Good evening.

I call this committee of the whole meeting to order.

All counselors are present this evening with Councillor Teas and Rogers joining via Zoom.

Councillor Pena will be here shortly.

We will start with the moment of silence, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

Tonight is the third of three public hearings the council is required to hold on the city's operating budget to consider amendments and/or committee substitutes.

No live public comment will be taken on the city's operating budget legislation R 2617.

However, live public comment will be taken on the objectives legislation R 2628.

At the end of tonight's meeting, the budget as amended and or substituted will be sent to the Monday, May 18th City Council meeting for adoption.

Live public comment and written comments will be accepted at the May 18th council meeting.

Members of the public, city staff, and the media have the ability to join this meeting in person and on live streams through four different platforms.

Also, this meeting is closed captioned, and you may enable the closed captioning services on your television or device at this time.

The video recording of this meeting will also remain available for viewing at any time on the city council's website.

Council staff is available via telephone if members of the public need assistance finding the videos online.

Please call 505-768-3100 for assistance during business hours, which are Monday through Friday from 8 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

Members of the public have the opportunity to address the committee if they have signed up for public comment for R28.

Per the rules published on the agenda or on our website.

Staff has advised that no one has signed up to speak on this evening to speak on this evening.

Okay.

All right.

Let's see, I would like to um our let's see.

R17 is appropriating funds for operating the government of the city of Albuquerque for fiscal year 2027 beginning July 1, 2026 and ending July 30, 2027.

Adjusting fiscal year 2026 appropriations and appropriating capital funds.

I move a ducast.

Okay.

All righty.

We have um we have a um, let's see here.

Okay, now do I need to vote on this or we talk about it first?

Uh Madam Chair, we'll be amending the committee sub.

Do I have to accept the committee sub first though?

As amended.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

But counselors, before we get into discussions and doing this amendments, I'd like to have a little discussion about the committee sub.

I want to address the concerns raised during this budget process that started with the transmittal of the mayor's proposed budget regarding the approximately 11.8 million estimated projection adjustment reflected with the administration's proposed fiscal year 27 general fund.

When our staff brought this discrepancy to my attention, I immediately contacted the administration to meet about it.

During that discussion, I was told the 11.8 million was real money.

However, shortly after I received an email from the administration saying they had changed their methodology and they no longer considered the amount available for appropriation.

Then in two public meetings following that email, the city's chief financial officer stated that the administration expects to remain within the authorized fiscal year 26 general fund appropriation level.

In addition the administration later clarified to council staff in writing that the approximately 11.8 million component of the estimated projection adjustment represented the amount necessary to bring projected fiscal year 26 expenditures within the authorized general fund appropriation amount.

Because council had concerns with this seemingly conflicting information last week I directed council staff to seek technical assistance from the local government division of the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration regarding standard budgetary practices and treatment of projected year-in balances.

As everyone here knows local government budgets in New Mexico are ultimately reviewed, approved and certified by the State Department of Finance and Administration's local government division.

Under state law DFA has broad authority over local government budgeting including reviewing budgets requiring corrections or revisions, supervising expenditures and ensuring compliance with state budget law.

Following review of the information provided DFA advised council staff that where an adjustment reflects a realistic and well supported expectation reduced expenditures the resulting positive variants would typically flow into the following year's beginning available fund balance.

DFA further stated that if the approximately 11.8 million component represents a realistic and well supported projection then it would generally be reasonable to expect that that portion to carry forward in the fiscal year 27.

Ultimately DFA stated that from a budgetary continuity standpoint the council's understanding appeared reasonable.

In similar terms in simpler terms DFA advised us that if the city ultimately remains within the amount already authorized in the fiscal year 26 budget then those resulting savings would generally be accepted expected to carry forward into the next fiscal year following year in closure close and audit DFA also appropriate appropriately noted that the final amount if any remains subject to year in financial results and the city's annual audit process which the council fully recognizes based on our staff's due diligence the administration's representations the public statements of the chief financial officer and the technical assistance provided by the state's local government division I believe the committee sub before us takes a reasonable and fiscally responsible approach regarding treatment of the projected available balance if you'd like counselors Ms Jennifer Rocal can walk us through the general fund table to give us a visual represent representation would you like that?

Okay.

Mrs.

Brokaw Madam Chair Counselors before you is the general fund table as presented in the FY27 mayor's proposed budget.

In the current year, the anticipated ending balance and supported fund balance adjustments must equal the must equal the beginning fund balance and supported fund balance adjustments for the next fiscal year.

The FY27 proposed budget assumes departments will exceed their current FY27 appropriations by 11.8 million by only bringing forward the 63 million and not including the supported fund balance adjustment.

The 11.8 million is a component of the 13 million.

The admin has stated that departments will come within budget.

Based on this, the additional 11.8 million should have been carried forward as an ad and added as an adjustment in FY27.

So having this 63 million as a beginning fundance without the associated 11.8, it should have been included.

So what I did do is this is also the general fund table as presented with one change.

And the change is adding the 11.8, which shows the difference in the available fund balance.

Thank you.

Any questions, counselors?

Madam Chair, can you Miss Broka?

Can you just go back?

You said it was 8.1 on the original, and then what was the new number?

19.

Okay.

19.8.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

So any other questions?

Nope.

Alrighty.

Let's move on to the amendments.

This first committee amendment number one.

Is amendment that I'd like to bring in.

It's temporary at fiscal year 27 CIP indirect.

Yes.

I'm sorry.

Before we go to the amendments, the the committee needs to vote on approval of the committee sub.

We okay.

That's okay.

Thank you.

All right.

We're gonna have to do it online.

So Madam Clerk.

Oh sorry.

Councilor Backa.

Yes.

Councilor Bassard?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Counselor Champagne.

Yes.

Counselor February?

Yes.

Counselor Lewis.

Yes.

Counselor Benya?

Yes.

Counselor Rogers.

Yes.

Counselor Teyas?

Yes.

Thank you.

Counselor Group.

Yes.

That's $190 vote.

Thank you.

Okay.

So now we'll go to the first amendment, letter A in your packet.

This will be inserting the following a new section, Section 8, temporary fiscal year 27 CIP indirect overhead authorization.

The explanation for this is this amendment works within the framework already established by O2603, which adopted a baseline 2.75% IDOH rate and provided city council authority to review and approve alternative rates.

The amendment authorizes a limited temporary fiscal year 25 supplement IDOH recovery associated only with the 2026 general obligation bonds sold as series 2026A, 2026 B, and 2026 C capped at a total rate of 5%.

The amendment amendment also expressly incorporates the restrictions contained in 02603 to ensure recovered costs remain limited to allowable capital program support functions and are not used for unrelated operational or executive administrative expenses.

Need a second.

Sure.

Would it be I think it'd be good if we just gave an overview of the budget substitute?

Because we're talking about amendments to the budget substitute right now.

If we could do a highlights, let's talk about a summary of the budget substitute first, if that's okay with you.

Sure.

Mr.

Moxko.

Madam Chair, Councillor Lewis, Counselors.

Uh this committee of the whole committee substitute.

I believe was a collaboration with the chairperson's working with staff and all of you.

Um with the challenges of the adjustment and not getting that information until recently, we um moved forward with uh using it once we were confirmed by New Mexico local government division of DFA.

Um as everyone has stated over the the budget cycle uh raises for our frontline workers were the priority of this chairperson's uh budget, and therefore uh we worked and this committee sub in front of you brings the lowest paid employees to the 25th percentile uh as requested by our bargaining units.

Of course, it will be subject to collective bargaining, but it does put that money in reserve to bring those positions uh represented into the 25th percentile as per the administration's uh evergreen classification and compensation study from two years ago.

Secondly, that the chair um in this committee sub provides an additional one percent raise across the board, uh, aside from IAFF, who had a multiple year uh union negotiated contract with raises.

So it would be a total three percent across the board.

That does include those getting the 25th percentile raise.

So they will be getting it up to the 25th and then an additional one percent.

Some other highlights.

Um at the fund tables, we um saw that the automated speed enforcement fund balance for the projected fund balance for FY27 is going to be about 9.3 million dollars after we pay the state their half.

Uh so the committee chair instructed us to move all of the crossing guards uh and some street lighting contracts into that fund to free up some additional general fund monies.

Additionally, the assumptions for the $4 million in green stormwater utility fees and the $4.5 million in convenience uh center solid waste fees are removed from this committee sub.

Uh the council as a full council will hear green stormwater utility on Monday night.

Uh the chair did not believe it would be prudent to pass a committee sub with assumptions, so those are taken out.

Um we also the committee chair also instructed staff to remove the Albuquerque resident weekend fee increase at the biopark.

So that fee was removed.

Um we added two street maintenance workers in municipal development.

These are positions.

Um we added about $680,000 back to the transit subsidy to provide for uh funds for seven drivers and two additional mechanics.

