Featured
City Council votes to adopt $1.4B budget for FY2025
Published
Modified
The Albuquerque City Council voted Monday to approve a $1.4 billion budget for the upcoming fiscal year. But the budget didn鈥檛 escape amendment at the council meeting, as several changes made fixes and moved money.
Although the City Council approved the budget several days before the May 31 deadline, the tug of war between the mayoral administration and council ensued up to the final 8-1 vote. But some of the heat dissipated as the administration shared a variety of popsicles with councilors 鈥� a tradition established by former Chief Administrative Officer Lawrence Rael, continued by new CAO Samantha Sengel.
All in all, the final budget was slightly larger than the one proposed by Mayor Tim Keller in April but was fundamentally similar. The Albuquerque Police Department remains the largest part of the city鈥檚 budget, making up about a third of the general fund appropriations.
The total figure was almost flat with the previous budget as the city braces itself for tapering revenues. A recent report indicated that revenues might be more hopeful than previously anticipated, allowing for additional flexibility as the council amended the proposed budget.
The final budget also included a $400,000 pilot project supported by Committee of the Whole Chair Klarissa Pe帽a to leverage federal dollars to contract with service providers that offer support for people struggling with addiction or mental illness.
Here are some of the highlights:
Organizational chart
An internal organizational chart 鈥� which city officials confirmed Monday was not published online 鈥� came under fire Monday. Members of the legislative body questioned why positions under the purview of the Mayor鈥檚 Office or the chief administrative officer were paid for by other departments.
CAO Sengel, who reports directly to Keller, said at the Monday meeting that some employees may work with both a city department 鈥� for example, people working with the Parks and Recreations Department on the Veterans Memorial 鈥� and the Mayor鈥檚 Office.
Councilors voted 9-0 on an amendment to the budget to bring those employees under the umbrella of the chief administrative officer.
Councilor Dan Lewis said the amendment increased 鈥渁ccountability and transparency鈥� in a statement.
鈥淏y identifying staff who report directly to the CAO and the Mayor, we can better work with them to do the business for all residents of Albuquerque,鈥� Lewis said.
Sengel said on Monday and in a Tuesday news release that the amendment did little to change city operations.
The administration鈥檚 proposed general fund appropriations for the chief administrative officer were $3.1 million, or 0.4% of the proposed general fund appropriations. The amendment more than doubled that number by adding $3.5 million to account for the new employees.
For Councilor Nichole Rogers, the exclusion of certain employees from the public organizational chart, which is published online, could cause demographic and employment data gaps. When Rogers worked for the city of Albuquerque, she said there were frequent complaints that the Mayor鈥檚 Office did not have any Black employees. But, looking at the internal organization chart, that was not the case 鈥� they were just paid through other departments.
鈥淏ased on where employees that do work in the Mayor鈥檚 Office are paid out of, they are never going to show up in the data for the Mayor鈥檚 Office,鈥� Rogers said. 鈥�...Having this practice does not help us get accurate data.鈥�
Refunding contracts
An amendment was added to fully fund Health, Housing and Homelessness contracts that had already been awarded. Some $455,000 from the 鈥渆arly retirement鈥� fund was moved to cover the contracts.
HHH raised the alarm on Friday after a redlined version of the budget showed cuts to to-be-determined contracts 鈥� contracts for services that do not currently have a provider selected. The reduced funds were moved to cover IT services at the library and increase money at the ABQ BioPark 鈥� both services that members of the public had championed at previous budget meetings.
Pe帽a said although some of the contracts were cut, the intention was to increase that funding at the midyear mark if a contractor had been found.
But some of those contracts had already gone out for requests for proposals after the mayor proposed his budget in April. Providers had already been selected for the services.
However, they weren鈥檛 marked as such and thus were also subject to funding decreases. Sengel apologized for the lack of live updates on Monday.
Pe帽a said she was 鈥渄isappointed鈥� about the administration鈥檚 handling of the budget reductions, and any conflict could potentially have been solved with a 鈥渃all.鈥�
鈥淚 did everything I possibly could to try to minimize the impacts to his budget while trying to meet the needs of the councilors鈥� budget,鈥� Pe帽a said.
Pe帽a added that some funds that appeared to be cut from the department were pulled under 鈥渃ouncil sponsorships鈥� or deemed unnecessary by the organization.
Vouchers and fees
City Council planned to remove proposed fee increases for aquatics programs, which includes entrance fees for city pools. But the fee increase was mistakenly left in the budget.
To correct the error, an amendment was raised keep aquatic fees the same. The decreased revenue, from removing the increases, would be made up for by an increase in golf fees of $2 per round.
The amendment was originally intended to cover both the aquatic programs as well as increase the amount of money set aside for affordable housing vouchers by several thousand dollars.
In previous years, housing voucher dollars have reverted as the city struggled to get the money out the door.
Ultimately, Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn cut that fee to $1 鈥� enough to keep aquatic fees the same, but insufficient to increase affordable housing dollars.
While some members of the council questioned adding funding for housing vouchers when money has reverted previously, Fiebelkorn stressed the importance of keeping vouchers funded, especially as people experience difficulties getting housing vouchers.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 understand how we can just say, 鈥榃ell, we didn鈥檛 do it well this year, so we鈥檙e not going to give any money in the future鈥�,鈥� Fiebelkorn said.
