City leaders say Albany will still move forward with spending reduction plans even after the state has allocated tens of millions of dollars to help close a multiyear budget gap.
After Albany Mayor Dorcey Applyrs announced earlier this year that the city faced a budget deficit of nearly $20 million for fiscal year 2025 and more than $20 million for the 2026 fiscal year, the first-term Democrat asked all city departments to submit cost-saving plans. She also implemented a hiring freeze for non-essential workers, and on May 1, announced $5.3 million in savings had been found for the 2026 fiscal year.
During a finance committee meeting Wednesday, John Reilly, counsel to the mayor, said the city was still going forward with proposed cuts even as the state's fiscal year 2027 budget, signed by New York Gov. Kathy Hochul last month, includes $44.4 million for Albany. State leaders also approved $20 million for Albany for the next three years.
“We have been very clear that this does not mean that we can take the foot off the gas,” he told the committee. “The additional funding for 2026 gives the administration the needed breathing room to reset and recalibrate. But we cannot act as a business as normal or business as usual again and put ourselves in the same precarious financial footing as we found ourselves in earlier this year.”
The meeting came a week after the mayor said she had answered more than 50 questions submitted by the Common Council seeking transparency about the city’s budget issues.
But on Wednesday, council members pressed for more details on cuts being implemented. They also asked for clarification on many of the mayor's answers, and sought more follow-up on issues like grant reimbursements, billing, overtime, and city jobs.
Councilmember Rachel Powell, who represents Ward 12 but is not part of the Finance Committee, asked if there were plans to report on how cuts could impact city services. She said constituents have been asking about services like pothole repair, garbage pickup, and uncut grass.
“It’s great that we got the state money, and I appreciate you still wanting to cut,” Powell said. “But I think there's a right sizing of cuts with services that can be evaluated right and fine-tuned.”
A spokesperson from the Mayor’s Office said the cuts will have no impact on core city services. In a statement, they wrote, “As the [Applyrs] Administration identifies additional reductions that must be made, Mayor Applyrs remains committed to prioritizing public safety and essential City workers and services.”
Ward 6 Councilmember Deirdre Brodie said, while the meeting was a great start toward addressing structural issues in the city’s budget, there is still a lot of ground to cover.
“We are rather at the mercy of the [city’s] administration in a lot of ways, because we don't have access to those answers on our own,” said Brodie. “So, it has to come from the administration.”
Questions about the city’s budget come as the Finance Committee on Wednesday advanced proposed legislation that would require council approval on some budget transfers. Under the proposed measure, all transfers and appropriations of budgeted funds that exceed 4% of the total budget would need to come before the council in a public hearing.
Martha Mahoney, a senior assistant corporation counsel, told the Finance Committee Wednesday that the law might expose the city to potential litigation, as it curtails the powers of the mayor and could lead to a referendum. However, Common Council members noted that the law builds on an existing 2021 law they said needed to be fortified.
The proposed law, known as Local Law I, is part of the Common Council’s broader efforts to address structural problems in the city’s budget process. According to Councilmember Meghan Keegan, the 4% threshold for appropriations and budget transfers has been exceeded every year between 2022 and 2025. She said the intent of the law is to increase transparency on how money moves within the city.
“If there were significant fiscal issues requiring that we move significant amounts of money around in order to cover what we needed to cover in terms of expenses in the city, that there would be clear notification and public discussion about what was happening, and that did not occur,” Keegan said. “This bill is proposed to address that issue and ensure that those definitions are clear.”