We funded the Conway Wood Multi-Generation Center as it will open in FY27, so it is not just open eight to five Monday through Friday.

We have this committee sub provides funding to open for extended hours.

We have added 400,000 dollars to animal welfare for field service positions.

That would be three full-time employees.

We have heard the committee chair has heard loud and clear our friends at the Friends of the Library.

The chair has instructed staff to include $500,000 in library IT and move it from non-recurring to recurring year to year.

Those are the highlights.

Shall this committee sub pass as amended?

Mr.

Lewis, Councillor Grout.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Motsko.

All right.

So we have a second on this amendment.

Is there any discussion?

Counselor Feblecorn.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I I just want to make sure I understand because we did pass a bill recently that says that if we're going to use an alternative to 2.75, it has to be justified.

They sent down something that did not justify 5%.

And so we're making the the conscious decision to go with 5%, even though that wasn't justified.

And I guess my question is does that keep us from enforcing this in the future since that is the law?

Thank you, Counselor.

So this is for this year only, and it specifically says they have to go back to the 2.7 for fiscal year 28.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So we're just we're just giving them an out for a year because it was baked into the budget.

And we need that money.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Okay.

Madam Klerk.

Counselor Bacca.

Yes.

Counselor Bassan?

Yes.

Counselor Champlain.

Yes.

Counselor Febalcore?

Yes.

Counselor Lewis.

Yes.

Counselor Penya?

Yes.

Counselor Rogers?

Yes.

Counselor Teus?

Yes.

Counselor Group.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll go on to amendment number two.

Counselor Bacca.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Amendment B on page five after line 13 titled Home Support Services.

Insert the following.

Staff, if you'll notice the 100,000 is missing a zero.

If we can make that technical fix.

The designation directs the use of funding previously associated with the motel voucher program, which is not currently operational within the existing program appropriation.

So there's some funding for the motel vouchers that wasn't being used.

And the Hopeworks had reached out because A, their their meal program is down and is out of funds, and so that's folks who need food.

And then also cleaning up operational dollars to keep the streets safe and clean for everybody.

So I urge your support.

Yes.

Counselor Basson?

Yes.

Counselor Champlain?

Yes.

Counselor February.

Yes.

Counselor Lewis?

Yes.

Counselor Penya.

Yes.

Counselor Rogers?

Yes.

Counselor Teyas.

Yes.

Counselor Grab?

Yes.

That's nine-zero.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll move on to committee amendment number three.

Counselor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Amendment number three starts on page seven after line 23 inserting.

I noticed that we had some opioid settlement dollars that was not listed in any, even the original budget for local government abatement fund 201 was completely missing.

So I'm adding that in under finance and administrative services for recovery housing.

This amendment appropriates 100,000 for women in leadership resilient futures opioid re-entry preparation and housing program.

And I move and do pass.

Second that um council any questions?

Madam Council.

Madam Chair, is this so it's taking it from DFA but just putting it and allocating it into DFA with this year mark?

Correct.

So it I noticed that there were several departments in the budget that um the administration called out opioid settlement dollars from the fund 201, but it was actually missing from the committee sub all together.

So I I want to flag that number one, but I didn't add all of those things to my amendment.

I'm just adding what I would like to add to that funding, which is the hundred thousand for women in leadership for their opioid re-entry program housing program.

Thank you, Counselor.

Any other questions?

Okay, uh Madam Clerk.

Counselor Baca.

Yes, Counselor Bassan?

Yes, Counselor Champagne, yes, Counselor February, yes, Counselor Lewis, yes, counselor Benya?

Yes, Counselor Rogers, yes, counselor Tayas.

Yes, Counselor Group, yes, passes on a nine-zero vote.

Okay, we will go to committee amendment number four, counselor rogers.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh I'd like to move amendment number four on page three, line 11 entitled community events increasing the amount by 35,000, and on page five, line 12 under human health and human services decrease 35,000.

And this amendment just reduces the non-recurring appropriation out of HH to bring outpost back to their original funding of 75,000.

And I move a due pass.

Any second?

I'll second that again.

Um discussion.

Councilor uh Champagne.

Thank you.

Uh and this is just a question for this sponsor.

Um I'm not familiar with the outpost organization.

Sure, the outpost is a district six organization that sent us all lots of emails about their funding, Mr.

Tom over at Outposts, and they offer uh concerts through different venues.

They have a venue actually in district six, and no, we had uh reduced their funding in the committee sub from the mayor's original budget of 75,000.

So I'm just correcting that councillor Basson, Madam Chair, how much was the NMYSC cut in this budget in the mayor's proposed budget?

Or I guess now in the committee there was not any no, I'm sorry, counselor.

I'm asking staff, thank you.

Madam Chair and Councillor Basson from the committee sub, how much is the cut in this amendment?

Or no, no, ma'am.

Madam Chair, I'm wondering from last ye fiscal year, NMYSC, what did they get last fiscal year and what are they going to get in FY27 from the city of Albuquerque?

So NMYSC, Madam Chair, and Councillor Bassan is split into five, I believe five different organizations, all with different amounts from the mayor's proposed.

Um but last year they all received 100,000.

Madam Chair, you do we have a total amount for what NMYSC is going to be getting this year in FY27?

I will Madam Chair and Councillor Bassan give me one minute and I will get that for you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

No, let's see.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have the answer.

It's 35,000 is the decrease.

No, I think she wants to know the total total amount for all of them.

Oh, 500,000 was the total amount.

We're decreasing it by 35,000.

I don't see an outpost on here.

I see 400.

It's it's four now.

Okay.

I only see four on here.

Is that what you I'm sorry, Madam Chair?

I thought the I thought the question was what they received last year.

So last year was 500,000.

Yes, this year 400,000.

Yes, Counselor, we had that clear.

We're just trying to figure out for this year.

So this year I've got 400 sitting here when I first look at it.

Is that what you have?

Madam Chair, that is correct.

Okay.

All right.

Yes.

Second answer question.

Madam Chair, thank you.

It does answer my question.

I'm not able to take more funding from NMYSC to make one thing whole when everybody is not whole, anyway.

Uh, but that is why I wanted to make sure to have the current dollar amount for this proposal.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions, counselors?

Madam Clerk.

Counselor Bacca.

Counselor Basan?

No.

Counselor Champagne.

Yes.

Counselor February?

Yes.

Counselor Lewis.

Yes.

Counselor Benya?

Yes.

Counselor Rogers?

Yes.

Counselor Teyas.

Yes.

Counselor Grow?

Yes.

That passes on an 8-1 vote.

Okay, we'll go on to amendment E, uh, which is going to be five.

And this is by request.

Um this amendment is needed to correct necessary technical adjustments from R 17 by properly aligning appropriations with associated programs.

The following subsections detail each adjustment.

This is from the administration.

Would somebody from the administration like to speak on it?

Mr.

Noel?

Yes, Madam Chair.

This is the correction to the health housing and homelessness department.

This will appropriate a net six million dollars into their budget.

That will be they the overall budget will be appropriated at 7.1 million, but these changes result in a net $6 million appropriation with uh the decreases and increases on the lines explained.

Um this is to start the recovery of the uh IGA funding from the state that is going away in 27.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Noel.

Any questions, counselors?

Mr.

or Counselor Feblecorn.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So um if I heard Mr.

Motsko correctly, um, in your committee sub, we have increased back transit um by six hundred and eighty thousand to pay for four drivers and two mechanics, which is what we heard overwhelmingly from the community that was wanted, and then this takes one million away from transit, which would negate the work that you did to get them back whole and more.

And so I just I want to say I I'm not able to support this.

I want to support Gateway, but we cannot continue to take money from transit.

They're not a picky bank.

Um, they're actually providing a valid important service for our community, and I I'm I'm a little shocked to see another million dollars being proposed to take from them.

Thank you, counselor.

Any other questions?

Let's see.

Yes, counselor Bassan.

Madam Chair, I am trying to jump ahead to uh and I know the I'm familiar with the Roberts Rules factor, but uh we're talking about amendment number five that's reducing funding, um, and then there's gonna be another amendment coming up that's also reducing funding that I have concerns with, and I'm I guess let me ask, are there in these two amendments?

Are there anything that's from the same department to be double reduced?

Mr.

Noel?

Um Madam CFO, Madam Chair, are you are you I apologize, uh Counselor Busan.

Are you asking about the triple H amendment and what other amendments?

Uh they're marked in our packet as E and F.

They're both by request.

Uh Madam Chair, pardon me.

Uh and for example, what Councilor Feblecorn just brought up about transit.

Um, I haven't, I'm trying to look through real quick.

Is there another one for transit in the next amendment?

Or are there you know, one for stadium ops fund and then another one for stadium ops fund in the next one to where we're going to end up reducing it twice if we vote yes to both of these amendments.

Um Madam Chair, Councilor Basson, that's a great question.

