Budget transparency in New York refers to the public availability and clarity of financial information regarding how the State and City collect and spend taxpayer dollars. This page covers CBC’s work on multi-year financial planning, the publication of budget tables, Comptroller pre-audit authority, competitive bidding requirements, and performance management systems.
This page was created with AICBC Insights uses AI to group, analyze and present data and recommendations from CBC's publications. Always reference the cited sources to verify important details..
State lawmakers and the Governor should maintain the Comptroller’s current authority to review state contracts before they are executed and ensure contracts are competitively bid to the maximum extent.
The Assembly and Senate should stand firm in their rejection of budget proposals that erode the Comptroller’s pre-audit authority.
The Governor and Legislature should strive to ensure the integrity of government contracting rather than undermining it through limiting the Comptroller’s powers and conducting uncompetitive procurements.
Efforts to speed up procurement should focus on substantial improvements like assisting agencies with writing Requests for Proposals (RFPs), which is a time-consuming part of the process.
State leaders should publish basic financial plan tables with the enacted budget to improve budget transparency and accountability.
The State should shift to a modified accrual basis for balancing the budget to improve budget transparency and accountability.
State leaders should enshrine the State’s debt cap in the Constitution to improve budget transparency and accountability.
Key Data
Following a five-week delay in releasing the enacted budget financial plan in June 2025, the State spent $49 billion before telling New Yorkers how their money was being spent.
In March 2025, the CBC noted that the City's practice of underbudgeting current services impedes transparency, with fiscal years 2026 to 2029 underbudgeted by at least $4 billion a year.
In February 2025, the CBC highlighted that the City obfuscates its fiscal plans by budgeting just $519 million for CityFHEPS in fiscal year 2026, which is 52% less than the $1.1 billion required to serve existing voucher holders in fiscal year 2025.
In October 2024, the CBC supported a proposed Charter revision to require the City Council to publish a Fiscal Impact Statement at or before any Committee hearing or vote, and to notify the budget office eight days prior to any hearing to enhance public and legislative transparency.
In October 2024, the CBC reported that the City's performance reporting lacks transparency, as only 25% of indicators in the 2024 PMMR included numerical targets to allow the public to evaluate program efficacy.
New York's proposed budget changes threaten government transparency by eroding the Comptroller's pre-audit authority and exempting billions of dollars in contracts from competitive bidding. These measures risk increasing corruption and waste by removing independent oversight from $3 billion in state spending.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
State lawmakers and the Governor should maintain the Comptroller’s current authority to review state contracts before they are executed and ensure contracts are competitively bid to the maximum extent.
The Assembly and Senate should stand firm in their rejection of budget proposals that erode the Comptroller’s pre-audit authority.
The Governor and Legislature should strive to ensure the integrity of government contracting rather than undermining it through limiting the Comptroller’s powers and conducting uncompetitive procurements.
Efforts to speed up procurement should focus on substantial improvements like assisting agencies with writing Requests for Proposals (RFPs), which is a time-consuming part of the process.
Key Data
$3 billion
— The amount of Executive budget proposals eroding the Comptroller’s pre-audit authority that the Legislature rejected.
$1 billion
— The amount of taxpayer money that would go into vendors’ pockets without needed scrutiny if the Comptroller review threshold is raised to $300,000.
$2 billion
— The amount of unexamined funds created by the proposal to eliminate Comptroller pre-audit review for purchases from centralized contracts administered by OGS.
$2.76 billion
— The total value of contracts the Executive Budget proposes to exempt from the competitive bidding process across 36 instances.
$250 million
— The value of contracts related to water infrastructure projects that would be exempted from Comptroller pre-audit review.
$191 million
— The value of contracts related to rural transformation projects that would be exempted from Comptroller pre-audit review.
New York State's budget process requires enhanced transparency and oversight to ensure fiscal accountability, particularly regarding the publication of basic financial plan tables and the rejection of proposals that weaken comptroller authority. Strengthening these mechanisms is essential for maintaining reasonable estimates of expenses and revenues while preventing the expansion of unchecked executive budget authority.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Hold the City accountable for developing a fiscally sustainable transition plan that includes greater savings, more transparency, and stronger reserves policy, in exchange for more aid.
Publish basic financial plan tables with the enacted budget.
Reject language that exempts individual appropriations from competitive bidding requirements and Comptroller pre-audit oversight.
Reject the proposal to eliminate Comptroller pre-approval of centralized contracts and increase thresholds for Comptroller review of other State contracts.
Key Data
$12.8 billion
— Reported out-year budget gaps in fiscal year 2030.
$20 billion
— Structural budget gap masked by reported figures.
$3 billion
— Amount of revenue anticipation notes the state should reject permanent executive authority to issue.
New York State officials are being urged to release basic, multi-year financial plan tables alongside one-house budget proposals and the enacted budget to improve transparency. Currently, the delayed release of detailed financial plans prevents legislators and the public from fully understanding the long-term fiscal impact of budget deals at the time they are voted on.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The state should publish at least one financial plan table each for All Funds, State Operating Funds, and the General Fund to ensure a transparent budget process.
Each of these three tables should provide reasonably disaggregated and totaled lists of receipts, disbursements, transfers, annual bottom-line results, and allocations of fund balances for the budget year and three out-years.
The state should codify in State law the requirement to publish these financial plan tables.
Key Data
30 days
— The maximum time delay for the release of the Enacted Budget Financial Plan after enactment.
400-page
— The length of a full financial plan report that is not being requested at the time of budget agreement.
thousands of pages
— The volume of supporting documentation New York City releases within the week following budget adoption.
The Fiscal Year 2027 Executive Budget includes provisions that would grant the executive branch broad control over appropriations and borrowing while weakening the State Comptroller's oversight of contracts and purchases. These proposed changes, which include increasing contract review thresholds and maintaining pandemic-era emergency powers, undermine necessary fiscal accountability and should be rejected by the legislature.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Reject universal appropriation transfer and interchange authority included in the State Operations bill, as in prior years.
Reject language that exempts individual appropriations from competitive bidding requirements and Comptroller pre-audit oversight.
Reject the $1 billion transfer from the General Fund to the “Health Care Transformation Account,” unless its uses are defined in appropriations.
Reduce the “Special Emergency Appropriation” from $2 billion to $1 billion, its level prior to the pandemic.
Reject the permanent executive authority to issue revenue anticipation notes totaling $3 billion annually, as in prior years.
Reject the proposal to increase the threshold for Comptroller review of State contracts from $50,000 to $300,000 and eliminate Comptroller pre-approval of centralized contracts purchase orders that exceed $200,000.
Key Data
$1 billion
— Proposed transfer from the General Fund to the “Health Care Transformation Account.”
$2 billion
— Current level of the “Special Emergency Appropriation.”
$1 billion
— Recommended level for the “Special Emergency Appropriation.”
$3 billion
— Amount of revenue anticipation notes the executive seeks permanent authority to issue annually.
$50,000
— Current threshold for Comptroller review of State contracts.
$300,000
— Proposed increased threshold for Comptroller review of State contracts.
New York City faces a significant fiscal challenge with a projected budget gap approaching $8 billion for fiscal year 2027. To address this, the city must prioritize effective programs, modernize operations, and restructure government to improve efficiency rather than relying on tax increases.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Mayor Mamdani should comb through City programs to identify and protect those that deliver significant positive impact and shrink those that do not to ensure fiscal prioritization.
The City should leverage technology, modernize outdated operations, and work with labor to boost productivity and improve budget efficiency.
