Mayor’s rent plan fizzles in council committee

Mayor Tim Keller’s push for a local renters’ bill of rights hit a wall Wednesday as a City Council committee voted against advancing the plan without recommendation.

The Albuquerque City Council’s Land Use, Planning and Zoning Committee rejected Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn’s motion 3–2 to send the proposed Renters’ Bill of Rights to the full Council without a recommendation. Only Councilor Nichole Rogers joined Fiebelkorn in support, while Councilors Brook Bassan, Dan Champine and Renée Grout voted no after a lengthy debate and testimony from nearly two dozen speakers, most opposing the ordinance.

“I understand the intent of this, but I see so many things that will cause more problems than we want,” Grout said during the discussion. “I think this is not ready for prime time, it needs to go back to the drawing board and I think you need to bring everybody involved and make sure it’s tenable for both sides.”

Sponsored by Fiebelkorn and backed by Keller, the now-defunct Renter’s Empowerment and Neighborhood Transparency (RENT) Ordinance would have created Albuquerque’s first local renters’ bill of rights. The ordinance aimed to align local rules with state tenant laws, requiring fee transparency, advance notice for rent increases, timely repairs, relocation assistance, and a citywide rental registry.

The push for housing stability

“Renters deserve clear information, safe homes, and protection from exploitation — nothing less,” Keller said. “This renters’ bill of rights is how we show that Albuquerque stands up for working families, seniors, and everyone who calls a rental home.”

If it had passed, Albuquerque would have been the first city in New Mexico to adopt such a local renters’ rights ordinance.

Shanna Schultz, the city’s Policy and Government Affairs Administrator, who wrote the bill on Keller’s behalf, said protecting existing renters is just as important as building new housing.

“The administration and the city have been hearing from tenants for many years now that they just feel like they need more protections,” Schultz said.

What’s in the ordinance

The proposed Renters’ Bill of Rights aimed to make renting fairer and more transparent in Albuquerque. Key provisions included:

• Transparent Listings: Landlords would have been required to list all rental costs and screening criteria. Application fees capped at $50 and processed in order received.

• Deposits and Pets: Renters could choose between a deposit or a surety bond. Pet deposits would have been capped, and monthly pet rent and breed restrictions banned for companion animals.

• Rent and Fees: Landlords wouldn’t have been allowed to charge extra for paying rent by check, cash or online. Rent hikes would have required written notice with clear delivery rules. Receipts would’ve been due within seven days of payment.

• Repairs: If landlords didn’t make needed repairs, tenants could hire a licensed contractor and deduct the cost or get reimbursed. Retaliation by landlords would have been banned.

• Credit Reporting: Landlords who reported late rent to credit bureaus would also have to report on-time payments. Tenants would be notified and given a chance to fix errors.

• Move-In/Out Procedures: Landlords would have been required to document inspections at move-in and move-out with clear procedures for keys, unit condition, and deposits.

• Relocation Assistance: If a landlord’s actions made a unit unlivable, they would have had to pay relocation costs to the city, which would decide qualification and appeals.

• Eviction Limits: Evictions would have been limited to reasons allowed under state law.

• Anti-Retaliation: Protections would have been reinforced to prevent retaliation against tenants who assert their rights.

• Property Registration: All rental units would have had to be registered with the city, including contact info, occupancy data, and rental rates. Unregistered units couldn’t be rented.

“It takes all of the things that we’ve been trying to do piecemeal,” said Fiebelkorn. “By putting them all together in a renter’s Bill of Rights, we’re really going to make an impact on the quality of life of renters in our city.”

According to the proposed ordinance, 44% of Albuquerque households are renters. Of those, 58% include people of color, 18% live below the poverty line and half spend more than 30% of their income on rent, classifying them as rent-burdened.

Schultz said it built on existing state laws and borrowed ideas from cities like Portland, San Diego and St. Louis. The goal was to help renters know their rights and feel confident using them.

The proposal included parts of Senate Bill 267, like limits on late fees, longer notice before rent hikes, clear fee disclosures and stronger tenant protections.

Schultz said tenant rights groups helped shape the bill. Recent council actions, like requiring cooling systems in rentals and adding a housing code enforcement specialist, show growing momentum on tenant issues.

However, she said the administration did not work with property owners or groups like the Apartment Association during the process.

“There’s clearly an appetite to do housing and tenant policy, so we’re just trying to keep that train moving.”

The City Council passed two measures aimed at protecting renters from unsafe living conditions, both sponsored by Fiebelkorn.

One ordinance now requires landlords to install permanent cooling systems in all rental units and keep them working, a change praised by tenants like Thomas Abeyta.

During public comment at the June 2 City Council meeting, Abeyta thanked councilors for passing the ordinance.

“My landlord brought over an AC unit and installed it,” Abeyta said. “You guys passed that, and I got to sleep at a cool 69 degrees for the first time in a while. So thank you.”