No, the two amendments actually we had them combined in one, and council staff asked us to separate the two amendments.

Um but essentially the second amendment is just line iting line item the um identifying amounts related to radio services from different departments, and the total of that would of 1.568 would go into help fund triple H.

So no, there is not a double count.

And the other thing I would just like to add um to counselor Feblecorn's concerns is that you know um we we understand concerns and we are making tough decisions as uh director Keener mentioned, and we've spoken to her about this.

Um this is not a concern as far as being able to continue to operate the budget this year, but it will be a concern for Triple H to be able to operate without moving additional funding to them, Madam Chair.

Yes, Councillor Bassan.

So by reducing these amounts, are we going to be actually eliminating existing positions that are filled?

Madam Chair, no, and Councillor Bassant, no.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh this is a question for the administration.

Um just so I get this right.

We are increasing all the increases on this should equal the same amount as the decreases, Madam Chair.

Yes.

Um these amendments net out to six million because there is also an amount that we are adjusting in triple H's budget that the total equals around 7 million, but the net adjustments are about six million.

Okay.

Can you add them up and do the math real quick?

Because I came up with an extra 1.243 million dollars.

Madam Chair, Counselor, yes, we'll look at it.

Thank you, Council.

Well, he's doing that.

We're gonna move on to Counselor Teas.

Counselor Teas.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just had a question.

Um I did see two apparent overlaps on street services.

Um shows a decrease of eight hundred thousand, and the other shows a decrease of eighty thousand.

Um are those cumulative or is one meant to supersede.

Madam Chair, Councillor Teas, those are separate amounts.

I think you're talking about the first amendment had the 800,000 for street for services uh fund one ten, and then on page six, you have the 80.

That is related to the radio services.

Again, we we had them all on one, and by request of city council staff, we went ahead and created two separate amendments.

Thank you, madam CFO.

Madam Chair, one other question here on city communications on that second amendment.

Um it shows a decrease of 55,000 and then a decrease of 713,000.

Is that also a technical correction or what can you clarify that for me, please?

Counselor Teyas, we we can't really let we're not on that one yet.

Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, no worries.

Just save it for just save it for later.

We'll come back.

We'll come back.

Don't lose that thought, right?

Counselor Baca.

Thank you, madam.

Chair.

I'm just yeah, I'm having a hard time.

I mean, there's just this are big changes to just be thrown at it after all the work that's been done.

I have a hard time reconciling with this one right at the dais.

So I just want to put that out there.

Thank you.

I don't know what the effects of this will be on the budget as a whole looking at it right now.

Okay.

Thank you.

Council um, Madam CFO, did you total them up for Mr.

Noel?

Yes, Madam Chair, I did total the money.

You see the 1 million two forty-three.

Let me take a minute to see exactly what the reason for that is.

Okay.

Because we did validate these numbers.

Counselor Feebelcorn.

Thank you, madam.

Um chair.

I just um again I I don't think that I I will speak for myself only.

I definitely want to support and fund the gateway system.

It is vital to our community, but we do not have to pass this proposal tonight.

Um, they can come back with another proposal that does not decimate an agency that has been decimated already, and that this our cow chair has done so much work to refund.

Um, and so I would just urge us to uh say no and come back with another solution that does not take away all of the increased funding that a cow chair was able to find for this department, which is really strongly underfunded already.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Noel, uh Madam CFO, would you mind um if we just tabled this or withdraw it for now and then we bring it back on Monday?

Um, Madam Chair, I mean, if that's your preference, we will.

I will say that obviously these requests that we made, these amendments were you know not related to whatever amendments that the committee substitute or this body is doing.

I will say that we really try to have a concerted effort to find places where we could find this money, and as I shared with you, um, Madam Chair, to come with a solution that also did not impact the fund balance that we sent down at the 8.1 million.

Thank you, Madam CFO.

I have a question.

Um, I would like to withdraw it right now.

We'll come back on Monday.

Um, but I do have a question about um since it has early retirement in it.

Mr.

Noel, I wanted to ask you a few questions.

Yes, madam chair.

Thank you, sir.

At our last meeting, you were asked about how early retirement impacts the budget.

And you stated that you expected the amount needed to go down in fiscal year 27 because it's not an election year.

However, that's not supported by the data that you sent us this week after that meeting.

Your data doesn't show a consistent fiscal year pattern as you mentioned.

In fact, it um costs went up after the 2017 election.

The impact of early retirement after the 2025 election won't be observed until 2027.

And so I also wanted to point out that the early retirement costs have not been below five million or even seven million in the last six years.

And we can put that graphic up just so folks can see what I'm talking about.

Thank you.

Mr.

Cornelius.

So after um analyzing the data that you provided, there's only one year when the cost of early retirement decreased after an election.

Can you explain the consistent um consistent election patterns you mentioned in the last count meeting?

Um, madam chair, the request was for the last two cycles, and um that's what we provided.

Um, and earlier cycles that was more of a consistent pattern.

Okay, so it looks like the average early retirement cost for the last five years is seven million.

Um you also mentioned that it looked at um that you looked at the data and analyzed trends.

Can you explain how the administration estimates the city will only spend five million on early retirement if we pass an amendment to support the gateway services?

Madam Chair, the assumption is that um less people will be retiring in FY27 given uh the lower economy the you know down not downturn but the uh changes in the economy and you know with very good higher unemployment.

Okay, thank you.

Uh counselors, any other follow-up questions for this?

Thank you, Mr.

Noel.

Okay, I think we'll um we'll withdraw um E for now.

Um we have to vote on it?

Okay.

To withdraw it?

Okay.

Do I have to have a second to withdraw it?

Okay.

That was so quick.

All right.

Okay, so we have a we have a councillor February has seconded the withdrawal.

Um Madam Clerk.

Counselor Backa.

Yes.

Councilor Basan?

Yes.

Counselor Champagne.

Yes.

Counselor February, yes.

Counselor Lewis, yes, Councilor Pena.

Yes.

Uh sorry.

Counselor Rogers.

Yes.

Counselor Tayas.

Yes.

Yes.

Counselor Grout.

Yes.

That's on a nine-zero vote.

Okay.

So we just that one just needs some work.

Um, I think do you want to do the same for this one, or do you want to should we move this one?

Uh we'll try and we'll try this one.

This is committee amendment number six.

Um, this is another by request.

Um, this amendment is needed to correct necessary technical adjustments for CR 2617.

Um somebody from the administration would like to talk about it.

Madam Chair, um this one.

I'm sorry, I don't have them labeled, so I'm assuming you're talking about the one with all of the radio expenses.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

So this one is a situation where after the budget was sent down, we received notice from the state that they were going to cover the radio expenses.

And so these radio expenses in the budget were originally distributed amongst the departments.

And once we received word that the state was going to pay for that, we felt this was an appropriate place for us to fund triple H because it holds the department's harmless.

It's funding that they would have had to pay for radio expenses that they now do not have to pay for.

Thank you.

Did I get a second on that?

Any seconds?

Councillor Bassan seconding.

Counselor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I guess to our staff, would this does this line up with the budget substitute or are there some changes that would need to be made to this amendment?

Now that we just does it apply to the substitute.

And if if not, I'd suggest we would withdraw this as well.

And you rewrite it so it matches the budget substitute and vote on on Monday.

Madam Chair, Counselor Lewis, this this does match to the committee substitute as far as the lines and everything.

We would work if it passed, we would work tomorrow and over the weekend to present it for the full council on Monday with the updated numbers.

Okay.

Counselor Bassan.

Madam Chair, is there supposed to be somewhere in here where it says increase the amount?

Or can somebody point out where that is?

Because I don't see it.

I just see a lot of decreases.

Madam Chair, Councilor Basan, no.

These are all decreases because the state is picking up the subscriber fees for FY27.

Originally in the proposed budget, we had budgeted the departments to pay the subscriber fees.

But on April 1st, the state notified us right after we sent the budget that they were picking up the subscriber fees.

So we had to go back in and reduce the allocation to the departments.

So that's why you see nothing but decreases.

Okay, madam chair, and I understand all of that about the state, but are you putting all of these decreases somewhere else because it's not in this amendment?

Madam Chair, yes.

I think where the confusion lies is we originally had this all in one amendment, and then council staff asked us to split it.

So I think um sorry that's the discrepancy.

So that's it.

Madam Chair, Councilor Basson and Councillor Champagne, that's your 1.2 million.

I apologize because earlier I forgot about the DTI subscriber fees.

Madam Chair is a 1.2 million.

Can you please will you please withdraw this so that we can make sure I understand council staff wanted two amendments?

I understand that the state ended up having all of this.

Like I I understand all of that, but we need to clean it up, and we still have time to clean it up.

100%.

I agree.

I would like to withdraw this one at this time.

Second.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right, Miss Cat.

Um Madam Chair uh Clerk.

Counselor Backa.

Yes.