The spending plan should reflect the reported $1 billion in savings from rebidding the City’s health insurance plan to increase budget transparency.
The State should repeal the class size mandate, which restricts the Mayor’s flexibility and drives higher spending that widens the budget gap.
New York must deliver high-quality cost-effective services by making smart but tough choices—prioritizing what works and shrinking what doesn’t—before turning to the easier option of raising taxes.
Key Data
$8 billion
— Estimate of the City’s fiscal year 2027 budget gap.
$14.5 billion
— Amount City spending would be lower today if it had tracked inflation.
$1 billion
— Reported savings from rebidding the City’s health insurance plan.
New York State faces a structural budget gap of $20 billion annually, with the fiscal year 2026 All Funds budget exceeding $258 billion. To address these fiscal challenges and improve accountability, the state should implement reforms such as publishing basic financial plan tables, shifting to a modified accrual basis for balancing the budget, and enshrining the debt cap in the Constitution.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
State leaders should publish basic financial plan tables with the enacted budget to improve budget transparency and accountability.
The State should shift to a modified accrual basis for balancing the budget to improve budget transparency and accountability.
State leaders should enshrine the State’s debt cap in the Constitution to improve budget transparency and accountability.
Key Data
$258 billion
— The fiscal year 2026 All Funds budget exceeds this amount.
$20 billion
— The amount by which State recurring spending exceeds its recurring receipts annually, creating a structural budget gap.
12 percent
— The rate at which adjusted State operating funds spending is growing this year.
New York City's budget is currently obscured by chronic underbudgeting for known expenses, which masks the true scale of the city's fiscal challenges and creates a multi-billion dollar gap. To restore fiscal stability and public trust, the city must implement transparent budgeting practices, including accurate expenditure and revenue estimates, while adopting performance-driven management to ensure tax dollars are spent effectively.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The administration should work with the Office of Management and Budget to identify the City's total spending obligations, how much revenue is available, and the risks.
The preliminary budget should reflect the full cost of expected services and activities, including homeless services, rental assistance, uniformed overtime, and MTA subsidies.
The City should use prudent, reasonable revenue forecasts that reflect today’s economic uncertainty without intentionally low-balling revenue estimates to keep dollars off the table.
The administration should implement a Performance Management System that improves service quality and efficiency and drives budget decisions.
The administration should implement a system where leaders and managers regularly review data on quality, efficiency, and outcomes together to identify what works, fix or shrink what does not, and guide spending.
Key Data
$4.5 billion
— Amount by which the City's projections understate fiscal year 2027 spending according to CBC's estimate.
$6 billion to $8 billion
— Projected budget gap the incoming administration must close.
$2.3 billion
— Cumulative amount by which annual expenses exceeded annual revenues over the past three fiscal years.
11 percent
— Percentage of New Yorkers who believe the City spends their tax dollars wisely.
$14.0 billion
— Estimated amount needed to cover two years of tax revenue declines during a recession.
$2.0 billion
— Current balance of the Revenue Stabilization Fund.
New York State spent $49 billion before releasing the financial plan to the public, which occurred five weeks after the budget was adopted. This delay in disclosing how taxpayer money is being spent highlights a significant lack of transparency in the state's budgeting process.
Key Data
$49 billion
— Amount of money the State spent before releasing the financial plan to inform New Yorkers how their money is being spent.
Five weeks
— Time elapsed after lawmakers adopted the budget before the State finally released the financial plan.
Mayoral candidates for New York City provided their perspectives on the city's fiscal health, with many expressing concerns regarding the accuracy and transparency of the current budget. The candidates proposed various strategies to improve fiscal oversight, including implementing performance management systems and enhancing accountability for city agencies.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Michael Blake will launch a platform to link residents to city resources, so they can apply for benefits, track request status, check payment timelines and request services with greater transparency and ease.
Brad Lander will eliminate chronic under-budgeting, strengthen reserves, cut inefficiencies, cap debt costs, & modernize infrastructure planning for long-term fiscal health based on strategic criteria.
Scott Stringer has proposed standardized reporting metrics for all agencies - QualitySTAT to ensure high performance from city agencies, find budget inefficiency, and ensure quality of life city-wide.
Jim Walden proposes a public dashboard to make 'spend' more transparent.
Jessica Ramos argues that data matters, but it must reflect human outcomes, not just stats that justify cuts.
Key Data
$1.2 billion
— Cost of the CityFHEPS housing voucher program in fiscal year 2025.
$111 billion
— Total value of the City's five-year capital program.
2%
— Self-imposed state spending cap previously utilized to achieve fiscal sustainability.
30 day
— Deadline for contract review and approval.
500,000
— Number of homes proposed to be built under a candidate's housing plan.
$38K
— Amount currently spent per student in New York City public schools.
Proposed changes to the City Charter aim to enhance fiscal accountability by mandating clear rules for the Rainy Day Fund's deposits, withdrawals, and target size. Additionally, the recommendations introduce stricter transparency requirements for financial plans, necessitating detailed explanations when revenue or expenditure estimates deviate significantly from prior years or independent comptroller projections.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City should require the Mayor and City Council to enact a local law that details the City’s Revenue Stabilization Fund deposit, withdrawal, and target size policy.
The City should require each financial plan to include an explanation of any tax revenue change greater than 10 percent from the prior fiscal year, detailing the underlying factors.
The City should require each financial plan to include an explanation of any expenditure change in any major program or unit or appropriation greater than 10 percent and at least $10 million from the prior fiscal year.
The City should require the Executive Budget Message to include an explanation of any major program or unit of appropriation expenditure for the ensuing fiscal year where the estimate by the Office of the City Comptroller or the Office of the New York State Comptroller varies 20 percent or more.
The City should require the City Comptroller to issue, prior to vote, an opinion on the proposed law as to the reasonableness and appropriateness of the target size, mandatory deposit, permitted withdrawal, and definitions of a recession and a severe emergency.
Key Data
16 percent
— The minimum target size for the Revenue Stabilization Fund as a percentage of tax revenue.
3 percent
— The year-over-year tax revenue growth threshold that triggers mandatory deposits into the Revenue Stabilization Fund.
2 percent
— The threshold for a temporary emergency causing revenue loss or expenditure increase that qualifies as a severe emergency.
10 percent
— The threshold for tax revenue changes from the prior fiscal year that require a detailed explanation in the financial plan.
$10 million
— The minimum dollar amount for an expenditure change in a major program or unit of appropriation that requires an explanation in the financial plan.
20 percent
— The variance threshold between City or State Comptroller estimates and the Executive Budget Message that requires an explanation.
The $254 billion New York State budget for fiscal year 2026 lacks transparency, failing to provide essential tables detailing future spending growth and revenue projections. This spending plan increases operating funds by 12 percent, creating a $20 billion structural imbalance that threatens long-term fiscal stability.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should publish basic budget tables showing where New Yorkers’ dollars are going next year and how much more future spending growth will outstrip receipts.
Key Data
$254 billion
— The total size of the New York State budget for fiscal year 2026.
12 percent
— The increase in State Operating Funds spending, which is four times the rate of inflation.
$20 billion
— The structural imbalance between future receipts and disbursements.
$7 billion
— The amount siphoned from the State’s reserves to replenish the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund.
$3 billion
— The additional amount the MTA will contribute to support the capital investment plan.
40 days
— The customary time frame for the financial plan to arrive after the budget is released.
