In politics, this is a version of what is called being damned if you do and damned if you don’t on any number of levels of city government.

On Monday, March 5, 2018, the Albuquerque City Council voted to raise the city’s gross receipts tax rate by three-eighths of a percentage point without putting it to a public vote which is within their power.

The measure was jointly sponsored by Democrat City Councilor Ken Sanchez and Republican City Councilor Trudy Jones.

The tax was imposed by the council on an 8-1 vote, enough to override any veto by Mayor Tim Keller.

Voting yes to pass the tax increase were Democratic City Councilors Ken Sanchez, Pat Davis, Diane Gibson, Isaac Benton, Klarissa Pena, Cynthia Borrego and Republicans Trudy Jones and Don Harris.

Republican City Councilor Brad Winter was the sole no vote and argued that it should have been put to a public vote.

The tax imposition has no sunset clause.

The gross receipts tax of three eights of a cent could potentially raise $30 to $40 million this year when it goes into effect July 1, 2018 and upwards of $55 million each year thereafter.

The tax increase represents 38 cents more paid in gross receipts tax for every $100 in purchase sales and will in all likely be passed on to consumers by merchants.

The current gross receipts tax is 7.5% and the new tax will push it to just below 8%.

TAX INCREASE VOTED BEFORE CITY BUDGET SUBMITTED

Mayor Tim Keller is due to announce his first budget on April 1, 2018 and city council budget hearings will be held on each of the city’s 19 departments over three months.

The City Council must adopt and approve the city budget on or before July 1, 2018 when it becomes effective for the new fiscal year of 2018-2019.

The City is facing a $6 million deficit for this year.

The city is also facing $40 million-dollar deficit for the next fiscal year which begins on July 1, 2018.

For the last eight (8) years, the Albuquerque City Council strongly resisted raising the gross receipts tax at all costs despite the effect that budget cuts were having a severe impact on essential services and a disastrous effect on public safety.

The City Council has not raised the gross receipts taxes on its own since the year 2000.

The tax increase will go into effect on July 1, 2018, unless it is vetoed by the Mayor and if the City Council does not override the veto with six or more votes.

The overwhelming majority of the revenues generated by the tax will in all probability have to be applied to the $40 million-dollar projected deficit and other incurred debts before it can be applied to public safety and increasing the size of the police department.

THE CITY COUNCIL’S RUSH TO ENACT THE TAX

The media has failed to report exactly why the Albuquerque City Council was on a breakneck speed to rush and approve a three-eighths of a cent increase in the gross receipts tax a full three weeks before Mayor Keller submits his budget on April 1, 2018 and with very little public input.

The reason why is that there was a deadline that had to be met and the City Council has been aware of the $40 million deficit for some time, at least since early December, 2017.

The City Council had to enact the tax now for it to be on the books by April 1, 2018 and for it to commence being collected by the State on July 1, 2018 when the city budget for fiscal year begins for the city.

Without the guarantee of the tax revenues generated by the new tax, the budget deficit of $40 million could have only been resolved by severe cuts, including layoffs, furloughs and elimination of services.

The city council is required by law to enact a fully balance budget with the revenue it has and to deal with any deficits before they occur.

Had the City Council enacted the tax after April 1, 2018, it would not go into effect nor collected until January 1, 2019.

The City Council could have put the tax increase on the ballot for a vote with a special election, but again, had it passed, it would not go into effect nor collected until January 1, 2019.

Had the tax not passed with a public vote, the council and the Mayor would be back to square one after January 1, 2019 on enacting a balanced budget without sufficient revenue.

Had the council called for a special election and put it on the ballot, it would have been a mail in ballot costing $500,000 for printing of ballots and postal costs, money the city does not have.

There is also always a significant risk that voters will say no to a tax even if it is dedicated to public safety, which is what happened when Mayor Chavez tried to get a public safety tax enacted years ago and it failed at the polls.

Had the council called for a special election to get voter approval, without any guarantee of the outcome of the election or of a guarantee revenue flow to deal with the deficit, the Mayor and the City Council would have to enact a budget by July 1, 2018 based on speculation of the outcome of the public vote on the tax.

TO VETO OR NOT TO VETO, THAT IS THE QUESTION

The city council’s tax increase now goes to Mayor Keller for approval or his veto.

Mayor Tim Keller is taking heat from the public and the media for beginning to backtrack and breaking his campaign “promise” to have a public vote on any tax increase.

It is likely Mayor Tim Keller will sign the tax increase thereby breaking his campaign promise not to raise taxes without a public vote.

