD management has essentially used the funding as a “slush fund”  on other APD priorities including retention bonus funding and APD programs not funded by the city council.

APD cannot deal with the city’s high crime rates because APD’s sworn personnel is currently at 913 or 921 depending on which correct numbers are used. For the last 16 years, under both Mayors Berry and Keller, recruitment has been stagnant.  APD has not been able to keep up with retirements despite being the best paid law enforcement department in the state.

APD can in fact reach the 1,100 level of sworn personnel with recruitment of a whole new, younger generation of police officers by using same methods that achieved the 1,100 figure in 2019, but it will be costly. The current payment of incentive pay of as much as $18,000 a year to experience officers who are eligible to retire should be phased out and abandoned with the funding dedicated to recruitment efforts.

A program of giving  “sign on bonuses” of as much of $50,000 should be made available in exchange for a 5 year commitment from young,  new  recruits to work for APD and paid out in $10,000 increments per year in addition to their yearly pay. (EDITOR’S NOTE: The Federal government is paying $50,000 sign on bonuses for ICE agents.)  A combination of home mortgage down payments, credit card debt reduction payments, student loan reduction payments and bonuses for higher education should be offered.

Until APD, the Mayor and City Council get serious and get aggressive about recruiting a new, younger generation of cop with financial incentives, APD will always be understaffed.

REMOVE MANAGEMENT FROM COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT

Under the City’s Personnel rules and regulations, the APD Chief, the Deputy Chiefs, Commanders, Deputy Commanders, and Majors are all “unclassified” positions making them  at will employees and they  may be terminated without cause. APD Sergeants and Lieutenants are “classified employees” and can only be terminated for cause.

For decades, APD Sergeants and Lieutenants have been allowed to be part of the Albuquerque Police Officers Association collective bargaining unit.  Any and all disciplinary actions taken against APD Lieutenants and Sergeants and sworn officers below those ranks are governed by the union contract. They have due process rights including progressive disciplinary actions and rights of appeal.

The New Mexico Public Employees Bargaining Act, Sections 10-7E-1 to 10-7E-26 H (NMSA 1978), governs the enforcement of the city’s collective bargaining agreement with the APD police union. Section 10-7E-5 provides for the rights of public employees and states in part

“Public employees, other than management employees and confidential employees, may form, join or assist a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining … .

The link to the statute is here:

https://www.pelrb.state.nm.us/statute.php

The police union contract violates state law when it allows the management positions of Lieutenants and Sergeants to be part of the collective bargaining unit and it’s a practice that should be stopped. Their membership results in an inherent conflict  between management priorities and policies and rank and file priorities that are union policies.

Under New Mexico law, APD Sergeants and Lieutenants should be viewed as management employees and be prohibited from joining the APOA union as a condition of their employment. APD Lieutenants and Sergeants are on the front-line management that oversee those officers who serve under their command. APD Lieutenants and Sergeants are primarily responsible for making sure that all Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) are followed by subordinates.

APD Lieutenants and Sergeants need to be removed from the collective bargaining unit, recognized as management  and made at will employees so that they can fully represent management and not have a conflict of interest with subordinates. There is a president for doing this. Over 20 years ago, APD Captains, reclassified as Commanders, were part of the collective bargaining unit but were removed through union negotiations.

Mayor Tim Keller should aggressively make the removal of APD Lieutenants and Sergeants as part of collective bargaining negotiations. The city should go so far as file suite to seek decertification of the union in court to prevent Lieutenants and Sergeants from being part of union negotiations and  joining the APOA union.

FINAL COMMENTARY

Mayor Tim Keller has the very unique  opportunity to completely reshape and reorganize the Albquerquerqu Police Department (APD) for a third time with a new generation of leaders and a new generation of police officers to address the city’s crime efforts. Mayor Keller needs to replace the entire Chief’s command staff and completely reorganize the department for a new generation of leadership.

APD cannot deal with the city’s high crime rates because APD’s total sworn personnel is at 913 or 921 corrected adjusted figure. For the last 16 years, recruitment has been stagnant and the department has not been able to keep up with retirements.