The $254 billion state budget agreement exceeds the Governor's initial proposal by $2 billion, further widening the state's $18 billion structural budget gap. To ensure accountability, the state must immediately release basic budget tables so the public and legislators can understand the long-term financial impacts of this spending plan.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should produce basic budget tables as soon as possible so all New Yorkers, including legislators, can know where their money is going and this budget’s long-term effects.
Key Data
$254 billion
— The total value of the general budget agreement.
$2 billion
— The amount the budget agreement spends over the Governor's initial proposal.
$18 billion
— The size of the state's structural budget gap.
New York State leaders should publish basic, multi-year financial plan tables alongside enacted budget bills to ensure citizens understand how public funds are utilized. This call for transparency accompanies warnings regarding an $18.2 billion structural gap and proposed spending increases between 10.9 percent and 13.8 percent.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State’s leaders should publish basic, multi-year financial plan tables with the enacted budget bills.
Key Data
$18.2 billion
— The size of the structural gap left by the Governor’s and Legislature’s budget proposals.
10.9 percent
— The lower bound of the spending increase featured in the Governor’s and Legislature’s proposals.
13.8 percent
— The upper bound of the spending increase featured in the Governor’s and Legislature’s proposals.
$2 billion
— The minimum amount that should be set aside to mitigate potential federal cuts.
$3 billion
— The amount that should not be spread so thinly among taxpayers that it fails to help affordability.
$280 billion is the total number of dollars held by New York City’s five pension funds over which the City Comptroller is custodian and investment adviser. The Comptroller plays a critical role in the City’s fiscal health, integrity, and accountability. In June, New Yorkers will head to the polls to…
New York State lawmakers are being urged to provide greater transparency during the budget adoption process by publishing detailed, multi-year financial plan tables alongside enacted budget bills. Providing this information would ensure that both the public and legislators have a complete financial picture of how tax dollars are being allocated before bills are voted on.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
We urge lawmakers to give New Yorkers the information they deserve about how their money is being spent and to publish basic, multi-year financial plan tables with the enacted budget bills.
New Yorkers deserve to see how their tax dollars are being spent, and legislators should have the full financial picture when budget bills are voted on.
New York City's budget relies on unsustainable spending practices and significant underbudgeting, which obscures the true financial picture and depletes critical surplus funds. This lack of fiscal transparency leaves the city ill-prepared for potential economic downturns or reductions in federal aid.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
End the budget gimmickry and present accurate, reasonable estimates of expenses and revenue, as required by the City Charter, in the Fiscal Year 2026 Executive Budget.
Implement a Program to Eliminate the Gap (PEG) to reduce spending growth by streamlining administrative operations, increasing program efficiency, and scaling back or eliminating programs that deliver the least value to residents.
Not fund any new or expanded programs in the Executive Budget or during adoption.
Add at least $1.0 billion in funding to the fiscal year 2026 General Reserve to help respond to potential federal cuts.
Key Data
$3.6 billion
— The amount the fiscal year 2026 preliminary budget is short to provide planned services.
$4.0 billion
— The amount the City underbudgets current services annually.
$6.1 billion
— The high point of rolled surplus funds reached in fiscal year 2022.
$3.0 billion
— The projected amount of surplus funds at the end of fiscal year 2025.
$7.8 billion
— The projected budget gap for fiscal year 2027.
$1.0 billion
— The minimum amount of funding recommended to be added to the fiscal year 2026 General Reserve.
New York State should publish basic, multi-year financial plan tables alongside one-house budget proposals and the enacted budget to ensure legislators and the public understand the fiscal impact of budget decisions. Currently, the lack of detailed, multi-year data prevents a clear understanding of the state's long-term fiscal condition when budget bills are being voted on.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should publish at least one financial plan table each for All Funds, State Operating Funds, and the General Fund to improve budget transparency.
Each of the three required financial plan tables should provide reasonably disaggregated and totaled lists of receipts, disbursements, transfers, annual bottom-line results, and allocations of fund balances for the budget year and three out-years.
The State should codify in State law the requirement to publish these financial plan tables to ensure consistent transparency.
Key Data
30 days
— The amount of time after enactment that the Enacted Budget Financial Plan is currently released, leaving the public without data while bills are being voted on.
400-page
— The length of a full financial plan report, which is deemed not feasible to produce at the time of budget agreement.
The New York State Legislature is urged to reject Fiscal Year 2026 Executive Budget provisions that would grant the Governor unilateral spending and borrowing authority without necessary oversight. These proposed measures, which include removing competitive bidding and limiting legislative input, are considered unnecessary and create significant fiscal risk.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Legislature should reject universal appropriation transfer and interchange authority within the State Operations bill.
The Legislature should reject the Governor’s permanent authority to issue up to $4 billion in short-term revenue anticipation notes.
The Legislature should reject a $1 billion transfer from the General Fund to the “Health Care Transformation Account” unless its uses are more clearly defined in appropriations.
The Legislature should reject provisions added to individual appropriations that remove competitive bidding requirements and the Comptroller’s oversight.
The Legislature should reduce the “Special Emergency Appropriation” from $2 billion to $1 billion.
Key Data
$4 billion
— The Governor's proposed permanent authority to issue short-term revenue anticipation notes.
$1 billion
— The proposed transfer from the General Fund to the “Health Care Transformation Account” that lacks clearly defined uses.
$2 billion
— The current amount of the “Special Emergency Appropriation” proposed in the budget.
$1 billion
— The reduced amount to which the “Special Emergency Appropriation” should be lowered.
The City's financial planning process requires reform to address the growing practice of underbudgeting, which recently necessitated a $3.6 billion adjustment to cover predictable expenses. To improve fiscal accountability and transparency, the City Charter should mandate detailed explanations for significant budget variances and establish clearer rules for the Rainy Day Fund and resident feedback.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Charter should require the City to conduct and publish a statistically valid resident feedback survey at least every five years, with results at the Community Board level and disaggregated by key demographic groups.
The Charter should require the City to deposit money into its Rainy Day Fund when the economy is growing and preserve the fund for its intended purpose to protect New Yorkers from dramatic cuts during a recession or short-term emergency.
The Charter should require detailed explanation of the causes of significant annual changes or estimation differences in the City budget to improve the accuracy of financial plan estimates.
The City should provide a detailed explanation when tax revenues or major program expenditures are projected to change more than 10 percent in any year.
The City should provide a detailed explanation when executive expense budget estimates vary more than 20 percent from estimates by the City or State Comptrollers.
Key Data
$3.6 billion
— Amount added to the current year's budget through quarterly modifications to support predictable expenses.
10 percent
— Threshold for projected changes in tax revenues or major program expenditures that would trigger a requirement for a detailed explanation.
20 percent
— Threshold for variance between executive expense budget estimates and Comptroller estimates that would trigger a requirement for a detailed explanation.
New York City's CityFHEPS rental voucher program has reached over $1.1 billion in annual costs, yet the city fails to provide transparent performance data or basic metrics regarding the program's effectiveness. This lack of reporting obscures the program's true impact and sustainability, preventing informed decision-making about its role in addressing the housing crisis.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City should regularly release basic information about CityFHEPS, including the total number of vouchers, renewal rates, and performance data, to ensure transparency.
The City should make decisions about the level of CityFHEPS spending that is appropriate and sustainable as part of a multi-pronged affordable housing strategy.
The City should maximize the impact of CityFHEPS by targeting vouchers to households who will see the most benefits to ensure fiscal responsibility.
Key Data
$1.1 billion
— The cost to serve the 52,000 existing CityFHEPS voucher holders in fiscal year 2025.
$519 million
— The fiscal year 2026 CityFHEPS budget, which represents a significant reduction from the current year.