Even if Mayor vetoes it, there are enough city councilors who voted for it to override his veto.

A promise not to raise taxes without a public vote by any candidate for Mayor is meaningless when said from the get go and is nonsense that should not be taken too seriously.

No candidate for Mayor really knows what is going on with city finances until they actually look at the books, and Keller making the promise as a candidate was at best idealistic and at worse being very foolish to garner votes just to get elected, which is how politicians lose their credibility with voters.

The truth is, it is the City Council and only the City Council that can enact a tax increase, with or without a public vote, not the Mayor.

Candidate Keller also said he would draw from various agencies, departments and programs where large, misappropriated budgets existed to deal with any city deficit.

What candidate Keller said about “misappropriate budgets” sounded fantastic but not very realistic after the 8 years of budget cuts and downsizing of government by his predecessor.

The problem is, any candidate for office usually regrets making promises regarding raising taxes to get elected, just ask former President George H.W. Bush (41) when he said “Read my lips, no new taxes!” and lost reelection to President Bill Clinton.

Mayor Tim Keller is taking some heat from the public and the media, especially the Albuquerque Journal, for beginning to backtrack and breaking his campaign “promise” to have a public vote on any tax increase.

There is no doubt that the Mayor’s popularity will take a hit, but then again he was elected with a 62% majority vote and can probably afford to take the hit.

A promise not to raise taxes without a public vote by any candidate for Mayor is meaningless when said from the get go and is nonsense that should not be taken too seriously.

No candidate for Mayor really knows what is going on with city finances until they actually look at the books.

Keller making the promise as a candidate not to raise taxes was at best idealistic and at worse being foolish just to get elected Mayor.

The problem is, any candidate for office usually regrets making such promise to get elected, just ask former President George H.W. Bush (41) when he said “Read my lips, no new taxes!” and lost reelection to President Bill Clinton.

Candidate Keller also said he would draw from various agencies, departments and programs where large, misappropriated budgets existed to deal with any city deficit.

What candidate Keller said about “misappropriate budgets” sounded fantastic but not very realistic after the 8 years of budget cuts and downsizing of government by his predecessor.

The truth is, it is the City Council and only the City Council that can enact a tax increase, with or without a public vote, not the Mayor.

A Mayor can veto a tax increase, but the city council has the power to override such a veto.

It is called checks and balances.

CITY’S GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND DEFICITS

The City of Albuquerque has a total operating budget of $955.3 million dollars, of which $529.6 million is the general fund which goes to providing and delivery of essential services and includes personnel costs and social services.

The operating budget of $955.3 million, less the $529.6 general fund budget, is the budget used for city capital improvement projects and includes major construction projects, municipal development projects, building maintenance and repairs, street repairs, sidewalks, paving and construction, solid waste facilities, airport maintenance, parks and recreational facilites to mention a few.

The city has 19 separate departments and employs upwards of 5,000 city personnel, including police, fire, bus drivers, 911 and 311 call operators, clerks, secretaries, risk management personnel, maintenance workers, solid waste workers, animal control worker’s and code inspectors, zoning and planning inspectors, planners, health care personnel, social service workers, attorneys and paralegals, just to mention a few.

5,000 is the level of personnel needed to run a municipal government and deliver the essential services demanded by the public.

The city is facing a $6 million deficit for the current fiscal year in the general fund budget.

The city is also facing a $40 million-dollar deficit for the next fiscal year commencing July1, 2018 in the general fund.

For the last eight (8) years, the Albuquerque City Council strongly resisted raising the gross receipts tax despite the effect that budget cuts were having a severe impact on the delivery of essential services and a disastrous effect on public safety and the general fund.

For the last eight (8) years, there has been a severe downsizing of city hall personnel, the elimination of numerous positions, the reduction of sworn police officers by 250 and no or very little raises for city hall employees and even a time when city pay was cut to make up for deficits to avoid any kind of tax increase.

On April 1, 2018, Mayor Keller will be announcing his very first budget for the 2018-2019 fiscal year which may include increasing the gross receipts tax to fill the $40 million deficit.

It will be up to the City Council to adopt the budget, amend the budget or for that matter enact its own version.

Now comes the hard part: to tax or not to tax, and with or without a public vote.

BUDGET DEFICIT INITIATIVE REPORT

In order get a handle on the deficit, the Keller Administration prepared a report outlining suggested budget cuts and revenue generating options, including taxes increases, that can be considered by the city council.