Counselor Bassan?

Yes.

Counselor Champagne.

Yes.

Counselor People Court?

Yes.

Counselor Lewis.

Yes.

Counselor Penny?

Yes.

Counselor Rogers.

Yes.

Counselor Teas?

Yes.

Counselor Cro.

Yes.

Pass the 90 vote.

Okay.

Now we're gonna go on to committee amendment number seven.

Counselor Teas.

Okay.

Thank you all so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, so this amendment.

On page two, amend section two as follows.

Um that the amount of uh 3,700 is hereby reserved within the general fund for fiscal year 27 for the purpose of funding compensation adjustments necessary to bring Albuquerque FTE positions to at least the 25th percentile as identified in the most recent Evergreen classification and cop study.

Such adjustment is subject to applicable collection bargaining negotiations with the addition of prior to the release or distributed distribution of any reserved funds authorized percent to the section, the administration shall provide the city council a detailed fiscal analysis, identifying the projected salary costs, employee benefit costs, para-costs, um para impacts, FICA impacts, and estimated future year recurring fiscal obligations associated with the proposed comp adjustments upon execution of C CBA contract agreements and receipt of such fiscal analysis by the city council.

The amount is hereby um unreserved and shall be distributed to the appropriate departments for the purpose of implementing these adjustments by OMB.

Um I move for it to pass.

And I will second this.

Is there any discussion?

Counselor Bassan.

Madam Chair, I'm just curious.

I want to make sure to clarify uh I know what I'm reading as far as fiscal analysis, but I want to make sure that this does not mean that we are going to have another study done about anything.

So I would like to ask the admin what this amendment will do when we end up coming back for this funding.

Madam CFO.

Madam Chair and Counselor Bassan, I'm assuming fiscal analysis means that we would just be providing a number that shows not only the salary but the benefits.

So essentially a loaded number is the way that I would interpret this adjustment.

Madam Chair, and with all the other details listed here for FICA and Para and all of that, right?

So I mean it seems doable to me, but I just want to make sure that I'm not walking into something that's start evergreen over again.

Right.

Counselor Teas.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Counselor Bassan.

Yeah, the the amendment is just to require the administration to provide us with this additional information so that we can ensure more fiscal transparency and allow the council to evaluate the long-term financial impacts.

And this is mainly, you know, to ensure that comp increases are fully funded, so that we can avoid any sort of future liabilities.

And really it'll help improve sort of the long-term workforce planning so that we can be better protected from any potential structural deficits that we have seen regarding the underestimation of comp obligations.

So it just allows us to better be informed so that we don't have any structural issues around this.

Thank you, Counselor.

Madam, Madam Chair, Madam CFO, Counselor Teas, I would to that point.

I mean, the question from Councillor Bassan was what do we think this is?

I will say as it relates to the amount, we do have concerns that this amount is being used for recurring personnel costs, and it appears to be for one time from funding for one-time use.

She is not aware of any conversation that has been had with she definitely wasn't involved in a conversation.

And having been a person who worked for 20 plus years at the state, uh, who is a certified fraud examiner and a CPA and a lawyer, I am completely absolutely concerned with the belief that the 11 million is a realized amount.

And as I stated to all of you in an email previously, if this body does approve a budget with that assumption, we will be in a position where we will take additional cuts, or there will have to be layoffs, or we will have a budget with a deficit that will result in findings, will result in our audit report with the state auditor being impacted, and it possibly could result in finding uh excuse me, bond rating issues.

So I just need to get that on the record that I continue to remain concerned about that assumption.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam CFO.

Can you tell me if the implementation of this amendment will um delay the raises, Madam Chair?

I'm I'm not sure your question.

I'm I'm not sure I understand it.

Yes, if we are this analysis right here.

Again, assuming that fiscal analysis means giving you the the loaded number with the net expenses, I don't think so.

We've already provided that information as part of the council questions.

Thank you.

Um Counselor Teas.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, just again to um reiterate this really is a fiscal internal control provision.

Um, and it's to make sure that you know the city understands really the full recurring cost of comp increases before releasing reserved funds.

It's not you know an anti-comp position or an you know, it's to ensure that there is um we can appropriate responsibly before reserves are are really released.

So it's a safeguard that compensation reserves are released only after council receives an analysis of what those proposed adjustments would be.

Um the intent is not to delay or deny the compensation, just to ensure that if there are any increase, increases, it's transparent, it's funded, it's sustainable across funds.

Because really, any compensation changes, you know, um we shouldn't be authorizing expenditures of reserve funds without really understanding um the annualized impact, right?

So it's a it's an internal control um provision that's very consistent with the internal control frameworks when it comes to management and governing bodies.

Um so it does, you know, ensure that there's a control activities, uh, monitoring activities, risk assessment activities, so that we can you know um not really funds tied to recurring obligations until we know the impact.

So thank you.

Thank you, counselor.

Okay.

Um any other questions?

All right, um, Madam Clerk, Councilor Backa Yes.

Counselor Basson, yes, Counselor Champagne.

Yes, Counselor People Court?

Yes, Counselor Lewis.

Yes, Counselor Penn?

Yes, Councilor Rogers, yes, Counselor Teyas?

Yes, Counselor Group.

Yes, it's on a nine-zero vote.

Thank you.

Counselors, are there any other amendments at this time?

Nope.

Okay, and any discussion.

Counselor Bassan.

Madam Chair, I just before we move on from this, because it was very it was way faster than I thought it'd be tonight, um, and I'm not sure that's a good thing.

So I just am curious if I know that normally we do more of an open, but at the same time, if there's more of a concern or if there's something the admin wants to say, I know that there's been a whole bunch of what I'm going to reduce down to a he said she said, and I I don't know who's right, and I've heard evidence from both sides.

I have not seen evidence from anywhere.

So I have to base my decision off of what pretty much everyone has heard, and I mean that's scary.

We're supposed to know what we're doing.

Um, so I'm curious if the admin has something to add because I will definitely be giving this much deeper thought over the weekend because however this ends up with the committee sub as amended.

I'm hoping that we do get it out of committee tonight, but I'm not saying I'm committed to keeping it this way when Monday comes around.

Madam Chair, Councilor Besson, thank you for your questions.

Um I think that for a few weeks now we've had conversation back and forth.

Um I think obviously there's differences of opinion, and I did send an email to the counselors about this concern.

One thing that I was looking at as sort of just an example is that, and I think Councillor Grout, you know, mentioned at the beginning that there was conversation with local government.

I don't remember the exact verbiage, but essentially saying that it's okay it's okay to it's reasonable to book something that essentially seems like I don't remember the exact words, but essentially saying that we think it's going to happen.

But one thing I would ask is in looking at last year's fund table, when the budget was submitted as proposed, this estimated projection adjustment, which was by the way, the first time it showed up on a fund balance.

And I the email I sent to you all demonstrated that it hadn't been on previous years.

When the budget came down, it showed an estimated projection adjustment of 12.1 million.

By the time that the budget was approved, the estimated projection adjustment was 6.7 million.

So to me, that just demonstrates that this again is an estimate, it's a projection.

And so I I you know, I think to counselor Tayos's comments, I don't think it's it is good governance to base a budget on something that is an estimate that may never be realized or a portion of it realized.

And I understand that this committee substitute attempts to put some of it into a reserve identifying that all of it may not come to realization.

But again, I think that's a concern because the plan would be to use it for recurring personnel costs, and it is a one-time, it is a one-time funding source, potentially.

And then what it does is it forces us in the next fiscal year to try to find the recurring funds.

So I don't know if that answers your questions, Councillor Grow, but I think I will continue to remain with the position that it is an unrealized amount, and again, to base a budget off of an amount that is unrealized at this time, I believe is problematic.

Madam Chair, and then if I may, yes.

Thank you.

I would like to ask based off of that if our staff has anything additional to add um Madam Chair, Counselor Bissan.

Um I got out of the zoom, I I'd put the general fund table back on.

Well, basically, what I would say is that in the FY26 estimated actuals, they are projecting to overspend by the second quarter projections of 11.8 million.

So they're they're saying they're going to spend $884 million when the budget is at $872.

Uh $872 million.

They have to come in budget.

That's what the council has appropriated to spend.

So given that number, that's the estimate.

You have to come in budget.

So that's what I would I would say to that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to I guess finish up is I I hope all of us heard that, whether it's admin, staff, council, public, because it's gonna have to be a lot of food for thought for me over the weekend.

Uh because again, things are up in the air.

Any kind of actual evidence.

If y'all want to send these letters from DFA, if you want to show me the money, that would be amazing.

We will counselor feeble corn.

Thank you, madam chair.

So I just have a couple of questions on the committee sub because um I just haven't had a chance to speak with you, and I know folks in the in the community are interested in this as well.

So if it's okay, I could just ask a few questions.

Um the first one is that there is 400,000 added back into animal welfare.