52%
— The percentage by which the fiscal year 2026 CityFHEPS budget is lower than the current year, reflecting radical underbudgeting.
52,000
— The number of households holding CityFHEPS vouchers at the end of 2024.
$20,000
— The average cost per household per year for CityFHEPS vouchers.
27%
— The percentage more that CityFHEPS costs the City compared to shelter for a typical single adult by the end of the fifth year.
New York State's upcoming executive budget proposal should exclude extraordinary powers that bypass competitive bidding and limit the Comptroller's oversight of state spending and bond transactions. These powers, originally enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, are no longer necessary and threaten to reduce fiscal accountability and transparency.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The budget should not remove competitive bidding requirements and the Comptroller’s oversight via provisions added to individual appropriations.
The budget should not limit the scope of Comptroller review of certain bond transactions, as proposed for the first time in last year’s Executive Budget.
The budget should not allow universal appropriation transfer and interchange authority within the State Operations bill.
The budget should not authorize up to $4 billion in short-term revenue anticipation notes.
The budget should not authorize transfer of $1 billion from the General Fund to the “Health Care Transformation Account” absent more clearly defined uses in appropriations.
The budget should not increase the “Special Emergency Appropriation” from $1 billion to $2 billion.
Key Data
$4 billion
— The amount of short-term revenue anticipation notes the budget proposal seeks to authorize.
$1 billion
— The amount of funding proposed for transfer from the General Fund to the “Health Care Transformation Account” without clearly defined uses.
$1 billion
— The current level of the “Special Emergency Appropriation” that the budget proposal seeks to increase.
$2 billion
— The proposed increased level of the “Special Emergency Appropriation”.
New York State faces a $15.6 billion structural imbalance and must prioritize fiscal discipline by curbing spending growth, protecting reserves, and improving budget transparency. Policymakers should focus on targeting school aid to those in need, managing Medicaid costs, and establishing independent oversight to ensure long-term financial stability.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should leave out proposals to subvert oversight and accountability by granting the Executive extraordinary budget powers and weakening the Comptroller’s oversight.
The State should propose improvements that provide basic information related to contracts that sidestep regular procurement rules because they are issued under an emergency or other exemption.
The State should implement public performance management to improve budget and management processes.
The State should establish an independent office of fiscal analysis to strengthen budget and management processes.
Key Data
$15.6 billion
— The structural imbalance projected by fiscal year 2028.
$33 billion
— The financing gap in the MTA's 2025-2029 capital program.
$2 billion
— The amount of state aid sent annually to wealthy school districts that already provide a sound basic education.
$14 billion
— The portion of state reserves that remain unprotected and outside of the statutorily-protected Rainy Day Reserve.
$3 billion
— The amount by which the State's share of Medicaid costs exceeds the 4.9 percent average Global Cap growth rate annually.
The City's November 2024 Financial Plan understates future budget gaps by reporting them at $5.5 billion rather than the actual projected $8 billion annually. To ensure fiscal stability, the administration must produce an accurate and credible budget that reflects the true costs of ongoing programs like overtime and housing vouchers.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Administration should ensure the budget is accurate and credible so that City leaders can make the right choices for current and future New Yorkers.
The Administration should start taking steps now to close next year’s gap in the upcoming Preliminary Budget.
The Administration should prioritize critical programs, increase efficiency, and shrink spending on lower-impact programs to balance the budget.
Key Data
$3 billion
— Amount by which the City continues to low-ball spending for ongoing programs annually in future years.
$8 billion
— Amount of future annual budget gaps the City will actually face.
$5.5 billion
— Amount of future annual budget gaps reported by the City.
a billion dollars
— Amount of newly identified resources the City used to fund predictable shortfalls in the current year.
Question 3 on the ballot proposes requiring the City Council to publish Fiscal Impact Statements for legislation before committee hearings, a change intended to improve transparency and informed decision-making regarding the city's finances. While the proposal may increase the workload for the City Council Finance Division, it ensures that the public and legislators are aware of a bill's costs before its fate is determined.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Citizens Budget Commission recommends a "yes" vote on Question 3 because knowing the possible fiscal impacts when debating legislation should enhance the quality of deliberations and decisions.
The City Council should be required to publish a Fiscal Impact Statement (FIS) for each bill at or before any Committee hearing or vote on proposed legislation to ensure the public and legislators are informed of expected costs.
The City Council should be required to notify the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) eight days before an upcoming hearing to allow for the inclusion of independent fiscal estimates.
Key Data
eight days
— The City Council would be required to notify the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of an upcoming hearing at least eight days in advance.
three days
— If the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget chooses to provide its own estimate of a bill’s fiscal impact, it must be submitted more than three days before the hearing to be included in the Fiscal Impact Statement.
six to four months
— The proposed changes to the Ten-Year Capital Strategy would compress the formal response and revision process involving the City Planning Commission and Borough Presidents from six to four months.
The Mayor's Management Report, intended to track city performance, currently focuses on basic activity counts rather than meaningful outcomes, quality, or efficiency. To improve transparency and accountability, the report should incorporate resident feedback, link performance metrics to specific spending data, and include clear, actionable targets.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City should add outcome, quality, and efficiency metrics that demonstrate how well the City is doing its work.
The City should link performance metrics to more granular expenditure data, such as the budget function analysis.
The City should incorporate a periodic, statistically valid, representative resident feedback survey that provides New Yorkers’ ratings on quality of life and government services.
The City should include more performance targets and a direction for the targets to move.
The City should utilize the DMMR to provide geographic data for select indicators.
Key Data
25 percent
— of indicators in the 2024 Preliminary Mayor’s Management Report include numerical targets.
66.4 percent
— of restaurants were inspected in fiscal year 2024, a decline from 99.5 percent in fiscal year 2019.
$1.26
— was the average amount spent per pound of food distributed in fiscal year 2023, down from $1.51 the year before.
3,026
— deaths from unintentional drug overdoses occurred in fiscal year 2023, an increase from 2,103 in fiscal year 2021.
one-third
— of the metrics included the outcome, quality, and efficiency measures necessary to track performance in 2023.
350
— new indicators were included in the Fiscal Year 2024 Mayor’s Management Report.
New York State should enact legislation requiring the publication of details for contracts currently exempt from Comptroller oversight to prevent waste and corruption. Currently, hundreds of millions of dollars in state spending bypass competitive procurement and prior approval, creating significant financial risk.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Governor should sign A10281/S9171 to require State agencies and authorities to publish information related to contracts that are exempt from prior approval by the Office of the State Comptroller.
The Governor should no longer include exemptions to sections 112 and 163 of State Finance Law in executive budget bills.
The Legislature should reject any proposed exemptions to sections 112 and 163 of State Finance Law.
The Governor should sign the legislation with no changes other than a correction to clarify that “contract terms” should read “contract term.”
Key Data
5.3 days
— The average time it takes for the Office of the State Comptroller to complete a prompt review of contracts submitted by State agencies and authorities.
$50,000
— The minimum value floor for contracts that are subject to oversight provisions.
$368 million
— The total amount of enacted budget appropriations exempt from section 112 of the State Finance Law.
$1.5 billion
— The total amount of appropriations exempt from section 163 of State Finance Law.
Proposed changes to the New York City Charter aim to enhance fiscal integrity by requiring independent validation of high-cost legislative programs and mandating detailed explanations for significant budget estimate variances. These reforms seek to ensure that legislative fiscal impact statements are produced earlier and that long-term debt service remains capped at 15 percent of tax revenue.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Council should produce legislative Fiscal Impact Statements earlier in the process to improve how the City considers the future budget impact of legislation.