You can read the full February, 2018 Budget Deficit Initiative Report prepared by the Keller administration here:

Click to access budget-deficit-initiative-report-3-2-18.pdf

According to the Budget Deficit Report, the challenges facing the city with respect to the deficit are:

A $25 million ‘structural deficit,’ meaning a fundamental long-term gap in recurring revenue as compared to recurring expenses resulting from slow economic growth, loss of “hold harmless” tax revenue and the trend toward online purchasing.” The hold harmless provision was enacted by the legislature to reimburse municipalities for the loss revenues from the repeal of gross receipts tax on food and medicine. The legislature decided to repeal it and allow municipalities to enact enact a 3/8ths Gross Receipts Tax (GRT) to replace the funding lost. This is what the city council has under consideration with the introduction of a resolution by Councillors Ken Sanchez and Trudy Jones.

A $15 million increase in recurring costs arising from external pressures on the cost of medical insurance, water rate increases and costs associated with compliance measures required under the Department of Justice settlement agreement.

An $88 million increase in additional costs over Fiscal Years 2018-2022, leveling off at a $32 million recurring cost, at a minimum, if the City wishes to improve public safety by adding 100 new police officers per year until staffing levels return to the desired number of 1200. This does not include the price of recruitment strategies or pay increases designed to recruit and retain officers. Currently, the police department employs 850 sworn police officers and therefore needs to hire 350 police officers to reach the 1,200 level.

A $21 million increase in one-time and short-term costs to address the equipment and technological needs of our first responders, including large backlogs in fingerprint and DNA testing at the crime lab, which ultimately delay, for several years, the criminal justice system in Albuquerque.

A $5.2 million recurring increase in costs if the City wishes to improve public safety through advances in technology and initiatives that address the systemic pressures on first responders.”

Other major contributing factors that will no doubt impact the upcoming budget include:

$4 million for the increased costs of training of police and policy changes associated with the Department of Justice (DOJ) settlement agreement.

$3 million of increased costs associated with the self-insurance fund and more premiums needed for workers compensation and tort claims.

$6.2 million for the increases in health insurance premiums.

$2.1 million for an increase in water rates by the Bernalillo County and Albuquerque Water Authority.

Increased overtime to sworn police officers. APD consistently exceeds its overtime budget because of the personnel shortage and the union contract requires time and a half be paid. This past fiscal year, APD exceeded its $9 million overtime budget by $4 million expending a total of $13 million.

$69 million for the ART Bus project that must be found if the federal grant is not forthcoming, thank you Mayor Berry for not delivering on your promise. An option is that the City Council could enact Revenue Bonds to make up the shortfall which would be an encumbrance on future gross receipts tax revenues.

$40 million needed for an upgrade of the emergency operations center and communications center, which has not been upgraded since 1995. It is possible to include such upgrade in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) which would be voted upon by the public and not result in a drain on the general fund.

Funding for replacement of the roughly 20% of police units and fire department units that is the average rate of replacement of older vehicles. This could also be included in the CIP program.

There is a need to generate revenues for city department vacancies and increases in salaries to city employees who have been given significantly less in salary increases, or no increases at all, for the last eight years.

OPTIONS TO REDUCE SPENDING THROUGH CUTS TO SERVICES

Budget cuts that are wide ranging, sweeping, with some downright draconian, are considered on the table.

Some of the proposed cuts will affect existing city employees and mean layoffs.

Following are 14 spending cuts in the Budget Deficit Initiative Report being proposed for consideration:

1. Reduce Social Service contracts by 10% for an annual savings of $1.8 million. Social services would include help to the homeless, after school programs, and senior citizen home assistance and food programs. Social services are always some of the first budgets to be cut to reduce deficits.

2. Close one or more city golf courses for an annual savings of $1 million resulting in layoffs of city employees and lost revenues from golf fees. Golfers are one of the most focal constituencies in Albuquerque.

3. Permanently cut 200 unfilled positions for an annual savings of $13.3 million with the service impacts being far reaching and with the majority of vacancies in high turnover and needed positions in Animal Welfare, Transit, Parks and Recreation and Cultural services.

4. Cut the current subsidy to the Explora Children’s Museum by $1.4 million a year which will have a huge impact on the museum requiring the museum to seek funding from the private sector which is difficult and highly unlikely.

5. Cut community events by $3.3 million, including events such as Summerfest, Old Town events, events at the Kimo theater, Veterans Memorial and events at the South Broadway cultural center and Fourth of July events.

6. Impose 12 furlough days (no pay) on all the estimated 5,000 city employees to save $15 million.

7. Shift medical benefits costs to all city employees to save $15 million. The city currently pays 80% and that would be reduced to 75%.

