Mayor’s FY27 Budget: Spending Is Increasing—Not Being Cut

District 5 City Councilor Dan Lewis issues the following points in this statement on the spending contained in Mayor Keller’s proposed FY27 budget.

KEY FACTS

Spending and Revenue Are Both Going Up

• Revenue: $873M → $894M (+ $20.7M) 
• Spending: $869.6M → $875.5M (+ $5.9M) 
• Source: FY27 Proposed Budget, General Fund 110 

There Are No Real Service Cuts

• Pay raises funded (~$15.3M), Recruitment & retention: $1.1M
• 247 vacant positions removed (not filled jobs)
• New positions added in some departments 
• Spending still increases year-over-year

The “$35 Million Cut” is Misleading

• Not a cut to services—it’s a citywide accounting number
• Includes reallocations, fund shifts, and internal transfers
• Applies across all funds (including Aviation, Transit, Solid Waste) 

Most of the $35M is Money Being Moved

• Operating → Capital shifts (Aviation) 
• Reduced internal transfers (Fund 265) 
• Enterprise fund adjustments 
• Money is shifted—not eliminated

What Is Actually Being Reduced

• One-time (non-recurring) spending: ↓ ~$7.3M
• Ongoing (recurring) spending: ↑ ~$13.2M

Revenue Growth Is Strong

• Recurring revenue: ↑ ~$22.6M
• One-time revenue declining 
• The City has more ongoing money—not less

This Is Not Austerity

• Revenue growth outpaces spending growth 
• Spending still increases—just more slowly 
• This is controlled growth, not cuts

The Real Issue: Long-term Sustainability

• Future spending projected to outpace recurring revenue
• One-time funding has been used for ongoing costs 
• Current adjustments do not fix the structural imbalance

Homelessness Spending  

• Total FY26 homelessness-related spending: ~$84.7M
• PIT Count (Jan 2026): 2,960 individuals
• ≈ $28,600 per person annually
• Includes HHH, ACS and identified costs across multiple departments including public safety, Solid Waste, and Parks and Recreation.
• Reflects total system spending -- not just contracted services
• PIT count is a one-night snapshot and likely understates the full population
• Some indirect and capital costs are not fully captured 

Source: City of Albuquerque FY26 Budget; Department Responses to FY27 Budget Questions; 2026 Point-in-Time (PIT) Count 

Bottom Line

• The City is bringing in more revenue and spending more—not less
• The $35M claim is not a real cut to services
• The real question: Is the budget sustainable long-term? The mayor’s own charts show a massive gap in future revenue and spending.

“The mayor has built a larger, more expensive city government—but without the outcomes to justify it.” City Councilor Dan Lewis