Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilors press for clearer budget book language; staff says proposed text will be corrected in the final document
Summary
Councilors raised concerns that the proposed FY26 budget book narrative mislabels contingency funds and could mislead the public; staff said the book is a proposed narrative and will be corrected in the final adopted version and that the resolution is the legal adoption instrument submitted to DFA.
Councilors on Santa Fe’s Finance Committee pressed staff Monday to correct narrative language in the proposed FY26 budget book that they said could mislead readers about how certain contract and contingency funds are intended to be used.
Councilor Cassett identified two line items in the proposed budget book — $60,000 shown as “development and disposition of Midtown property” and $48,500 shown as a “city strategic plan” — and said the items are carryovers that should instead be labeled as contingency or generic contract funds. City Manager Mark Scott and budget staff agreed to relabel the two line items together as $108,500 available for contracts or contingency in the city manager’s office.
Councilor Cassett also asked that the narrative reflecting a past allocation for a local “green bank” be revised to show the money is being reallocated to parks; the mayor told the committee staff are preparing an amendment to move roughly $525,000 from that earlier green‑bank line into Parks for improved maintenance and upkeep.
Assistant Finance Director Alexis Letero explained that the document before the committee is a “proposed budget book” that will become the final adopted budget book only after the governing body approves the resolution. She said detailed contract descriptions are not typically titled at the level of every contract but that staff can update the city manager’s office entries to label the two carryover items as contingency and correct the language in the final book.
Budget staff and the city manager also explained that the city’s formal reporting to the state Department of Finance and Administration is submitted through DFA’s reporting format (LGBMS) and that the resolution — not the narrative book — is the legal instrument the city sends to the state. The committee agreed staff could fix the budget book narrative before it appears as the final adopted document and that the committee would note those changes at the governing‑body hearing to ensure transparency for councilors who are not on the finance committee.
Councilors asked for clarity about revenue from the city’s 10¢ bag tax. Director Oster said bag‑tax revenue is credited to Environmental Services and funds sustainability programs; staff said detailed use of those receipts should be confirmed with Public Utilities if councilors want a program‑level accounting.