8. Impose a 2.5% across the board pay cut to all of the 5,000 full time city employees that would save $7.8 million. For the last 8 years, city employees have received 1% to 2% pay raises and at one time actually had their pay cut.

9. Reduce transit services by 10% to save $2.7 million. This comes as no surprise seeing that bus ridership has steadily declined for the last 10 years and it is not likely that it will improve with the ART Bus project.

10. Cut the welfare animal budget by 25% to save $2.7 million. Such a budget cut will no doubt result in more euthanasia of animals to avoid animal care costs.

11. Totally eliminate the 311-call center which will result in a $3.6 million saving annually. The 311-call center’s annual budget of $3.6 million, it employs upwards of 60 people, all who would lose their jobs, with the call center handling upwards of 650,000 calls per year. The 311call center is being characterized as a non-essential service and has been fully operational for 12 years.

12. Cut wireless service fees by 20% to save $336,000 requiring to pull phones and “mifi’s” from employees and vehicles resulting in the inability to track buses and city vehicles.

13. Shift the City School Crossing Guard Program to the Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) making them APS employees saving $1.2 million.

14. Phase out and cancel post retirement life insurance policy for all new employees with an annual cost savings of $385,000.

INCREASING TAXES AND FEES ON THE TABLE

What is needed are recurring revenue sources to deal not only with the projected $40 million deficit for the upcoming fiscal year, but also continuing revenues to deal with future budgets.

One shot revenue generating ideas such as selling city assets like golf courses and open space owned by the city or cutting service contracts are short term, short sighted fixes and do not generate any permanent revenue streams.

Permanent revenue streams are what are required to deal with recurring costs and expenses.

Following are 18 options in the Budget Deficit Initiative Report for increasing revenues streams to deal with the deficit:

1.Enact a 3/8ths Gross Receipts Tax (GRT) to offset the reduction of lost funding from the State and the hold harmless provision.

NOTE: Albuquerque City Councilors Ken Sanchez and Trudy Jones have already introduced a resolution on a 3/8th of a cent gross receipts tax (GRT) increase that would require only a simple majority of five votes on the city council to enact.

The 3/8th % tax is being pitched as a “public safety tax” to recruit and retain officers for the Albuquerque Police Department, but it is likely the lion’s share of the revenues generated will go to paying the projected deficit. Money generated from the tax increase would go into the general fund, which could be used for virtually any city expense.

The 3/8th of one-cent GRT increase would close the entire budget hole by raising roughly $43.7 million in 2018, and $52 million by 2019.

What has not been widely reported is that the City Council must enact the tax and it must be on the books by April 1, 2018 for it to commence to be collected by the State on July 1, 2018, which explains the council’s urgency to enact the tax as soon as possible.

2. Increase the property tax levy by 1 mill which can be enacted by a simple majority vote of the city council. The property tax would generate $11 million a year, be permanent and would be paid for by all property owners. Gross receipts tax is paid by all who make purchases in Albuquerque and is highly regressive on the poor. Albuquerque’s property taxes are some of the lowest in the country and are strenuously opposed by the voting public.

3. Increase the electric franchise fee charged Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) from 2% to 3% cents to generate $4.1 million. This not at all realistic because it would require a rewrite of the franchise ordinance and renegotiations with PNM.

4. Increase the natural gas franchise fee charged by the Gas Company of New Mexico from 3% to 4% to generate $1.1 million. This is not at all realistic because it would require a rewriting the franchise ordinance and renegotiations with the gas company.

5. Increase telecommunications fee from 3% to 4% to generate $550,000 This is not at all realistic because it would require a rewriting the franchise ordinance and renegotiations with Century Link.

6. Impose a city gas tax of 2 cents per gallon that would generate $4.6 million. The revenue generated by the gas tax would be restricted to streets and transportation needs, the gas tax would require a referendum and there are revenue offset costs of at least $180,000 to administer tax collection.

7. Increase Planning and Permitting fees to raise $4.4 million in revenues. The fees will likely be paid and passed along to residents purchasing homes or commercial properties.

8. Increase bus fares by 25% system to generate $1 million in revenues. Bus fares have not been increased since 2002, but bus ridership has declined steadily and dramatically for the last 10 years and any fee increase may result in further decline in bus usage.

9. Charge a $10 weekly transportation fee for kids transported from APS schools to City Community Centers to generate $909,000 in revenues.