Um, and I I would love to hear about the source of those 400,000 dollars.

Uh Mr.

Matsko.

Madam Chair, Council of Feeble Corn, um the 400,000, obviously I'm not gonna get into theory here, but the the general fund is one big pot, and then we divvy it up.

Uh after the committee chair saw the proposed budget from the administration, uh, animal welfare and and uh the directors uh speaking at last committee of the whole, uh it was decided by the chair that we would take the 400,000 out of the legal diversion program because that is a brand new program in the legal department that none of the counselors knew about.

So that was her decision to move that 400,000 from a brand new program into an existing established program.

Okay, thank you, madam chair.

So with the committee sub that we adopted tonight, which I know can be changed, but I'm asking with that committee sub, what's the general fund balance?

Madam Chair, Counselor uh Feeblecorn, because we passed amendment A with the IDOH, uh the general fund balance, and I don't I loath to do public math, but before the amendments, the general fund balance was 1.8 million dollars.

Uh amendment A will give uh the flexibility to the administration of approximately 2.5 million dollars.

My public math seems to think that's about 4.3 million dollars that we are leaving for the administration.

Oh okay.

So um, Madam Chair, so why not just take the 400,000 from the general fund rather than taking away a diversion program?

I'm just I'm trying to understand the the rationale.

Sure.

Thank you, counselor.

So um during conversations um during the um hearings, um it wasn't very well um explained what this program was they didn't have they don't have it designed or anything like that.

And um and it was my opinion that um that from the questions that counselors raised that it needed more food for thought.

There's also a diversion program that the DA's office does.

So um so that's why.

Okay, thank you, madam chair.

Appreciate that.

And then my next question is on the movement of a lot of expenses into the automated speed enforcement pot.

And this body just had adopted under our new traffic code that we would use all automated speed enforcement for vision zero projects.

And so I see that everything that's moved into that are related to roads, but they're not specifically vision zero projects.

And I just wonder I don't know if I can ask, like maybe Director Turner, um, what will be given up if we do not have those funds going into the actual Vision Zero projects.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Councillor February, I I will turn it over to Director Turner because she obviously has more information, but there will be impacts by that decision.

Right, thank you.

I mean, I I'm the only reason I'm concerned is because we, as everyone knows, we've had um quite a few high profile horrific deaths from bicyclists and pedestrians and scooters, and um and that vision zero fund was supposed to have um you know the funding to provide some of the um bikeway um improvements that I think are important to all of us.

So I'm just trying to get a handle on without that funding, which is going to be diverted to some other really good things.

What are we giving up in Vision Zero?

Um thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Councillor Feblecorn.

Um, I just want to back up a little bit to Mr.

Motzko's comment on there being over 9 million dollars in fund balance um in the automated speed enforcement, which as you note is our primary funding source for vision zero.

Um yesterday, um acting budget director Kevin Noel sent um the my department's answers to general counsel follow-up questions related to automated speed enforcement, which actually show that over the four-year lifespan of the program, our total amount of cash for vision zero after we've paid for all the things paid our vendor, paid the state, paid internal program costs that total over the past four years, we only have 9.9 million dollars.

And so when I saw the the um providing 4.675 million to those really important things that that you alluded to, um I am concerned about the impact on um the vision zero program, and I know that all of you counselors uh we had a fabulous partnership to support traffic safety.

I am I'm so grateful.

Um and I there was a real coming together with the community of saying enough is enough, enough traffic deaths we had two this week, including a cyclist on Monday night, and and honestly, this has been a really hard week.

It's also bike-to-work day today, and so talking about cyclist death and losing money for vision zero, it it's it's really it's really tough timing.

Um, but backing up to the money, um, so out of that 9.9 million, uh, we had spent 4.8 million on uh we've expended that and encumbered that on some critical Vision Zero projects across actually all council districts and uptown on East Central, which we all know is one of the most dangerous streets in the country.

Um we also have spent that money on our traffic safety program educational campaign, which I am talking to uh once a month about our our campaign that we're very proud of, and then the remaining 5.8 million dollars that our um numbers show is programmed for some pretty important projects, including at the Claremont intersection where that cyclist died Monday night, um, as well as San Mateo on the Hanarroyo, where I was literally asked by a constituent about what we're doing to improve safety there, um, as well as Ubank on some um on the Paseo de las Montaños, um as well as our West Central Complete Streets Project, which is a high priority project.

So I I can go on and on about talking about the 254 improved crossings that the city needs, as well as a lot of other ready really critical safety improvements.

Um, but but to answer your question, yes, I am very concerned about the impact, and I would like to work together with um council to um have a further discussion about minimizing those impacts on the Vision Zero program.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I appreciate that.

I just that was one of the things that kind of stuck out to me, and I I I understand all the thought that was behind it, but I I do I would like to work together on that over the weekend if we can to think of some options because Monday night was just a reminder that we are still having people killed in crosswalks, and we need to do well we can to improve those.

Um director couple more, madam chair.

Um I noticed that uh we've reduced um the funding for um affordable housing vouchers um by an additional 1.5 million in this committee sub, and I'm just uh curious as to why um the because there they still have a huge amount and it was left for that that fund was left because uh they said that they needed that for continued leases and so forth, but they have a they have eight million dollars sitting in there right now, and so um it's you shouldn't be holding that money, but it should be moved.

It that should be going down, and we're at the end of the year, there's plenty of money to go forward.

That is why thank you, madam chair.

Eight million total left in the affordable housing vouchers fund is alarming.

It is um I I would love to hear more about that from the administration, Madam Chair and Councilor Feeblecorn.

I believe um some of our triple A.

Directors and Dr.

Verb.

Thank you for just tell me how we can possibly have eight million dollars left in housing vouchers when that is the number one thing that I hear from uh my unhoused friends and neighbors that they need.

Uh Chair Grout, um, Counselor Feeblecorn, thanks for the question.

This is a very important issue on my heart, and this could have a really significant impact on a lot of people.

So I want to try to be as clear as I possibly can about the amount that's left and what this change might impact in terms of children and seniors and families that are currently housed.

Uh we have a fund balance that's being um allocated on the dashboard, the voucher dashboard.

We've done some adjustment with our internal team, our DTI team.

There had been some continued um accounting for rapid rehousing money that was across three years in that particular display in that dashboard, and so I've asked our DTI to distribute that across three years so you can really see what the true fund balance is.

What I can see from what I've pulled and all of my information from DTI today, and they just updated the dashboard uh about an hour ago.

Um, what I can see from them today is there's about a 4.5 million dollar balance out of the 12 that's allocated for the full amount, both it's a little a little over 12 for federal and general fund.

So there's 4.5 remaining accounting for what they see in their accounts in PeopleSoft.

I've gone into my accounts and looked at what my staff are tracking based on what's come in from providers, and we're looking at about a balance of three million.

That's up to March, so I have a quarter left.

I'm sitting at about 73% spend down.

That's pretty accurate for what we're looking at over the year.

There's a couple of contracts in there that actually don't get executed, don't finish their execution date until October as well.

So, what's really important to understand is that if you cut this funding, there are people that are currently housed under this funding that would be unhoused, so we want to make sure that does not happen.

So I pulled a couple of numbers for you.

The current amount housed is one point uh sorry, um 1,67 people that are currently housed under all of the money, both federal and general fund.

Um thirty of those are seniors and 573 of those are children.

If you were to cut this 1.5 million dollar cut, what you'd be looking at is um unhousing 116 adults, 74 children, and 17 seniors for a total of 207 individuals.

It's really important to understand that these individuals are really vulnerable, high acuity, homosechronicity along with disability, and so when you put individuals like that outside um when they've currently been housed, it can have a real impact, obviously, on them and their well-being, but you know, it costs the system more when we don't fund permanent supportive housing vouchers and rapid rehousing vouchers, a lot of evidence and research out on that, and we can talk more about that if you'd like.

Um, but those are my basic numbers from here today on the analysis that I've done, and I have all the numbers behind this for each of the contracts as well, so we could look into each of the contracts specifically if you had questions.

But um, that was my analysis.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I so I just want to make sure that I wrap my head around this.

While in the system it might show an $8 million balance, you were saying that that has that is kind of obligated and is it just we haven't caught the accounting hasn't caught up with what we've actually spent.

Is that Chair Grout, Counselor Februar?

That's correct to some extent.

I'm not sure where you're seeing the $8 million balance.

Um that was not what was coming up from me even before we made the adjustment.

But if you look in the dashboard now, the adjustment basically looks at about $4.5 million remaining out of the 12.

Um that's you know, not even that much comparatively to how much we have actually spent.

But when I look into my records of what hasn't actually gone through the entire system into people's software approval, I'm looking at only a three million dollar remaining.

And so we've we're really working on with all of our providers to make sure that that money is spent down because they do need it and they are currently using it.

So we want to ensure that that money doesn't get cut because it's allocated out to them and it's also being given to clients at this time.