The Independent Budget Office should produce an independent fiscal impact statement or validate the Council’s for programs that will cost more than $100 million in any year of the financial plan.
Fiscal Impact Statements should disclose whether the cost of a proposed law can be accommodated within the current budget and financial plan.
High-cost local laws should take effect once funds are modified into the budget or negotiated in budget adoption.
The Charter should require a detailed explanation of the causes of significant annual change when tax revenues or major program expenditures are projected to change more than 10 percent in any year.
The Charter should require a detailed explanation of the causes of significant annual change when Executive estimates vary more than 20 percent from estimates by the City or State Comptrollers.
Key Data
$100 million
— The threshold for programs requiring an independent fiscal impact statement or validation by the Independent Budget Office.
10 percent
— The threshold for projected changes in tax revenues or major program expenditures that would trigger a requirement for a detailed explanation of causes.
20 percent
— The threshold for variance between Executive estimates and those of the City or State Comptrollers that would trigger a requirement for a detailed explanation of causes.
15 percent
— The proposed limit for debt service as a portion of City tax revenue to prevent crowding out operating budget priorities.
New York City should amend its Charter to mandate more rigorous fiscal oversight, including stricter requirements for legislative fiscal impact statements and more accurate financial plan estimates. Additionally, the city should establish binding rules for its Rainy Day Fund, cap debt service at 15% of tax revenues, and implement a regular, statistically valid resident feedback survey to improve service quality.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Revise the Charter to require publication of the City Council Fiscal Impact Statement at least 72 hours prior to the initial Committee meeting to ensure transparency in the legislative process.
Revise the Charter to require the financial plan to include a detailed explanation for significant year-over-year variation in projected tax revenues or program expenditures to improve budget accuracy.
Revise the Charter to require the City to conduct a resident survey at least once every five years to routinely collect statistically valid and representative ratings of services and programs.
Revise the Charter to require the Mayor and City Council to enact a local law that details the City’s Rainy Day Fund deposit, withdrawal, and target size policy to ensure the fund is sufficiently robust.
Revise the Charter to set the maximum debt level in the Executive Budget to a level that ensures debt service remains below 15 percent of the tax revenue forecast in each year of the financial plan.
Key Data
$100 billion
— The City's long-term liability for other postemployment benefits.
$100 million
— The fiscal impact threshold for local laws requiring an independent fiscal assessment.
15%
— The proposed cap on debt service as a percentage of tax revenues.
16%
— The minimum target size for the Rainy Day Fund as a percentage of tax revenue.
72 hours
— The minimum time prior to a committee meeting that a Fiscal Impact Statement must be published.
20 percent
— The variance threshold for expenditure estimates requiring an explanation in the Executive Budget Message.
New York City's adopted budget increases spending by $6.1 billion while failing to include the full recurring costs of essential programs, creating an illusion of fiscal stability. Despite strong revenues, the city has not made necessary deposits into the Rainy Day Fund, leaving it with a $2.0 billion balance that is insufficient to protect against potential economic downturns.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City should adopt a transparent, accurate budget that fully funds planned services and identifies those that will shrink.
The City should ensure that spending added during budget adoption is offset by savings elsewhere.
The City should deposit at least $1 billion into the Rainy Day Fund over this and next year.
Key Data
$1.3 billion
— The amount by which the All Funds adopted budget is larger than the Mayor’s Executive proposal.
$1.1 billion
— The amount by which fiscal year 2024 spending obligations exceeded that year’s revenues.
$2.0 billion
— The current balance of the Rainy Day Fund, which is considered insufficient to protect against recession-related cuts.
$6.1 billion
— The increase in City-funded spending in the fiscal year 2025 adopted budget compared to fiscal year 2024.
$5.0 billion
— The year-to-year drop in federal aid, primarily due to expiring COVID funding.
New York City's fiscal year 2025 budget agreement fails to prioritize long-term stability by neglecting to fund the Rainy Day Fund despite strong revenues. The budget relies on potentially inaccurate estimates that mask the true fiscal risk, necessitating greater transparency to ensure adequate funding for essential services like overtime, class size reduction, and housing vouchers.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
All programs should be budgeted at expected service levels and costs.
The Administration and City Council must join forces to become much more transparent and accurate in their budget reporting.
New York City's fiscal integrity is threatened by the practice of underbudgeting, which obscures the true costs of programs and artificially reduces projected budget gaps. To ensure long-term stability and transparency, the budget must accurately reflect planned expenses, offset new spending with recurring savings, and bolster the Rainy Day Fund to prepare for potential economic downturns.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The budget should be transparent and accurately reflect the costs of planned programs and additional expenses that are currently underbudgeted, such as overtime.
If the City chooses not to fully fund a program, it should be clear that it will be trimmed or cut.
Spending added during budget adoption should be budgeted on a recurring basis and offset with recurring reductions from efficiencies or shrinking of lower impact or underutilized programs.
The City should deposit at least $500 million in the Rainy Day Fund in fiscal year 2024.
The City should budget to deposit at least $553 million in the Rainy Day Fund in fiscal year 2025.
The City should deposit more into the Rainy Day Fund if revenues are higher than projected in the Executive Budget.
Key Data
$1 Billion
— Minimum amount to be deposited into the Rainy Day Fund over the current and next fiscal year.
$500 million
— Minimum amount the City should deposit in the Rainy Day Fund in fiscal year 2024.
$553 million
— Minimum amount the City should budget to deposit in the Rainy Day Fund in fiscal year 2025.
$2 billion
— Current balance of the Rainy Day Fund.
$11 billion
— Estimated revenue loss over two years during an average recession.
Proposed revisions to the New York City Charter aim to enhance fiscal integrity by mandating stricter rules for rainy day funds, retiree health benefit trusts, and legislative fiscal impact statements. These changes also seek to improve the accuracy of financial plan estimates and establish a cap on debt service at 15 percent of tax revenues to ensure long-term affordability.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Charter should require impact statements be published earlier, so the Council and the public have time to consider them.
The Charter should require the City to provide details of its estimates when the City or State Comptrollers identify estimates that vary significantly from the Executive’s financial plan.
The Charter should require explanations of significant year-to-year variances—such as when dollars fall off a cliff but the program is assumed to continue.
The Charter should require Comptroller certification of financial plan estimates.
The Charter should require the statement to identify a preferred way to pay for the proposal—such as offsetting savings or local revenues—without requiring the 'pay-for' be enacted.
New York City's Charter should be revised to improve fiscal integrity and transparency by establishing clear rules for the Rainy Day Fund and Retiree Health Benefits Trust, and by requiring earlier publication of fiscal impact statements for legislation. These reforms, alongside strengthened financial plan accuracy and a comprehensive performance management system, would ensure better oversight and accountability in city government.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Charter should include clearly defined rules governing the Rainy Day Fund to ensure reserves are built and used only as appropriate.
The Charter should be revised to establish the Retiree Health Benefits Trust, ensuring there is a fund to accumulate resources to pay for the City’s long-term OPEB liability.
The Charter should require fiscal impact statements be published earlier in the legislative process to give Council members and the public a reasonable estimate of the cost of a proposed policy.
The Charter’s requirement that revenue and expenditure estimates be reasonable and appropriate should be bolstered to prevent the routine understating of expenditures.
The Charter should limit debt service to 15 percent of tax revenues to help ensure that long-term debt is affordable.
The Charter should establish a basic performance management framework—its management, planning, and reporting—to drive administrations to implement a comprehensive system that spans all agencies.