The following nine (9) revenue generating proposals will raise a total of $861,000 and will have such a small impact on a $40 million deficit that it is difficult to understand why they are even being considered:

10. Increase annual “alarm fees” from $25 to $30 by amending the alarm ordinance to generate $180,000 in revenues.

11. Raising “Latchkey and Children Service” fees by 10% to generate an additional revenue of $160,000.

12. Raise city golf fees at all city golf courses by $1 across the board to generate $171,000.

13. Increase the “Community Centers Adult fee” of $25 dollars a year to generate $80,000 in revenue.

14. Increase city aquatics fees for city pool us by public to increase revenues by $90,000.

15. Increase “engineering fees” by 10% to generate an additional $70,000 in revenue.

16. Increase annual membership fees at all Senior Citizens Centers from $15 to $20 to generate $50,000 in additional revenue.

17. Increase museum rental fees to generate $40,000 in additional revenues.

18. Increase “Family & Community Service Center Health Social Services Center” leases to generate $20,000 in additional revenue.

CITY COUNCIL NEEDS SHOW MORE DUE DILIGENCE

If the city needs a tax increase, the city council should do it, but it needs to do more due diligence on how the tax revenues should be dedicated and only after extensive public hearings on each city department budget.

The City Council must enact the proposed 3/8ths Gross Receipts Tax (GRT) for it to be on the books by April 1, 2018 for it to commence to be collected by the State on July 1, 2018, which explains the council’s urgency.

If the proposed 3/8ths Gross Receipts Tax (GRT) is enacted after April 1, 2018 by the City Council, the city will have to wait until January 1, 2019 for the revenues to be collected by the State.

The City Council should wait until after Mayor Keller submits his proposed budget on April 1, 2018 to dedicate the tax revenue under the budget they adopt.

The City Council is required to have public hearings on the proposed budget and allow for public input.

The public’s input is vital in order to reach a consensus on the need for any tax increase and how it should be dedicated.

CONCLUSION

Mayor Tim Keller should seriously consider submitting two separate and alternative budgets to the City Council on April 1, 2018 for public hearings for the City Council to decide which budget they should enact.

The first original budget would be one that virtually implements all the spending and budget cuts necessary to wipe out the $40 million-dollar deficit without tax increase.

The second budget would be a “bill substitute” budget that would make a combination of cuts, revenue raising measures and any proposed tax increases if needed, not only for public safety, but for all essential services.

The City Council should invite and allow Mayor Keller to actively participate in all schedule budget hearings, which would be a first, with the understanding he could not vote.

Let the city council do its job with budget hearings and decide on any proposed tax increase, how it should be dedicated, whether it be their own or any one proposed by the Mayor.

If there was any doubt that the Albuquerque Journal is hell bent to take Mayor Keller down a few pegs, the March 4, 2018 editorial as well as the editorial cartoon proves it.

Link: https://www.abqjournal.com/1141025/40-million-question.html

In two-inch black font, the editorial blares out “THE $40 MILLION QUESTION” and below it another headline reads “Tax Increase may be needed, but voters should decide”.

The editorial says in part:

“Pushing a tax hike through without voter approval may be the most expedient solution, but it’s the wrong move – particularly given Keller’s repeated pledges on the campaign trail that voters would have final say on any tax increase. … So, sure, the city needs revenue. But simply imposing a tax—without voter approval—is the wrong move. Especially if a special election can be held in a timely fashion.”

The Albuquerque Journal wants the city to hold a special election to enact a tax increase without mentioning that it would be a “mail-in” ballot election that will cost upwards of $500,000 for printing and mailing costs.

Perhaps the Journal editors would be willing to write a check for $500,000 for the special election because the city sure does not have the money.

The Journal wants the Mayor and City Council to hit the campaign trail to promote any tax increase, while at the same time enact a budget before July 1, 2018 that deals with the $40 million deficit without knowing if the tax increase would be supported by voters.

Given the total anti-tax sentiment in Albuquerque, especially with a regressive tax as the gross receipts tax, I suspect the chances of it passing are slim, even if it is tied to public safety.

There have been “public safety” taxes proposed in the past and put on the ballot that have failed with mail in elections.

The editorial cartoon by John Trevor is pretty funny too, but stings no less.

The cartoon has Keller pushing a casket that has written on it “NO TAX HIKE WITHOUT A PUBLIC VOTE PROMISE” out of a second story window and into a $40 million black hole with Keller saying “FOR STARTERS, IT’S A HANDY PLACE TO BURY THIS!”

In the March 4, 2018 editorial, the Journal makes absolutely no mention of their favorite former Mayor Berry and what he said just a five months ago.