Can you get us that information tomorrow that all of what you just said, so that we have those numbers because these are the numbers that you provided us?

And that's what we're working off of.

Yes, Chair Grout.

Yeah, absolutely.

I'll get that to you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I'm sorry, Madam Chair, can I ask a few more questions?

Um that's all for y'all.

If you could just share that information with me too.

I I just I I think it's confusing when we hear when we get reports, we ask questions, we get answers back, and then we make decisions based on those, and then it's not.

I I certainly don't want to see any body unhoused.

Um, but I also want to know the actual numbers and the real data, so I appreciate that.

Um, I just have a couple more questions, Madam Chair.

Um can someone walk me through the changes to open space in the committee sub this has been something we had lots of people very concerned about.

We did.

Mr.

Motsko.

Madam Chair, Councillor Fieldcorn, I see a uh $200,000 increase to open space for education uh coordinator and a park attendant, it's two full-time employees.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So that would mean that we have a total of two park attendants for open space.

Do we know if that is sufficient?

I don't know if if um our open space manager is here, but I I would like to just clarify what what is needed for open space park man or open space management.

Um I'm thinking of the things that people were concerned about who's opening the open space, who's closing the open space, who's maintaining the open space.

Is this additional attendant?

Uh what is that gonna do for open space?

Madam Chair, Counselor, um thank you for the question.

Uh the situation we are evolving here toward is that I think we currently have four park attendants who have those duties.

Um we have one with a filled position, uh a second, uh we have a hire in place, and we're currently reclassifying a position that I felt would be better off as a park attendant.

So without action in the budget, we would have three.

Um if nothing changed in the proposed budget.

If I understand the amendment, this is the first information I've I've gotten here, so I'm just reacting to that.

I think this appears to be adding back one more, which would more or less then keep us at um equilibrium there, status quo of four.

Okay.

Um thank you, madam chair.

And and then there's also um uh funding for uh education coordinator um for open space as well, and I assume that you welcome that, and that would be helpful.

Madam Chair and uh counselor, you know.

Uh deactivating any position is difficult for our departments, all of them.

So you know, losing anybody in open space in that function is you know, it's it's not what we would prefer.

Um were it funded and it'd be funded and returned, it would be you know uh very, very it would be welcomed for the program, but of course we have difficult choices to make in the budget.

Uh the the program um to deliver the programs you know to as many people that we'd like to touch with uh conservation and environmental education, it is dependent on the number of staff we have to to do that.

Okay, thank you, madam chair, and then um director also in parks management.

And I um I see you writing down, so you probably don't have an answer to this, but can you just guess at what that 750,000 would be able to do?

It's um contract funding for park maintenance is uh language.

Madam Chair, Counselor Yeah, again, that that's the number.

I'm just hearing that number for the first time.

Uh if it is uh I'm gonna assume it may have been uh adding back funds to what we would call contractual services.

Is that what the um committee chair intended?

If it was uh going back into contractual services, that is the main source of funding for temporary labor, as well as vendors that we use, but a lot of it goes toward temporary uh park maintenance labor.

So you know that equates to hours, man hours and women hours in the parks doing the maintenance work.

Okay, thank you for that.

That's really helpful.

I I appreciate all those changes.

Um thank you, uh Chair Grout.

That's all I had.

Um I did have a couple of questions on some recurring items that I just wanted to um just get the rationale for um and see if there's something that I need to be working on over the weekend.

One thing was um the neighborhoods program was funded for 50,000.

Um that that is one planting, and I had assumed that all counselors would like to do a planting every year, and so um I'm just wondering if it meant to be more or if that if we really wanted to just take turns.

Actually, um I would be happy to have it be more.

Okay, that's a favorite programs right.

And I know when we had discussed it, it was potentially one per council district, so that's something that we can maybe work in a good weekend.

Yep.

Wonderful.

Um and that is the end of my questions.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, Counselor.

Uh Counselor Bacca.

Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt.

Yes, uh on Councilor People Corn's um question about open space.

I was just a bit confused by the response, and I just wanted to check perhaps I might be misunderstanding the committee sub because on the open space line I see more than 700,000 dollars, which would seem to be way more than salary for two people.

Um, and so I just want to make sure I have the right line item on the committee sub.

It seems like there might be additional open space funding staff staff, yeah.

Um Madam Chair.

So there's an increase of 200,000 for two FTE.

Um and an increase for 569 for open space Boski and fire protection.

And Madam Chair, if I could just say that that um 569,000 was the number that um we you and I spoke about and spoke to um director Simon about to keep that that fire um protection going.

So that's the number that um he recommended, and so I appreciate that being put back in as well.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Counselor Backa.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a minor minor discrepancy.

We were looking through the uh non-reoccurrent funding, and uh, but it does main street was cut when the uh administration set it down by like 20 24,000.

Tiny amount.

Um however, the MOU that the city has with the main street uh lists all uh Main Street should be at 79,000.

So we just want to get that out there that we'll use that?

Uh but it used Main Street.

So it needs to be 79K?

Yes.

Okay.

So thank you.

And and we'll work with staff to find that.

Thank you.

Um Counselor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know, just a word on the uh you know the exchange, the differing opinions between our staff.

Um and I appreciate you know, Councilor Basson given an opportunity for you know each of them to um you know to talk.

Um, we're as a council.

I mean, we want we want data, we want information, uh, we want to get to the bottom, you know, of the truth on these things.

Um I I guess I would ask you all to I mean imagine that again you all work for the city, you all are interested even together.

If you were a team, a committee that was tasked with you know, uh together with a budget and um and uh and there were disagreements on that team.

Um, we would we would try to get as best we can toward just the bottom line facts about it.

Uh that's what I hope we do.

Maybe we get to that by Monday night.

Um what uh what I what I've been going on, and I you know, I our our staff has done a lot of research.

Um our staff has uh um uh you know gotten advice, you know, from other experts.

Uh and our staff did um get a written statement, you know, from the DFA uh from a deputy director of the DFA that handles local governments.

Um so you know, I I may I may you know may not agree totally with this budget substitute, and we'll see as it goes, but um uh but I I've come to the conclusion looking at those facts and that and and our staff agreeing 100 percent um that they're they're right on the 11 million dollars, you know.

Um you had an opportunity to to respond to that and said you gave us some things before, and you also mentioned that it is uh that those are non-recurring funds or going off a non-recurring basis.

Our staff read some, you know, again, facts and you know, conclusions that it is reoccurring.

And so um, you know, we have a differing opinion there, and yet I'm I'm looking at um you know evidence of that, you know, from our staff.

Um so it's gonna have to be more than just accusing our staff of not talking to the DFA because you talk to somebody else.

It's gonna have to be more than that.

Uh it's also gonna have to be more than just uh threats that we're gonna have layoffs if we if we trust our staff on this.

Um what that tells me is you don't have a response to these these these facts that we have before us.

It just says you're accusing them of lying and you know that you're getting bad information.

Well, I don't think we are.

Um certainly we wouldn't have introduced a budget substitute that's based on that.

Um also there is some pretty high stakes here, you know.

Um, without this budget substitute, the these you know the our employees don't get the raise um that everybody believes that they need, so that doesn't happen.

Um and so um I guess my encouragement would be, and right now I believe 100 percent in our staff and the evidence that they put before us, you know, the only the only uh reason that this budget substitute is based on something where we're making an estimate in your words or uh that it's unrealized dollars, you know, the only reason and by the way, almost everything that we go off of is an estimate.

It's all unrealized because it's next year.

Um and so the the only thing we have to go on is is the the evidence and facts, and the only thing that would make this this specific um revenue, the only the only thing that would make it unrealized or an estimate is uh if you plan on spending that money, if you plan on going over budget uh this year, and you've clearly told us over and over, you've told this council that you are not going to go over budget.

And so uh but if if that were the case and you were planning on doing that, then yes, if we were to do this, then it would be an estimate.

But um so you know, overall, I mean, if if there is a way by Monday that we could come to just looking at some real facts, and if you have some uh that we would look at that and be able to weigh that.

Uh but again, it's got to be more than just uh, you know, again, I I I did I did find it hard to believe that we're this that this conversation um went into accusing our staff of not really talking to the DFA, you know.

I find that that kind of mind-boggling and not helpful.

Uh so um I I hope we can you would get to a better spot by Monday.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Uh Madam Chair, if I may respond.

Um absolutely we want to work with you all.

And Madam Chair, you said that you got some information from DFA.

We would love to review it.

We would love to see it.

So I know Counselor Basson asked for it.

We would love to also get it.

And happy to work with you.

The other thing I would say, Councilor Lewis, is please don't put words in my mouth.

I did not say that they were lying.

I said I would like to know who they spoke to at DFA.

I said because I did speak to a contact.

They had not talked to her.

That's not to say they didn't talk to someone else, so please don't put words in my mouth.