As it stands, there are only 351sworn police officers assigned to the six area commands  broken down into 3 shifts and patrolling the streets responding the hundreds of thousands of calls for service a year commands while the entire  sworn police staff is 913 or 921.   APD is top heavy with mid management. APD must do better to increase the number of police patrolling the streets of Albuquerque.

Simply put, APD needs far more than one new Chief. It needs a whole new generation and management team of top command staff of Chief and Deputy Chiefs that need to be recruited.  It needs a complete reorganization and realignment of staffing to get more sworn police onto the street to patrol.

If the entire command staff that Chief Medina has put in place over the last 5 years is not replaced, including all the Deputy Chiefs and Commanders, there is little to no chance APD will change. APD will revert back to the old ways that brought on the Department of Justice (DOJ) consent decree that lasted for 10 years with the city paying millions of taxpayer dollars to institute constitutional policing practices.”

The link to a quoted or relied upon news source is here:

APD Chief Barker Assigns New Staff to Her 5th Floor

 

On January 21, Bernalillo County  District Attorney Sam Bregman sent a letter to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)  Assistant Field Office Director Bill Shaw and Customs Enforcement (ICE) placing the federal agency on notice that he will prosecute ICE agents who detain, confine or restrains any  person in Bernalillo county without a warrant. DA Bregman emphasized that ICE agents could be prosecuted under New Mexico law for the felony of “false imprisonment”.

The full letter sent to ICE Assistant Field Office Director Bill Shaw is as follows:

“Dear Mr. Shaw,

I write to express my deep concern about ICE procedures and operations across the country. Videos and the accompanying reporting raise significant questions about ICE’s willingness and ability to comply with constitutional limitations while performing their duties. These incidents further undermine confidence in ICE leadership’s commitment to ensuring basic due process for the public that they serve.

ICE’s nationwide pattern of unconstitutional enforcement actions give rise to questions and unease about ICE activity in New Mexico. Specifically, certain activity by ICE agents reported in other states would be criminal under the laws of New Mexico.

False imprisonment is a felony under New Mexico law. NMSA 1978, § 30-4-3 provides: “False imprisonment consists of intentionally confining or restraining another person without his consent and with knowledge that he has no lawful authority to do so.”

There is no exception under New Mexico law for law enforcement officers who detain or restrain a person without lawful authority. Unless an ICE Officer has a valid warrant, lawful authority for restraint or detention under New Mexico and Federal law requires either reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Therefore, any ICE agent who, without a signed warrant and without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, detains, confines or restrains a person in Bernalillo County may be subject to prosecution.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.”                         

Sam Bregman
Second Judicial District Attorney

On Wednesday January 21,  Bregman told the Albuquerque Journal that he has received no response to his letter to Shaw. Further,  the Journal reported it did  not receive a response to a request for comment from Albuquerque officials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security which oversees ICE.

Bregman said he wrote the letter in response to videos and news reports about ICE activities in other states. Bregman said his letter  was not prompted by any specific incidents in New Mexico. Bregman said this:

“I’m trying to get ahead of this so that it’s very clear. … I’m not going to sit by and watch anybody violate the law and turn a blind eye to it. To the contrary, we’re going to hold people accountable, and that means everybody.”

On January 21, The Associated Press (AP) reported  that ICE officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant according to an internal ICE memo and whistleblower complaint.  The memo, signed by acting director of ICE, Todd Lyons, states that administrative warrants signed by an agency official are sufficient for forced entry if there’s a final order of removal. The change reverses previous guidance and raises concerns about constitutional protections against illegal searches.

DA Sam Bregman’s letter to ICE quotes New Mexico’s false imprisonment statute as follows:

“False imprisonment consists of intentionally confining or restraining another person without his consent and with knowledge that he has no lawful authority to do so. … Whoever commits false imprisonment is guilty of a fourth degree felony.”

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-4/section-30-4-3/

Under New Mexico law,  the felony crime of False Imprisonment is a fourth-degree felony which carries  a basic sentence of 18 months in prison and up to two years.  The New Mexico false imprisonment law contains no exception for law enforcement officers.  Therefore, any ICE agent who, without a signed warrant and without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, detains, confines or retrains a person in Bernalillo County may be subject to prosecution.