On September 26, 2017 the Albuquerque Journal did a front-page, banner headline story with a full color photo of Mayor Richard Berry giving his last “State of the City” address.

Mayor Berry proclaimed in his speech, “the state of our city is strong”.

Berry said Albuquerque’s next mayor will “inherit an efficient city government that is living within its means, a growing economy and close to $1.2 billion in infrastructure projects that have been built or are in the pipeline”.

Berry proclaimed his administration was a “hallmark of fiscal responsibility”.

The Albuquerque Journal had no problem at all in getting behind the disastrous fiscal policies of Berry that caused the $40 million deficit but wants to remind Mayor Keller and voters that he is going back on his pledge even though Keller has given good reasons to do it.

It’s the City Council, not the Mayor, who can only raise taxes with or without a public vote.

It is disappointing when candidates for office, mayors and city councilors proclaim they will put increases in taxes on the ballot in order to get elected and try to avoid the political “hot potato” and accusation that they increased taxes when they run for office again.

People have no business running for office if they do not want to make the hard decisions, especially when it comes to taxes and public safety and providing police services.

In any representative form of government, people are elected to make the best decisions they can based on the facts and needs of their constituents.

The City Council is required to have public hearings over the next 4 months on the proposed budget and allow for public input.

The public’s input is vital in order to reach a consensus on the need for any tax increase.

Let the city council do its job and decide on any proposed tax increase, their own or any one proposed by the Mayor.

The March 2, 2018 Albuquerque Journal front page blaring head line reads “Mayor may support tax hike without vote; The City is estimating a $39 million to $40 million deficit for the coming fiscal year, which starts July 1.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1140271/mayor-fears-taxes-will-have-to-increase.html

When you pull up the same story on the Journal’s’ internet web site, the headline is “Mayor fears taxes will have to increase”.

There is a big difference between going against a promise not to raise taxes without a public vote and reporting a fear that taxes may have to be raised.

I suspect that there is a major age difference in the age of subscribers who get the Albuquerque Journal delivered to their homes versus a much younger age group who read the Journal online.

The story delved partially into the breakdown of the factors contributing to the deficit and include:

1. $25 million representing the gap between projected revenue and baseline budget expenditures.
2. $4 million for the increased costs of training of police and policy changes associated with the Department of Justice settlement agreement.
3. $3 million of increased costs associated with the self-insurance fund and more premiums needed for workers compensation and tort claims
4. $6.2 million for the increases in health insurance premiums
5. $2.1 million for an increase in water rates by the Bernalillo County and Albuquerque Water Authority

The news for the need of a tax increase should come as no surprise to anyone, and neither should the headline.

What is noteworthy is Keller, along with two of his staff, met with the Albuquerque Journal editors in private to discuss his plans.

The headline in the Albuquerque Journal that the Mayor is going back on his promise to have a public vote is politically damaging and should also come as absolutely no surprise coming from the Albuquerque Journal given its Republican leanings and anti-tax sentiment.

The Journal headline is a clear message to Keller that they are watching him closely and now we can wait for the editorial.

OTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO CITY’S DEFICITS

The City is facing a $6 million deficit for this year and $40 million-dollar deficit for the next fiscal year.

There will be a need for $69 million for the ART Bus project that must be found if the federal grant is not forthcoming.

$40 million is needed for an upgrade of the emergency operations center and communications center.

There is a need for funding for 350 more police officers that the Mayor and city council want and have promised in order to get to the 1,200 level.

There is a need for replacement of the roughly 20% of police units and fire department units that is the average rate of replacement of older vehicles, not to mention
$25 million dollars is needed in continuing revenue funding to offset and makeup for the lost revenue from the state with the repeal of the hold harmless provision.

There is also a need to generate revenues to address all the other city departments, vacancies and increases in salaries to those other city employees who have been given significantly less in salary increases, or no increases at all, for the last eight years while APD’s budget and salaries increased.

BREAKING A PROMISE NO SURPRISE

Mayor Keller backtracking on his promise to have a public vote on tax increases should come as no surprise and there were early warning signs of it.

On February 24, 2017, Keller held a press conference announcing the city is facing a $40 million deficit.

(February 24, 2018 Albuquerque Journal, page A-7, “Mayor Keller says Albuquerque facing $40 million deficit; Crime, health care, reduced state funding, DOJ settlement cited)

In announcing the deficit in February, Mayor Keller said:

“Between rising crime, increasing health care costs, and the drying up of tens of millions in state funding, the chickens are coming home to roost … It has become clear we are faced with a choice: own up to the financial reality at city hall, or continue to muddle along and risk years of uncertainty about the resources that are required to bring real help for public safety to protect our kids”.