The City Charter should require the City to conduct and publish a statistically valid resident feedback survey at least every five years, with results at the Community Board level and by key demographics.
Key Data
$100.3 billion
— The City's total OPEB liability.
4.8 percent
— The portion of the City's OPEB liability covered by the current RHBT balance.
$3.7 billion
— The annual additional deposit required to fund the normal cost of retiree health benefits.
$10 billion
— The cost of the Family Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement (FHEPS) expansion over five years.
$730 million
— The projected savings from the FHEPS bills cited by the City Council.
$2.0 billion
— Estimated overtime spending at uniformed agencies by the end of fiscal year 2024.
New York City's budget process requires greater transparency to accurately reflect the costs of planned programs and avoid underbudgeting, which currently obscures the true size of future fiscal gaps. To ensure long-term fiscal health, the city must fully fund services, offset new spending with recurring savings, and establish mandatory deposits into the Rainy Day Fund.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City should adopt a transparent, accurate budget that fully funds planned services and clearly identifies those that will be trimmed or cut.
To ensure new spending is sustainable, it should be budgeted on a recurring basis and offset with recurring spending reductions from efficiencies or the reduction or elimination of lower impact or underutilized programs.
The City should deposit at least $500 million in the Rainy Day Fund in fiscal year 2024 and budget to deposit at least $553 million in fiscal year 2025.
The City should enact mandatory deposit rules to ensure the Rainy Day Fund is built up over time.
Key Data
$65 million
— Shortfall in funding for Early Intervention services in fiscal year 2025.
$22 million
— Shortfall in funding for the Department of Sanitation's litter basket service.
$2.2 billion
— Total amount the budget is short in fiscal year 2025 to continue current programs.
$2.6 billion and $2.8 billion
— Range of the budget shortfall in the outyears.
$12.7 billion
— Target reserve amount the City should build to cover two years of recessionary tax revenue losses.
$4 billion
— Additional fiscal year 2024 resources identified since budget adoption to roll into fiscal year 2025.
New York State has yet to release essential multi-year financial plan tables for the Fiscal Year 2025 Enacted Budget, leaving the public without critical information regarding state spending and future fiscal implications. Immediate publication of these detailed financial documents is necessary to ensure transparency and provide citizens with a clear understanding of how public funds are being managed.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should publish at least one, multi-year financial plan table each for All Funds, State Operating Funds, and the General Fund.
The State should include reasonably disaggregated and totaled lists of receipts, disbursements, transfers, annual bottom-line results, and allocations of fund balances for this year and three out-years.
New York City's Fiscal Year 2025 Executive Budget obscures the true fiscal picture by underbudgeting roughly $2 billion in annual services, leading to projected gaps of $5.5 billion to $5.7 billion between 2026 and 2028. To avoid a looming fiscal wall, city leaders must base negotiations on realistic revenue and spending estimates while prioritizing high-impact programs over unaffordable additions.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Mayor and City Council should base their budget negotiations and decisions on reasonable and realistic spending and revenue estimates.
City leaders should prioritize high-impact programs and shrink or end less effective ones to ensure fiscal responsibility.
The City should narrow future budget gaps and break the habit of adding more unaffordable spending to avoid a looming fiscal wall.
The City must provide real, reasonable estimates to drive smart choices on spending and service priorities.
Key Data
$5.5 billion to $5.7 billion
— Reported budget gaps between fiscal years 2026 and 2028.
$2 billion
— Estimated annual amount of services that are underbudgeted.
6.3 percent
— Increase in City-funded spending in the Fiscal Year 2025 Executive Budget.
$200 million
— Amount of FHEPS housing voucher funding that appears low or falls off a cliff in the out-years.
New York State's recently approved $237 billion budget was passed without the release of essential financial plan tables, obscuring the details of how public funds are being utilized. This lack of transparency accompanies a fiscal plan that fails to address a structural deficit likely exceeding $16 billion, while adding long-term costs through pension sweeteners and unsustainable spending.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
State leaders must produce basic financial plan tables immediately to provide essential details about how money is being spent and the budget’s future impacts.
Short-term funds should be used to restructure the system to be more sustainable rather than supporting recurring spending.
All reserves should be deposited into the Rainy Day Reserve to protect them from potential squandering.
Key Data
$237B
— Total amount of spending approved in the state budget without providing financial plan tables.
$16B
— Estimated amount that the future structural budget deficit will likely exceed.
$4B
— Amount added to the state's pension liabilities by the addition of Tier 6 retirement-plan sweeteners.
$377M
— Unnecessary costs imposed on state and local government budgets next year alone due to Tier 6 retirement-plan sweeteners.
New York City's fiscal stability is threatened by understated spending projections and revenue estimates that obscure the true financial picture. To ensure long-term stability and accurate planning, the City must adopt transparent budgeting practices by including realistic cost estimates for all programs and prioritizing necessary, proven initiatives.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Include reasonable estimates of costs of all planned programs in the budget.
Provide accurate, but reasonably conservative revenue estimates.
Allocate funded vacancies to where they are most needed to provide critical services.
Allow agencies to hire into funded positions and spend their budgets on needed programs.
Reduce future budget gaps by prioritizing spending to fund what is needed and proven to work.
Implement additional savings plans, focused on increasing productivity and shrinking lower impact and priority programs.
Put extra funds available now into the Rainy Day Fund and commit to saving it for a recession or severe, one-time emergency.
Key Data
$17.4 billion
— Potential budget gap by fiscal year 2028 if risks like class size mandates and FHEPS expansion are included.
$3.0 billion to $3.9 billion
— Estimated amount by which the fiscal year 2025 financial plan understates the cost of continuing current programs.
$8.0 billion
— Estimated annual future budget gaps without accounting for additional program expansions or asylum seeker costs.
$849 million
— Expected cost of rental assistance programs, primarily City FHEPS housing vouchers, for the current year.
$171 million
— Amount included in next year's budget for rental assistance programs.
$1.45 billion
— Total amount of in-year budget reserves, including the general reserve and capital stabilization reserve.
New York State's budget agreements are currently released with insufficient detail, leaving the public and legislators without a clear understanding of the fiscal impacts until a comprehensive financial plan is published weeks later. Requiring the publication of basic, multi-year financial tables alongside budget bills would ensure greater transparency and accountability regarding the state's fiscal condition.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The state should publish at least one financial plan table each for All Funds, State Operating Funds, and the General Fund with the enacted budget.
The state should publish reasonably disaggregated and totaled lists of receipts, disbursements, transfers, annual bottom-line results, and allocations of fund balances for the budget year and three out-years.
The state should codify in State law the requirement to publish these tables for both the one-house budget bills and the enacted budget.
The state should fix critical transparency deficiencies with enacted budget tables that are released when an agreement is reached.
Key Data
four weeks
— The amount of time that passes after the Enacted Budget is passed before the Division of the Budget releases a detailed financial plan.
400-pages
— The approximate length of the financial plan document that includes extensive data and narrative description of the State’s fiscal condition.
Legislative leaders are urged to reject proposals in the Executive Budget that grant the Governor extraordinary powers, such as unchecked authority to transfer funds, issue debt, and bypass competitive bidding. These powers, originally enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, are no longer necessary and undermine essential oversight mechanisms like Comptroller review.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Reject the proposal to limit the scope of Comptroller review of certain bond transactions, as proposed in sections 49 and 50 of Part X of the Public Protection and General Government bill.
Reject universal appropriation transfer and interchange authority within the State Operations bill.