Bregman said  that videos and news reports from other states show ICE officers engaging in racial profiling by arbitrarily pulling over Hispanic people and demanding to know where they were born. Bregman said this:

“We are a majority Hispanic state. … I represent the biggest populated county in the state. I’m laying this down to make sure everybody knows that we’re not going to tolerate whoever they are violating our criminal statutes.”

BREGMAN’S CNN INTERVIEW

On the January 21  broadcast of CNN’s “The Story Is,” Bernalillo County District Attorney  discussed his threat to arrest ICE agents in the Bernalillo County and said this:

 “If someone commits a violent felony in our county, we’re going to prosecute them, regardless of their legal status. We’re going to absolutely do everything we can to hold them accountable. At the same token, ICE agents aren’t going to come in and start committing crimes in our county. [If an ICE agent detains someone with]  no warrant, no reasonable suspicion, no probable cause, therefore, you cannot involuntarily restrain someone, which means you’re committing a crime of false imprisonment. I absolutely will prosecute. …  ICE has some footprint in New Mexico, like they do everywhere, I work with federal law enforcement agencies, state law enforcement agencies, every single day. Many of them, as well as [I], are horrified by what they’re seeing out there. There [are] a lot of great law enforcement agents out there right now. But what ICE is doing, what we’re seeing across the country, is not going to happen in New Mexico.”

CNN host Elex Michaelson  asked Bregman this:

 “Do you believe in working with them in the jails and working with them behind bars to turn over people who are criminals who have been convicted?”

Bregman answered this:

“Listen, I will tell you right now that I don’t — if someone commits a violent felony in our county, we’re going to prosecute them, regardless of their legal status. We’re going to absolutely do everything we can to hold them accountable. At the same token, ICE agents aren’t going to come in and start committing crimes in our county.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/da-warrantless-ice-detentions-violate-nm-law/2965779

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2026/01/22/dem-nm-d-a-ill-arrest-ice-agents-for-false-detention-and-hold-illegals-committing-violent-felonies-accountable/

https://www.koat.com/article/ice-officers-charges-threatened-new-mexico/70094117

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/bernalillo-county-da-warns-ice-agents-of-prosecution-without-warrant/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/da-warrantless-ice-detentions-violate-041500884.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There is absolutely no doubt that ICE is already present in Albuquerque and are taking very aggressive actions and taking people into custody. At least two eyewitnesses have reported seeing in Albuquerque ICE vehicles being transported into the city.

It was on July 7, 2025 that an altercation occurred between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detaining and tasing a man inside the Albuquerque Walmart located at 2550 Coors Blvd. NW. The video taken of the incident reveals three ICE agents, two of whom are masked, subdue the man with a Taser and took him into custody. The 20-second video went viral and received national media attention. Protests erupted in the City over the ICE action

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-ice-uses-taser-detain-182811140.html

Albuquerque  and New Mexico are already on Trump’s radar to retaliate against. The Trump Administration has already falsely declared Albuquerque a Sanctuary City and is withholding federal funding to the city. Recently, Trump declared New Mexico elections to be corrupt and rigged.

There should be no doubt that what Bernalillo County DA Bregman said about ICE tactics was necessary given the killings of two people by ICE in Minneapolis, Minnesota. There have already been protests in Albuquerque over the killings. The fact that the city and state are Hispanic minority-majority and strongly Democrat  puts a target on our backs and makes it very likely ICE will soon increase enforcement actions here. The fact that New Mexico is a border state also increases the odds that New Mexico is on the radar.

It is more likely than not the threat of prosecution of ICE agents by DA Bregman will embolden ICE to do even more in the State. The biggest question is if the Albuquerque Police Department (APD), the Bernalillo County Sherriff (BCSO) and for that matter the New Mexico State Police will back DA Bregman up when the time comes and if they are prepared to react to ICE enforcement actions with tactical plans and arrest ICE agents?