The February 24, 2018 press conference was the second one done by Keller on the $40 million deficit in eight weeks.

Most of what Keller said has also been said by the City Council.

KELLER’S “GOLDEN OLDIES” ON NO TAXES

Over a year ago on February 14, 2017 the mandatory state audit of the city was released by then State Auditor Tim Keller, and he said Albuquerque needed to substantially increase funding for the risk management fund to $6.3 million a year to cover the shortfall.

“The city is basically spending more than it can afford for settlements for police shootings and civil rights violations. … That’s obviously a financial problem, which is why it shows up in our audit” Keller said at the time.

“In light of the city’s troubling trend of incurring more liabilities, it is appropriate and necessary for the city to better fund the (risk management fund),” Keller told the city.

On the campaign trail, Mayoral candidate Tim Keller said he would raise taxes as a last resort for public safety but only with voter approval.

Candidate Keller said he would draw from various agencies, departments and programs where large, misappropriated budgets existed to deal with any city deficit.

What candidate Keller said about “misappropriate budgets” sounded fantastic but not very realistic after the 8 years of budget cuts and downsizing of government by his predecessor.

On December 19, 2017, soon after being sworn in, Mayor Tim Keller reported that the city was facing a $6 million-dollar short fall this fiscal year that would have to be made up somehow.

Among the contributing factors for the $6 million deficit was the Albuquerque Police Department exceeding its overtime budget by $4 million by going from $9 million to $13 million and the excessive judgements paid out in APD deadly use of force cases such as the $5 million settlement paid in the Mary Hawkes case.

Further, Mayor Keller announced the that the city was facing a whopping $40 million-dollar budget short fall the city will be dealing with next fiscal year.

During the December 19, 2017 press conference, Mayor Keller said:

“Because we have a deficit situation, we are really going to have to focus on prioritizing what is important this year for our city. … A piece of that is also understanding we’ve got to find ways to step up for our officers, and we also have to prioritize job creation and keep our kids at the forefront of the budget process this year.”

Asked during his press December 19, 2017 press conference if a tax increase would be required, Mayor Keller said:

“I certainly hope not, and I can’t imagine that at the end of the day, given what we want to prioritize, that is going to happen. The tougher question is how do we actually get more officers on the streets, and we’re going to be working with our police chief and the City Council to find a way to do that.”

(See December 19, 2017 Albuquerque Journal “Mayor: APD still a priority despite projected deficit).

THE CITY COUNCIL’S SONG AND DANCE ON TAX INCREASES

On February 17, 2018, City Councilors Ken Sanchez and Trudy Jones announced that the city council will consider a tax increase saying the city was facing a budget shortfall and that the city needed more cops.

(See February 17, 2018 Albuquerque Journal, “City Council to consider tax hike; Councilors say city facing budget shortfall, needs more officers)

In announcing the City Council’s proposed tax increase, City council President Ken Sanchez had his own version of the same song sung by Mayor Keller when he said:

“We are at an extremely critical time. … Just this coming fiscal year, we are facing a $40 million shortfall. … Our police department staffing is facing some major deficiencies” and saying Albuquerque Police Department has around 850 officers and that 1,200 are needed.

Sanchez also pointed out that the city has lost $25 million in revenue due to the state’s “hold harmless” agreement.

After the legislature did away with state taxes on food and medicine in 2005, it agreed to pay local governments “hold harmless” money to ease the burden of the lost revenue with the money tapering off since 2016.

The New Mexico Legislature allowed municipalities to impose a three-eighths percent gross receipts tax without a public vote, to make up for those losses from the hold harmless provision, which is what City Councilors Sanchez and Joes are proposing.

The gross receipts tax proposed of three eights of a cent and could potentially raise $22 million and upwards of $55 million.

The overwhelming majority of the $55 million generated by the tax being proposed by the City Council will in all probability have to be applied to the $40 million-dollar projected deficit and other incurred debts.

For the last eight (8) years, the Albuquerque City Council strongly resisted raising the gross receipts tax at all costs despite the effect that budget cuts were having a severe impact on essential services and a disastrous effect on public safety.

For the last eight (8) years, there has been a severe downsizing of city hall personnel, the elimination of numerous positions, and no or very little raises for city hall employees and even a time when pay was cut to make up for deficits to avoid any kind of tax increase.

CONCLUSION

Mayor Tim Keller is due to announce his first budget on April 1, 2018 which will then be enacted by the city council effective July 1, 2018 after city council budget hearing.

