← All checked meetingsRedline · April 28, 2025
Las Cruces Council Work Session - April 28, 2025
The city’s minutes for this meeting were compared, sentence by sentence, against the transcript of the recording. Of 85 statements the minutes attribute to a named person, 85 were found in the recording.
Summarised — gaps worth reading. The comparison is mechanical and has no opinion about why two documents differ. A gap can be honest summarising; a mismatch can be the caption software mishearing. Both texts are shown so you can decide, and the correction form at the bottom is there for when the machine is wrong.
Watch the recording · Read the minutes as text · The city’s original PDF · checked 8/14/2026
2 differences
Differences that ordinary summarising does not explain — words nobody said, figures and negations that disagree, vote rolls that don’t add up, and stretches where somebody spoke and went unrecorded. Show all 10 differences
Jacqueline Rubalcava: figure differs from the recording: minutes say 903000, recording says 93000
Says something differentBoth records carry the same sentence, but they disagree on a number or on whether it was negative. Both records carry the same sentence, but not the same number. The minutes read “…amount last year i think it was 903,000 that was budgeted including vehicles…” and state 903000; the recording states 93000.
What the minutes say
Jacqueline Rubalcava said the $676,000 for Mano y Mano is based off of the amended service agreement, so the service agreement was for $676,000, so that is what is being budgeted here, there is a carryover from that amount last year I think it was $903,000 that was budgeted, including vehicles, so those vehicles have been ordered and there is also a carryover of that amount.
What the recording says
that I was curious what what's going on there. So, this 676 $676,000 for Mano Mano is based off of the amended service agreement. So, the service agreement was for $676,000 and so that's what is being budgeted here. there is a carryover from that amount. Last year I think it was 93,000 that was budgeted including vehicles. So those vehicles have been ordered and there is also a carryover um of that amount and yeah
~780 words of the recording have no counterpart in the minutes
Missing from the minutesThis part of the meeting left no trace in the written record. This stretch of the meeting is not reflected anywhere in the written record. Some gaps are legitimate — recesses, or a presentation summarised in one line. Others are discussion that simply did not make it in. 1 person introduce themselves by name inside this gap. It contains: “investigation”.
What the minutes say
Nothing — this passage is absent from the minutes.
What the recording says
particular report. Um two different methodologies uh that of course city council will have to choose from. One is by housing type which we've done historically multifamily and single family. Usually different fees are the same fee for those. um or by unit size which is similar to the way it's uh the public safety impact fee um is currently uh been adopted and is being applied. And in this particular case it's it's broken down into three housing types. And then of course the study also includes revenues and
Were you there?
If the machine got something wrong, or if you can say what was actually said, put it on the record. Submissions are reviewed before they appear.