Reject the Governor’s permanent authority to issue up to $4 billion in short-term revenue anticipation notes.
Reject a $1 billion transfer from the General Fund to the “Health Care Transformation Account
unless its uses are more clearly defined in appropriations.
Reject provisions added to individual appropriations that remove competitive bidding requirements and the Comptroller’s oversight.
Reduce the “Special Emergency Appropriation” from $2 billion to $1 billion.
Key Data
$4 billion
— The Governor's permanent authority to issue short-term revenue anticipation notes.
$1 billion
— The proposed transfer from the General Fund to the 'Health Care Transformation Account' that requires clearer definition.
$2 billion
— The current amount of the 'Special Emergency Appropriation' that should be reduced.
$1 billion
— The reduced amount proposed for the 'Special Emergency Appropriation'.
The New York City Housing Authority faces a persistent operating budget gap and massive capital needs, with current funding insufficient to address deteriorating physical conditions. To restore public trust and ensure effective management, the agency must improve transparency by systematically tracking and publicly reporting progress on its transformation plan and operational benchmarks.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Housing Authority must improve management effectiveness and efficiency, and publicly track progress and impact.
NYCHA should systematically track its progress in a clear, publicly accessible format to determine what aspects of the turnaround plan are working and to restore public trust.
The agency should ensure its data dashboards and reporting align with the metrics included in the settlement agreement to provide transparency.
Key Data
$791 million
— The gap between public housing expenses and core operating income in 2023.
$60 billion
— The total five-year capital needs for NYCHA developments.
$511 million
— Federal capital funds diverted in 2022 and 2023 to fill the operating budget gap.
$8.2 billion
— The five-year capital plan for 2024 to 2028.
New York State's fiscal challenges persist despite an improving economic outlook, necessitating greater spending restraint and enhanced transparency in the budget process. The state should prioritize publishing basic financial plan tables with one-house and enacted budgets to ensure public understanding and accountability in spending decisions.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Publish basic financial plan tables with the one-house and enacted budgets: New Yorkers deserve basic transparency in the spending plans put forward by the Executive and Legislature.
Improve Medicaid data reporting to inform further savings by amending required Global Cap Updates to be Medicaid Updates that include federal and local funds, all State agencies, and disaggregated data.
Pursue comprehensive budget process and fiscal management reforms: The Legislature and Executive should take additional, simple steps immediately to improve the budget process, including fully funding oversight agencies, avoiding the use of messages of necessity, and including fiscal impact statements with non-budget bills.
Publish the data and work of the CFHC: To the extent that the Commission on the Future of Health Care utilizes new data for its work, this supporting information should also be published.
Key Data
$2 billion
— The amount of the 'Special Emergency Appropriation' included in the Executive Budget's fiscally risky powers.
$4 billion
— The amount of permanent authority the Executive Budget proposes to issue in short-term revenue anticipation notes.
$1 billion
— The amount of the transfer from the General Fund to the 'Health Care Transformation Account' proposed in the Executive Budget.
The NYC Fiscal Year 2025 Preliminary Budget relies on chronic underbudgeting and temporary funding, creating a fiscal cliff that masks the true cost of city services. To ensure long-term stability, the city must accurately fund current programs and avoid adding new expenses until existing commitments are fully supported.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City must fully fund the programs it plans to deliver.
The spending plan has to accurately reflect the program plan.
The funding required to support the current level of City FHEPS vouchers should be in the budget before adding or expanding this or other programs.
The City must ensure the budget is transparent and completely and accurately funds the City’s current programs and the full cost of desired program expansions.
City leaders should make the hard and wise choices needed to prioritize key, high-impact programs and increase government efficiency.
Key Data
$3.6 billion
— Shortfall in the fiscal year 2025 budget needed to continue the current level of services.
$8.8 billion to $9.7 billion
— Projected future budget gaps, even without expanding City FHEPS or complying with the State class size reduction law.
$1.45 billion
— In-year budgetary reserves, which are far exceeded by the $3.6 billion in underfunded ongoing programs.
$800 million
— Expected cost to support the current level of City FHEPS vouchers this year.
$150 million
— Budgeted amount for City FHEPS next year, which is significantly lower than the expected cost.
$10.2 billion
— Resources found across fiscal years 2024 and 2025 through higher revenue, in-year reserves, and reductions in agency and asylum seeker spending.
New York City's fiscal condition is precarious, with the preliminary budget for fiscal year 2025 underestimating the costs needed to maintain current services by up to $3.9 billion annually. To address these fiscal cliffs and stabilize the budget, the city must improve transparency by clearly detailing the full costs of programs and specifying which services will be reduced or eliminated.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The budget should be more transparent by showing the full costs of programs and identifying which will be shrunk or eliminated.
It is critical that the City clearly and transparently show which programs are funded and which will be shrunk or eliminated.
Key Data
$3.6 billion to $3.9 billion
— The amount the Fiscal Year 2025 Preliminary Budget is short annually of what is needed to continue programs at the current services level.
$6.0 billion
— The amount spending would grow in fiscal year 2025 if the current level of services were fully funded.
$9.1 billion, $8.8 billion, and $9.7 billion
— The projected out-year budget gaps for fiscal years 2026 to 2028, respectively.
$2.3 billion
— The projected growth in City-funded spending for fiscal year 2025.
New York State legislators are urged to reject provisions in the Fiscal Year 2025 Executive Budget that grant the Governor broad, unilateral spending and borrowing powers while reducing essential oversight. These proposed authorities, originally enacted as temporary pandemic measures, are deemed unnecessary and fiscally risky, threatening the integrity of the state's budget process.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Legislators should reject universal appropriation transfer and interchange authority within the State Operations bill.
Legislators should reject the Governor’s permanent authority to issue up to $4 billion in short-term revenue anticipation notes.
Legislators should reject a $1 billion transfer from the General Fund to the “Health Care Transformation Account” unless its uses are more clearly defined in appropriations.
Legislators should reject provisions added to individual appropriations that remove competitive bidding requirements and the Comptroller’s oversight.
Legislators should reduce the 'Special Emergency Appropriation' from $2 billion to $1 billion.
Legislators should reject the proposal to limit the scope of Comptroller review of certain bond transactions.
Key Data
$4 billion
— The amount of short-term revenue anticipation notes the Governor is seeking permanent authority to issue.
$1 billion
— The amount of the transfer from the General Fund to the “Health Care Transformation Account” that should be rejected unless uses are clearly defined.
$2 billion
— The current level of the 'Special Emergency Appropriation' that should be reduced.
$1 billion
— The reduced level to which the 'Special Emergency Appropriation' should be lowered.
The City's Preliminary Fiscal Year 2025 budget contains a $3.6 billion funding shortfall for current services, with projected budget gaps for 2026-2028 reaching up to $9.7 billion if these programs are fully funded. To ensure fiscal stability and transparency, the City must accurately reflect the full cost of planned programs in its budget and either fund them or explicitly identify which will be reduced or eliminated.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City should implement an additional PEG in the Executive Budget and shrink or eliminate programs that the available resources cannot fully support.
To be fully transparent, the budget should include funding for all planned programs and acknowledge that under- and un-funded programs will shrink or end.
The City Council should ensure that its proposals for added or modified spending are affordable based on fully funding or reducing the current set of planned programs.
The Administration should continue with its original plan to implement a PEG in the Fiscal Year 2025 Executive Budget.
The City should prioritize and fund effective and impactful programs, shrink or eliminate less critical and effective programs, and increase efficiency.
Key Data
$3.6 billion
— The funding shortfall in the Preliminary Budget for fiscal year 2025 needed to maintain current service levels.