The city council will have a full three months to have budget hearings and to allow for public input and comment before enactment of the budget that will be effective July 1, 2018 when the new fiscal year begins.

If Mayor Keller feels we need a public safety tax for police and the DOJ reforms and deal with the $40 million deficit and lost revenues he should advocate its enactment by the City Council when he releases his first budget on April 1, 2018.

There is a need for consensus building with public input on any tax increase.

It is the City Council and only the City Council that can enact a tax increase.

The City Council is required to have public hearings on the proposed budget and allow for public input.

The public’s input is vital in order to reach a consensus on the need for any tax increase.

Let the city council do its job and decide on any proposed tax increase, theirs or the Mayor’s.

Winning elections is always about counting numbers: the polls, the votes and in US Presidential elections, the electoral college where it really counts and where Presidential elections are won.

It has been reported that our U.S. intelligence community has developed substantial evidence that state websites or voter registration systems in seven states were compromised by Russian-backed covert operatives prior to the 2016 election, but the intelligence agencies never told the states involved.

Three senior intelligence officials have now said the intelligence community has found clear evidence that Russia did indeed compromise or interfere with voter registries in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Texas and Wisconsin, and there are probably more.

(February 28, 2018 NBC News report: “U.S. intel: Russia compromised seven states prior to 2016 election”.)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/u-s-intel-russia-compromised-seven-states-prior-2016-election-n850296

It is becoming clear as each day passes, and as indictments come down, why President Trump does not want to admit that our 2016 presidential election was interfered with by the Russians giving him the election.

The intelligence community also has found that Russia tried to influence our election in favor of Trump by circulating false and misleading information on the internet, sponsoring organization meetings and providing funding for Trump supporter rallies.

One report is money was given by Russian operatives to fund a float for a mock-up of a jail with a Clinton look alike dress in a black and white stripped jump suit.

The dark clouds forming over Trump are that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has either indicted or secured guilty pleas from 19 people and three companies so far in the Russian probe, with most of those being announced just in the past few weeks followed by guilty plea agreements.

Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, has now been charged in two separate indictments on a variety of charges brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller who is heading up the Russian probe.

Manafort has been the subject of a longstanding investigation over his dealings in Ukraine several years ago for which he didn’t file as a foreign agent until June of 2017.

Special Counsel Mueller has incorporated the Manafort investigation into his own probe into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election and possible collusion with Trump associates, which may include Trumps son Donald, Jr and his son in law Jared Kushner.

Rick Gates, the longtime close business associate of Paul Manafort’s, was a Trump campaign aid and transition official and he pleaded guilty to conspiracy and lying to the FBI.

Rick Gates, as a Trump campaign and transition official, will probably know and may have witnessed collusion between Manafort, Trump, the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election in Trump’s favor.

EFFECTED STATES ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE

Trump lost the total popular vote (62,980,160) to Clinton (68,845,931), but Trump won 30 individual state votes to Clinton winning 20.

Trump has bragged that he won the 2016 electoral college vote by the largest electoral college vote margin ever since Ronald Reagan which is not true.

President Trump won the electoral college vote 304 over Clinton’s 227, thereby handing the election to Trump.

In 2008, Obama won the election against Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, with 365 electoral votes.

In 1996, President Clinton defeated Republican Bob Dole with 379 votes.

Of the seven states where voter registries were compromised, Trump won Alaska’s 3 electoral college votes, Arizona’s 11 electoral college votes, Texas’ 38 electoral college votes and Wisconsin’s 10 electoral college votes while Clinton won California’s 55 electoral votes and Illinois 20 electoral votes.

Sooner rather than later, appointed Russian Probe Special Counsel Robert Mueller will find out that there was indeed collusion with the Trump campaign and the Russians to rig our election in Trump’s favor and money laundering of millions of dollars.

Trump will no doubt plead “fake news” at his arraignment on federal charges of money laundering and fraud along with his former campaign manager Paul Manafort.

I truly hope President Trump’s arraignment for any criminal charges is before US Federal Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel whom President Trump suggested was biased against him because of the judge’s “Mexican” heritage.

Judge Curiel is as American as they come and was born and raised in East Chicago, Indiana and educated in the United States.

CONCLUSION

President Trump is entitled to due process of law for treason, high crimes and misdemeanors, which will be impeachment charges by the US House of Representatives and then the US Senate will conduct a trial and vote to convict him and remove him from office, unless of course he resigns like Richard Nixon.

The TV ratings will indeed be HUUUUUGGGGE!