I think once we get the information from DFA, it will be clear as to who they talked to.

That was my question.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Uh Madam CFO, I would like the same.

I would like the information that you've received from whoever your sources are.

I'm I'm just saying that I talked to I don't have an email.

I just reached out and asked if they had spoken to you.

Thank you.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, Counselor Teas.

Thank you, Counselor Lewis.

Counselor Teyas.

I'm coming, thank you.

Um, yes, thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I appreciate it.

I just wanted to kind of to, you know, Counselor Basson's very good point earlier about where is the evidence and like how have we kind of gotten here.

Um, you know, I have reviewed the past four um fiscal year audits, and I can tell you that everything that we're seeing here today and all the concerns that we are seeing here today, um we've been hinted that this is gonna happen.

Um, you know, we have seen uh I see a really long-running control environment problem, and this is not just like a one-year surprise here.

Um there have been you know a multitude of repeat findings, modified um items for accounts payable, payroll, capital assets, um, FFATA reporting, inventory, IT procedures, budgetary compliance.

Um FY23 also carried forward a large number of FY22 findings, FY24 carried forward, FY23 findings, FY25 carry forward, FY24 findings.

So and that included things in construction, progress, capital assets, payroll procurement, sub-recipient monitoring, a lot of big things.

Um, and one of the you know, issues is none of those have been addressed.

Um, the fact that we continue have these major big findings and management management response for all of these have been, oh, we are working on addressing these situations and we are gonna develop um controls around this, but then we still have findings around those items is very concerning, and you know, the fact that we are now in a position where we have a budget that has major structural problems, I think is you know clearly very related to the fact that we've had let's see, 10 prior findings this year, seven the year before, eleven the year before, um, that just have not been addressed.

So I don't know how serious we are or the you know we are fixing this if the administration and management hasn't addressed any of those matters.

Um, and so you know, it's it's just very concerning.

Um, and I'm not saying that every finding is catastrophic because they're not, but the concern is that we see a lot of corrective actions that are not consistently curing underlying control weaknesses, um, and that's where we have the problem.

And so I don't think the question here is to just balance the budget.

I think the question here is that we need to make sure that we are requiring, you know, the administration to prove to council that the numbers that are being sent to us are reconciled, that we know that they're monitored, that we know that they're tied to any potential corrective action.

I mean, this goes back to the the real need of having goals, objectives, and outcomes that can help us inform our decision here because you know, the again, these repeated findings on particularly budgetary compliance, are not abstract accounting issues, and you know, the council is relying on estimated actuals, fund balance, all of these things that we can't even make a decision on because we have to wait until we see the actuals in the next ACFER.

So there's just some issues that I think can be solved very easily by the next budget cycle if we really you know pay attention and make these changes and fix these findings.

So that's where I'm very concerned about is just where where that bridge is um and how we can better, you know, correct these these matters so that the budget itself will just you know intrinsically correct itself, right?

Thank you, Councillor.

Yeah, so thank you.

I appreciate your um knowledge, your wisdom there.

you know pay attention and make these changes um and fix these findings so that's where i'm very concerned about is just where where that bridge is um and how we can better you know correct these these matters so that the budget itself will just you know intrinsically correct itself right thank you counselor yeah so thank you i appreciate your um knowledge your wisdom there um i can tell you that we sent three fund balances or tables to um d fa and they were able to reconcile two of them the one 10 they were not able to reconcile so we're on to something counselor rogers thank you madam chair i don't want to belabor the points that my colleagues which I fully agree with have already said I just wanted to say first of all thank you to our council chair and our budget team because I for one was and still you know have been very concerned also about how hard it is for our us to do our part without all of the good information and data so we can make good decisions and so I you know personally was very forceful about like let's ask the authorities of who is the authority of our budget to answer the questions so that we can put together uh a sound budget and so I just uh I'm just trying in to say thank you to our team it was an incredible uh feat to try to untangle all of the web of things um and so I but I also will say as a council it's on us to like for I think what we've seen uh this budget cycle I agree with counselor Tay is we've got to do some work over the next year um as a team true team as council to to to just shore up some processes um so that we this process is more transparent to our public to each other to our department heads um because this is this is really hard I you know and I know people laugh at me when I say we should run this like a business because and I know that that's philosophical and getting off tangent but I think you know we definitely have to get more efficient um and this is really challenging really challenging and I just want to say thank you to the counchair and our team thank you madam chair thank you counselor any other discussion okay all right with that um I would like to move um our 17 as amended five times thank you um madam clerk oh as substitute yes as substituted and amended five times thank you um madam clerk counselor backa yes counselor basic yes counselor champagne yes counselor people core yes counselor lewis yes counselor thenew yes counselor rogers yes counselor yeah counselor group yes passes on a nine zero vote thank you um now we would uh I would like to move immediate action okay we have a second um madam clerk counselor black yes counselor basan yes counselor champagne yes counselor people yes counselor lewis yes counselor pena yes counselor rogers yes counselor teas yes counselor group yes passes on a nine zero vote thank you okay we'll now move on to an item um agenda item b it's our 28 our 28 is establishing one year objectives for the city of Albuquerque in fiscal year 2027 to meet five year goals and establishing reporting requirements I move it do pass okay do I do the second or the committee sub or do we have to vote on this one and I'm sorry did we get a second on the dupes we did counselor champine thank you okay I'm sorry do I have to do it do I just do the committee sub or do we have to vote on the committee first yeah but we have a committee sub before we go on okay okay I'd like to move the committee sub um R2628 okay um okay and then we have thank you counselor now we have to vote on the committee sub Madam Clerk nope madam chair I'm sorry yes madam chair before we vote on the committee sub can we have any questions or discussion that people may have about it with an intro and uh close sure thank you ma'am you bet thank you um I'm sorry um thank you um I wanted to um this has been I will tell you that working with council staff um they have been very diligent especially Miss Bradley she has uh bent over backwards to um be

No, Madam Chair.

I'm sorry.

Yes.

Madam Chair, before we vote on the committee sub, can we have any questions or discussion that people may have about it with an intro and uh close?

Sure.

Thank you, ma'am.

You bet.

Thank you.

Um, I'm sorry.

Um thank you.

Um I wanted to um this has been I will tell you that working with council staff, um, they have been very diligent, especially Miss Bradley.

She has uh bent over backwards to be thoughtful about all of these objectives.

Um she reached out to all of us.

Um we put this together, then we reached out to the administration and worked with the department heads um department leaders, and the majority of them did get back to us, which is great.

And through that, um, you know, going back and forth.

Um, we were able to come up with this committee set because we want to make sure it's working.

These are um we want to be make sure that we're seeing the outcomes for the the things that we're doing for the city, and um and I think we are really getting a handle on not you know we're we're we have we have contracts, we have objectives, we have there's things that we want to do, and we need to know that those things are either working or they're not working when we when it comes to um spending our taxpayer dollars.

Ms.

Bradley, would you like to talk a little bit about the process that you went through?

Madam Chair, counselors.

We uh we took a lot of the objectives from last year that carried over for whatever reason being funding, being capacity, being it just was a project that took longer than a year, and we put those together and then we went through the budget performance measures, we looked at the um all of the QA questions for the last year.

We looked at all the agendas of the council, have been trying to keep track when counselors are talking and bringing up concerns during meetings, and we tried to look at all the different places that we might find um for uh you know what what we could do to make this this better and what impacts how we can measure impacts of what the program is.

So we we got that draft bill together, and then uh we reached out and we um it was kind of a quick turnaround, but the departments were great.

Everyone you know had their input.

We went back and forth, and we got the um the first bill that was introduced on May 4th, and then there was another round of uh some changes, and we listened to you in the Cal chair on May 7th, and we put a lot of the requests for objectives in the bill from that, and then we got the commit we turned it into a committee substitute, and so that's how we got to that.

Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Okay, so I would like to thank you for that explanation.

Um, I wanted to there are there are three um objectives that I thought needed more uh further further um conversation, and so I would like to we have to vote on okay learning all these things okay.

Let's vote on the committee sub Counselor Bacca Counselor Basad?

Yes, Counselor Champagne, yes, Counselor February, yes, counselor Lewis, yes, Counselor Benya?

Yes, Counselor Rogers, yes, counselor Tayas.

Yeah, yes, Counselor Group.

Yes, taxes on a nine zero vote.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Um okay, so committee um amendment number one is adding um a new adject a new objective to the end of goal one, human and family development and number uh the objective accordingly, coordinate with MRA to increase the existing inventory of affordable housing by 500 units across completed under construction or funded pipeline projects, and include any plans for additional future units, including the base from which the units increased, provide details on any barriers to completing this objective, including market conditions, financing allocations, available funding, and development timelines.

This is for um triple H.

This amendment sets a goal for adding new affordable housing units and requires a report on any barriers to meet this objective.

Need a second.