DA Sam Bregman and Attorney General Raul Torrez, and perhaps with the assistance of the New Mexico ACLU,  would be wise to initiate a Federal Civil Rights class action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and ICE as a preemptive strike to secure restraining orders requiring ICE agents to follow New Mexico law. The injunctive relief should include ICE being required to secure court orders to make arrests, wear body cameras during their operations and remove masks and identify themselves during their enforcement actions.

The actions of ICE need to be condemned and stopped  in no uncertain terms and before New Mexico citizens are killed and the City and State become a national headline.

 

The Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) is essentially all  of the city zoning laws on how properties are zoned for residential, commercial or industrial use. The Integrated Development Ordinance includes zoning and subdivision regulations to govern land use and all development within the City of Albuquerque. It establishes the City’s system of planning citywide. The IDO allows the Albuquerque City Council to amend it every two years. In the last two years, this amendment process has resulted in 139 amendments to the IDO.

With the election of Mayor Tim Keller to a third 4 year term and a new Albuquerque City Council, there is a major controversy brewing city wide and on the Albuquerque City Council involving Mayor Tim Keller, his Planning Department and a few members of the Albuquerque City Council. They want to enact another wave of blanket amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO). Mayor Tim Keller and the City Planning Department want to double or triple housing density in established neighborhoods to address what they claim is the City’s affordable housing shortage.

The city council is now considering another wave of 140 amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO). The biggest and most dramatic amendments would be to  “up zone” virtually all residential homes and residential lots in established neighborhoods. To put this in perspective, residential zoning covers 27% of the city’s land and 68% of its properties. City officials have said that 68% of the city’s existing housing is single-family detached homes with 120,000 existing residential lots with already built homes. The city’s faulty logic is that doubling or tripling density on 120,000 existing residential lots will flood the market and make available more affordable housing. The false presumption being made is that existing property owners want and can afford to double or triple density on their properties and if not investors or developers will do it.

If approved by the city council, townhomes, duplexes and apartments could be built in every established neighborhood in Albuquerque. The zoning amendments would allow construction of apartments and small businesses like “bodegas”, small  convenience stores, coffee shops and restaurants as permissive uses on all  corner residential lots without requiring city approval or zoning change applications.

Every single residential property in established neighborhoods would be re-zoned for permissive use requiring no city applications. Adjacent residential property owners would have no rights to oppose, contest nor appeal “up zoning” construction which will likely result in  adjacent property owners suing  to enforce “restrictive covenants” and perhaps class action lawsuits against the city.

What has not been addressed and what the Albuquerque City Council needs to  discuss is what impact up zoning will have on residential real property values for property tax assessment. The taxable value of a property is 33 1/3% of the assessed value as determined by the Bernalillo County Assessor.

The State of New Mexico property tax code is clear. Under the State of New Mexico property tax code, Section 7-35-1, NMSA, residential property assessments may NOT rise more than 3% per year unless the property changes ownership, is improved or is rezoned.

The below guest opinion column addresses head on the  increased property tax consequences of  the “up zoning amendments” to the city’s zoning laws known as the Integrated Development Ordinance.

GUEST OPINION COLUMN BY ATTORNEY MEL B. O’REILLY

Private attorney Mel B. O’Reilly has submitted the following guest opinion column to be published on www.PeteDinelli.com on the potential property tax consequences of the IDO up zoning amendments.  His guest column is being published as a public service announcement in an effort to educate the public and the City Council. Mr. O’Reilly has given his consent to publish his article with no compensation.

BIOGRAPHY

Mel B. O’Reilly of The Lawyers O’Reilly PC is an Albuquerque attorney who has practiced law continuously since 1971. He has represented clients in civil and criminal matters and trials. His clientele has included individuals, banks, corporations, partnerships, and estates and trusts. He has handled matters involving real estate  development, subdivision, planning and zoning, representing both developers and investment property owners.

THE PROPERTY TAX CONSEQUENCES OF PLANNING AND ZONING AMENDMENTS TO INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. 

The proposed amendments to the City of Albuquerque’s Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) make changes that will: 1) Increase the appraised value of residential property resulting in a tax increase; and 2) Deprive people of the right to object to a land owner’s desire to redevelop property to serve as a commercial business or multi-family development.