Another measure adds a full-time code officer to handle serious tenant complaints and improves complaint tracking and response times. The goal is to help renters report problems and get faster help.

Landlords vs. Renters

Nearly two dozen people spoke during public comment, with more than half opposing the ordinance.

Supporters, mostly renters and tenant advocates, said the ordinance offers long-overdue protections and addresses real problems like unsafe living conditions, delayed repairs, excessive fees and weak renter rights. They called for basic fairness and dignity, adding that many provisions are already law in other cities or simply clarify existing state rules.

Landlords and real estate professionals pushed back, calling it government overreach. They warned it could raise costs, increase legal risks and reduce the rental supply. Specific concerns included rules on tenant-initiated repairs, limits on companion animals, required cash payment options and the burden of a rental registry. Many said the bill would hit small landlords hardest, especially retirees on fixed incomes who rely on rent to get by.

Companion Animals, Not Just Pets

The ordinance used the term “companion animals” instead of pets — a deliberate choice by Fiebelkorn, a vocal animal advocate. The definition wasn’t limited to service or emotional support animals but applied to any animal a tenant lives with, regardless of purpose. The proposal would have banned monthly pet rent and breed restrictions.

Fiebelkorn said the protections were personal. High fees and blanket bans often force renters to choose between keeping their animals or finding housing.

“In times of natural disasters, people will not leave without their companion animals,” she said. “We see domestic violence victims staying in homes where there is violence because they can’t take their companion animal.”

She argued that renters shouldn’t be priced out or denied housing for having animals.

“It’s time that we realize that companion animals are part of the family and we cannot continually discriminate against people just for living with them,” Fiebelkorn said. “I’d be homeless before leaving my fur kids behind. A lot of people feel the same way.”

She pointed to Hurricane Katrina, when some residents refused to evacuate because they couldn’t bring their pets. While the RENT ordinance failed to advance, she said ignoring the bond between people and animals risks pushing more families into homelessness.

“Whether you feel that way or not, that’s not the point,” she said. “The point is that many of us do feel that way, and not allowing families to find a home that accepts everyone in their family is just really disrespectful and it’s causing even more people to become unhoused, and that’s just not acceptable.”

At the committee meeting, several landlords and property managers said the proposed companion animal rules went too far. Allowing any breed or animal, they warned, could lead to canceled insurance policies, since many providers restrict certain breeds.

They said the $150 cap on pet deposits wouldn’t cover most damage and argued the ban on monthly pet rent left them with few options. Some called it government overreach, saying it would force small landlords out of the market, reduce housing options, and raise rents.

What’s Not Included

Though the ordinance didn’t pass, city officials said it was designed to align with state law and use Albuquerque’s home rule authority to close local gaps, not to impose rent control.

The goal, according to Schultz, was to create clear protections without driving up costs or triggering legal conflicts. Most provisions wouldn’t have cost landlords anything.

The proposal mostly required tasks landlords already do, like listing rental details online and outlining fees in lease agreements.

 “We think implementation should be extremely low cost, if anything, for someone renting property in the city.”

The city worked with tenant rights groups while drafting the ordinance, but it didn’t include new funding for legal aid. Schultz said the aim was to balance protections without pushing landlords to pull units off the market.

Enforcement

The ordinance would have been enforced by the Office of Consumer Protection and a new housing code officer. Landlords who failed to follow the rules could have faced daily fines, but city staff said the focus was on resolving issues, not punishment.

“The goal is compliance,” Schultz told the committee. “We’re not looking to be punitive right out the door.”

Like other housing codes, enforcement would have relied on renters reporting violations. Schultz said the city can’t monitor every rental, but staff are in place to respond.

Under the proposal, landlords typically would have received warnings first. Daily fines or legal action through the City Attorney’s office would have only followed if problems continued.

Despite the committee’s decision, city officials emphasized the importance of continuing the conversation.

“Clear information and communication about the rental process helps everyone,” Staci Drangmeister, a spokesperson for the Mayor’s Office said. “This hearing revealed lots of common ground, and full Council can pick this important issue up. Let’s continue these conversations about the RENT ordinance and work together with the community and City Council to shape a policy that reflects our shared values and supports renters.”

Get Involved

The next City Council meeting is at 5 p.m. June 16 in the Vincent E. Griego Chambers, basement level of the City of Albuquerque Government Center, 1 Civic Plaza NW.

To speak during public comment, you must sign up by 4 p.m. the day of the meeting. If you don’t have internet access, call 505-768-3100 for help.

Join virtually:

• Zoom link: cabq.zoom.us/j/84979163903
• Webinar ID: 849 7916 3903
• Phone: 669-444-9171, then enter the Webinar ID

Watch live:

• Comcast Channel 16 (GOVTV)
• Stream at cabq.gov/govtv

On YouTube at youtube.com/@GOVTVBoardsCommissionMeetings