Thank you, Councillor Basson.

Any questions?

Okay.

All right.

Um Madam Clerk Counselor Bacca.

Yes, Councilor Bassad?

Yes.

Councilor Champagne.

Yes.

Council People Court?

Yes.

Counselor Lewis.

Yes.

Counselor Pena?

Yes.

Counselor Rogers.

Yes.

Counselor Teyas?

Yes.

Counselor Grant.

Yes.

Thank you all.

Okay.

Um, committee amendment number two is um add to is to add new objective to the end of goal eight, governmental excellence and effectiveness, and number the objective accordingly.

Reduce the number of annual uh comprehensive financial report findings by 50 percent with emphasis given to repeat audit findings from previous fiscal years, include the base from which the percentage increased, and uh this is for DFAS, and this amendment sets a goal of for reducing the number of annual comprehensive finance financial report findings by 50 percent.

Second, thank you, counselor counselor Tayas.

This is this is just to what you were speaking about.

Yes, I am a big fan.

Yes, I thought you would be.

Any questions anyone?

Okay, um Madam Clerk Councillor Bacca, yes, Councilor Bassan?

Yes, Counselor Champagne, yes, Councilor People Court?

Yes, Counselor Lewis, yes, Counselor Pena?

Yes, Councillor Rogers, yes, Counselor Teas?

Yes, Councillor Grap.

Yes, on the nine year old.

Thank you.

And our final amendment uh that I have is um uh uh committee amendment number three, and it adds three new objectives to the end of goal eight, governmental excellence and effectiveness, and number the objectives accordingly.

Coordinate with city legal to establish a mechanism that ensures that all new city contracts are signed prior to the start of services and supplements, amendments signed in time to avoid gaps in service.

Establish a process to use a function in the PeopleSoft system to notify departments 90 days in advance of contract expiration, report on how these mechanisms are improved, the timing of contract executions, that is for DFAS, coordinate with city legal to establish a mechanism that ensures that all new city contracts are signed prior to the start of services and supplements amendments signed in time to avoid gaps in service.

Report on how these mechanisms have improved the timing of contract execution, that is for triple H.

And for um both triple H and DFAS shall submit a separate executive communication to council by September 1, 2026, reporting on the number of fiscal year 26 contracts executed, the percentage of contracts that were signed after the start of services, the number of fiscal of supplements amendments that were not signed in time to avoid gaps in service, and the average time both sets of contracts were not signed in time.

That is for both um triple H and DFAS.

And this amendment establishes objectives aimed at timely contract execution and a baseline from which the measurement the measure improves second, and I have a question.

Thank you.

Um counselor Bassan, Madam Chair.

I just want to make sure I I just want to make sure that it's in there that I'm reading it, and as I hear coordinate about making sure contracts are signed.

Do we need to add any other adjective to it or does because I'm reading it as like any and all contracts for the city, but then some of these are really it sounds like more housing contracts or or is it truly any and all contracts for the city?

And if so, then why is it only in these two departments?

Ms.

Bradley, Madam Chair, Counselor Bassan.

The first one is DFAS, so that would cover departments citywide that come through DFAS that come through the purchasing division, and then the second one is for HHH, which is social services procurements, so that would be everything that comes through there, but we can definitely make some changes there to clarify that as well, work with the department to clarify that.

Okay, but if we're gonna vote on it now, madam chair, do we need to clarify or are we gonna amend again?

Can we do a funding amendment?

What would you put in there?

I mean, and I don't know if it's even necessary.

I just it when I read it, it sure seems like it might be a little bit vague on some of it.

Sure, Madam Chair, Councilor Basson.

And that would be so that would be every single city contract that comes through.

But you're right, it wouldn't be real property.

Because real property doesn't come through DFAS.

So it wouldn't be MRA, because MRA wouldn't come through DFAS.

So, Madam Chair, I'm almost wondering if you would consider doing this amendment on Monday.

Sure.

Yes.

And I say that because all three of them say all new city contracts, or at least two of them say all new city contracts, and that wouldn't apply to each individual these only these two departments.

Okay.

So I'd like to just withdraw.

Do we have to vote on that?

Okay.

Motion to withdraw.

Did you say second?

Okay.

Madam Clerk.

We're gonna withdraw this now.

Counselor Baca.

Yes.

Counselor Basson?

Yes.

Counselor Champlain.

Yes.

Counselor Fee Balcourt?

Yes.

Counselor Lewis?

Yes.

Counselor Pena?

Yes.

Counselor Rogers.

Yes.

Counselor Teyas?

Yes.

Counselor Cro.

Yes.

Passes on the nine zero.

Thank you.

Um, any questions on the bill as amended?

I want to thank oh, Counselor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just have a couple questions on a couple of the objectives for some departments.

Um Ms.

Bradley for economic development.

What metric defines successful outreach?

Miss Bradley.

Madam Chair, Counselor Rogers, which objective are you on?

Uh about expanding outreach to small businesses and economic development.

Is that in uh Madam Chair Counselor?

Is that in which which number objective is it?

Oh, let me pull it up.

Sorry, I didn't have it next to me with my questions.

It's under economic development of the objective number.

Specifically around expanding outreach to small businesses is what I put in a notes.

I'm sorry, I don't have exactly the number, but I'm just I've always been vocal about metrics that tell me they met that expanded outreach goal.

So are there any metrics that tells me they they met this outreach objective?

Madam Chair, Councillor Rogers, I believe that Monica Mitchell, deputy director, is up.

We did work together on these, so maybe we can talk a little bit about that.

Sure.

That's okay.

Madam Chair, Counselor Rogers.

Um, an outreach is any contact that we have with any small business.

So that could be uh an email.

No, well, I guess it could mean an email, but um, most businesses, you know, we have a small business advisor and we have Frankie or Massillo who they will meet with businesses one-on-one.

So tip.

So it's just the one-on-one appointments, not on one appointment.

Or um I believe we also do count, you know, if if we do have events, um, if there are counseling appointments at those events, or we have trainings and webinars, um, those are counted as well.

Okay, thank you so much.

And then I think that's my only question for economic development.

Um, and I think I just have a philosophical question, maybe for us to ponder.

Um, what happens if departments don't meet these objectives?

I don't see any kind of um you know corrective action or planning or action planning requirements.

Um, so what happens if year over year we don't meet our objectives?

That's a great question.

Um, thank you, counselor.

Uh personally, I think um we have a staff that is really helping us to um go through and you know make sure we're I it's uh refreshing to see what our staff is able to do these days um to go through our ordinances and our objectives and to see that we're getting the reports timely and that we're not so we can bring it to our attention so that we can reach out to them.

And and I think that the more accountability that we have that that we that we bring from will hopefully be getting all the answers, and they'll know that we're really serious about this.

Okay, I may work with staff on maybe solidifying something in our in our objective bill that okay uh has some action planning requirements if they don't meet them maybe three years in a row or something like that.

But and I think maybe if we had some alignment between, I know we asked our internal auditor for a breakdown of recommendations that we've they've given that we haven't implemented, along with maybe some of this work on audit findings.

Maybe we just think about uh corrective actions tied to serious things rather than just simple objectives, but we'll put our heads together about that over the weekend.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Ms.

Bradley.

Would you like to comment on that?

Madam Chair, Councilor Rogers, one of the things we do have in the bill is a we're gonna give when the departments give us a report to also tell us what the barriers were to completing the objective because sometimes it's staff capacity, sometimes it's funding, sometimes a program went away.

Uh so there's it.

I think the answer is it depends um on what happened and how they report it and what we need to do to work together to to make sure the objective happens.

So but but your your point is valid, and what happens if we have the objective in and it just isn't met um a couple years in a row?

That would probably be something we could talk about and make sure it's in here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Bradley.

Any other questions?

Okay, um, thank you all.

I'd like to thank the staff for for um everything that they've done to help get us to this point.

Um we'll we have some work to do over the weekend, um, but but I know that this is a good um a good start, these objectives and so forth.

So with that, I'd like to uh move or to vote on our 28 as uh the committee sub as amended and seconded.

Um Madam Clerk Council Backa.

Yes, Councilor Basson?

Yes, Councilor Champagne, yes, Counselor February, yes, Counselor Lewis, Councilor Benya?

Yes, Councilor Rogers, yes, Counselor Teas.

Yes, Counselor Grove, yes, is on an eight zero vote.

Thank you.

Um and I'd like to move immediate action, please.

Uh we have a second from Councillor Pena, Adam Clerk.

Counselor Bacca.

Yes.

Counselor Bassun?

Yes.

Counselor Champagne, yes.

Counselor Feebert?

Yes.

Counselor Lewis.

Yes.

Counselor Penya?

Yes.

Counselor Rogers.

Yes.

Counselor Teyas?

Yes.

Counselor Grout.

Yes.

That passes on a nine zero vote.

There being no further business, this meeting is adjourned.