The proposed amendments will allow an owner of property zoned and developed as residential property to redevelop their land to a higher use by converting the property to a multi-family development by splitting an existing home into a duplex or by converting the property into a condo or townhome development.

Under the proposed amendments, my understanding is that an owner could put in a commercial business such as a bodega, tiendita, or small store.

And if you don’t think that your neighborhood can handle the increased traffic, water, and sewer demands, too bad. The proposed amendments eliminate your right to object to any developer’s redevelopment whim.

Even if an owner does not make any changes to his or her own real property, the proposed amendments give them the right to build and thus triggers the county assessor’s duty to ensure that property is assessed at its current and correct market value. So if a property is currently assessed as a single-family residential property and can now lawfully accommodate a storefront, the county assessor would need to reevaluate the property for property tax assessment purposes.

It doesn’t matter if an individual property owner actually redevelops their property. The mere fact that they could do so subjects the property owner to a change in assessed value because of the change in permissive use and zoning.

State law requires that all property subject to valuation for property taxation purposes be classified as either residential property or nonresidential property. NMSA 1978, § 7-36-2.1A NMSA 1978.

Residential property in New Mexico has a special method of valuation that provides that the value of the property as appraised in 2001 can increase year-over-year by no more than three percent. NMSA 1978, § 7-36-21A. This valuation structure keeps a long-time owner’s property taxes low, even when the real estate market value of property increases, and enables people to continue living in the homes they own.

But that year-over-year limitation goes away if a residential property owner builds structures on their property or if the use or zoning of the property has changed since the preceding year. NMSA 1978, § 7-36-21A. Under state law, a property’s predominant use determines whether it is taxed a residential or nonresidential property. See, NMSA 1978, 7-36-2.1B and NMAC 3.6.5.8C.

But enough about the effects on taxation.

Let’s talk about the livability of our community.

Albuquerque’s development ordinances were crafted to preserve the views of the mountains and our skies. The neighborhood amenities required by law were designed for single family density and use. The proposed amendments relax parking requirements, will increase street and pedestrian traffic, and will increase the burden placed on our water, drainage, and sewer systems.

And if a neighborhood’s school can only accommodate so many students, where are the extra classrooms going to be built to accommodate an increase in the student population?

Will fire stations, parks, playgrounds, police service, and other amenities and services be able to match the increased demands wrought by increased traffic and population density? Who will pay for new infrastructure, police stations, fire stations, water mains, drain and sewer lines, schools, curb cuts, road construction and repair, and capital outlay facilities.

As it stands now, the burden is on the redeveloper and they have to seek approval before redeveloping their lot. The proposed amendments grant the redeveloper the permissive use to redevelop their property and strip you of your right to object or appeal.

If the proposed amendments pass and you think a neighbor’s plan to put in townhomes on an existing single-family lot is going to negatively impact your community, then you’ll only be able to look to your neighborhood’s restrictive covenants and hire an attorney to file a lawsuit.

Please contact your City Councilor and voice your concerns.”

Sincerely yours,

Mel B. O’Reilly

Attorney At Law

NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL LUPZ MEETING

The next meeting of the City Council LUPZ committee will be held on January 28 in the City Council Chambers in basement of city hall commencing at 5:00 p.m. You can sign up to speak at the meeting the day before by going to the City Council web page.

The emails to contact all 9 City Councilors followed by their Policy Analyst to voice your opinions are:

• stelles@cabq.gov
• stephenchavez@cabq.gov
• joaquinbaca@cabq.gov
• bacajoaquin9@gmail.com
• namolina@cabq.gov
• kpena@cabq.gov
• cquezada@cabq.gov
• bbassan@cabq.gov
• dawnmarie@cabq.gov
• danlewis@cabq.gov
• galvarez@cabq.gov
• nrogers@cabq.gov
• district6@cabq.gov
• tfiebelkorn@cabq.gov
• seanforan@cabq.gov
• dchampine@cabq.gov
• eromero@cabq.gov
• rgrout@cabq.gov
• rrmiller@cabq.gov

Please contact your city council and tell them to vote no on all the IDO amendments.