$8.8 billion to $9.7 billion
— The estimated budget gaps for fiscal years 2026 through 2028 if current services and plans are fully funded.
$2.5 billion
— The amount added to the fiscal year 2024 budget to fund fiscal cliff programs and underbudgeted expenses.
$194.9 million
— The total amount of PEG restorations for fiscal years 2024 and 2025.
$2.2 billion
— The portion of the fiscal year 2025 funding shortfall attributed to City-funds fiscal cliffs.
$675 million
— The portion of the fiscal year 2025 funding shortfall attributed to federal-funds fiscal cliffs.
The New York City fiscal year 2025 preliminary budget continues to rely on underbudgeting and fiscal cliffs, with future budget gaps estimated between $5 billion and $6 billion. To improve fiscal health, the city must provide greater transparency regarding program costs and the specific sources of savings, rather than relying on recurring programs that lack long-term funding.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City should do much more to transparently budget for the projected costs of all programs, or explicitly shrink or sunset them.
The City should detail the sources of these savings and the underlying projections, so that New Yorkers understand what services are being provided, for how long, and to how many households.
The City should further restrain spending by prioritizing programs and increasing efficiency.
Key Data
$5 to $6 billion
— Future budget gaps that understate the magnitude of the City’s remaining fiscal problem.
$2.5 billion
— Mid-year addition of fiscal year 2024 spending resulting from fiscal cliffs and underbudgeting.
$800 million
— Cost of the current (non-expanded) FHEPS housing voucher program in the current year.
2.9 percent
— Increase in adjusted fiscal year 2025 City-funded spending from fiscal year 2024.
$1.2 billion
— January round of agency PEG savings in fiscal years 2024 and 2025.
$3.5 billion
— Net savings of the November PEG, after restorations.
New York State's budget process lacks sufficient transparency and accountability, with lawmakers failing to implement most recommended reforms or hold necessary hearings. The state should prioritize establishing an independent budget office, ending the use of lump sum appropriations, and providing clear financial plan tables to ensure public oversight.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should hold a hearing to inform comprehensive budget reforms to improve budget transparency and fiscal management.
The State should provide basic financial plan tables with one-house and enacted budgets to ensure the public and press can understand the size, balance, and trajectory of spending plans.
Executive budgets should not include provisions that allow universal appropriation transfer authority, broad lump sum appropriations, or emergency borrowing authorities, as these sidestep oversight and accountability.
Appropriations that are explicitly exempt from Comptroller’s oversight and best-value procurement rules should not be included in the budget to reduce the risk of waste and corruption.
Lump sum appropriations should be omitted from the budget, and transparency should be added to existing lump sums.
New York should establish a robust public performance measurement and management system to provide the necessary sunlight and inform lawmakers on service provision.
An independent fiscal analysis office should be established to provide additional insight on the state’s fiscal condition and the fiscal impacts of policy proposals.
Key Data
12
— Number of actions recommended to improve New York State’s budget and financial management.
1
— Number of recommended actions that were fully implemented by the State last year.
9
— Number of recommended actions on which the State made no progress.
New York City faces a precarious fiscal situation with a $10.6 billion budget gap, driven by migrant costs and unsustainable spending choices. To address this, the City must prioritize critical services, increase efficiency, and utilize transparent data on program impact to make strategic, informed decisions rather than relying on tax increases or reserve depletion.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Council should focus on the data to help make the hard choices and minimize the impact on New Yorkers.
The City must utilize transparent data on program impact to ensure that a budget axe is not swung blindly, which could slice key services.
The City must engage in collaborative, informed, and thoughtful discussions grounded in the realization that current spending levels are not sustainable.
Key Data
$16 billion
— Added costs through 2027 resulting from recent collective bargaining agreements.
$7.1 billion
— Budget gap for fiscal year 2025 as shown in the City's financial plan.
$10.6 billion
— More accurate budget gap when including fiscal cliffs and regularly underbudgeted areas.
92 percent
— Portion of previous savings measures that would not directly affect program services.
20 percent
— Portion of the most recent savings program (PEG) that will affect current programs.
The 'Quick Start' budget meeting process, which was formalized in 2007 and revived in 2021, helps state leaders reach an early consensus on revenue projections to ensure a timely budget. This practice increases transparency by focusing discussions on spending priorities rather than debating revenue estimates throughout the budget cycle, which is particularly important given the projected $4.3 billion budget gap for the upcoming fiscal year.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The state should continue holding 'Quick Start' budget meetings to increase transparency and keep the budget centered on spending priorities.
State leaders should prioritize achieving an early consensus on revenue projections to facilitate a timely state budget.
Key Data
$4.3 billion
— Estimated budget gap for the FY 2024-2025 fiscal year without increases in revenue or cuts in spending.
New York City faces substantial budget gaps reaching over 12.5 percent of City-funded spending, necessitating hard choices about which services to continue or scale back to achieve structural stability. The upcoming financial plan must clarify how the City intends to address these gaps, including the costs of asylum seeker services, expiring federal COVID-related funding, and underbudgeted recurring expenses.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City should prioritize effective programs and shift other funds to support them, while eliminating or scaling back those that are less impactful.
Achieving structural stability will require hard choices about which services to continue and which to end or scale back.
The City should increase government efficiency and focus on getting the basics right.
The City should update its spending projections and include longer-term costs for asylum seeker and migrant services.
The City should increase the budget for uniformed overtime, Carter Cases, and student transportation to the actual levels they’ve historically reached.
Key Data
$11.3 billion
— The amount the City will have to close as a fiscal year 2025 budget gap.
$839 million
— The amount fiscal year 2024 may be short to fund planned services.
$4.7 billion
— The City's updated asylum seeker and migrant spending projection for fiscal year 2024.
$6.1 billion
— The City's updated asylum seeker and migrant spending projection for fiscal year 2025.
$1.7 billion
— Planned savings due to the 5 percent Program to Eliminate the Gap (PEG) announced for the November 2023 financial plan.
$14.9 billion
— The projected budget gap in fiscal year 2026 if the City funds the recently enacted expansion of housing voucher eligibility.
New York City faces a significant fiscal cliff with projected budget gaps reaching up to $13.8 billion, driven by increased spending on city programs and migrant services without corresponding revenue growth. To address this, the city must prioritize impactful programs, improve data-driven accountability, and foster transparent discussions regarding program costs and efficiency.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
To help this transparent effort, strong consideration should be given to reviving the Program to Eliminate the Gap (PEG) monitoring function that the New York State Financial Control Board provided years ago.
Doing this well relies on the city greatly improving its data on program efficiency and effectiveness, and implementing a performance management and accountability process.
To stabilize the budget and minimize any pain from cuts, the most impactful programs should be prioritized first, allowing the city to end programs meant to be temporary and consolidate duplicative efforts.
Agencies should implement changes to deliver services more efficiently and help the city run better, including management and labor collaborating to change processes and enhance workers’ skills.
The mayor’s office should take a hard look at staffing and performance, and make nuanced decisions to ensure city government can function well.
Key Data
$9.9 billion
— Projected budget gap for next year, which could reach up to $13.8 billion.
$13.8 billion
— Upper estimate of the projected budget gap for next year.
50%
— Increase in city-funded spending over the past decade.
$16 billion
— Amount added to the budget for city worker raises without identifying funding sources.
$2.5 billion
— Amount of programs, from housing vouchers to education for 3-year-olds, funded by federal Covid aid and temporary tax revenue.
42%
— Maximum portion of the Fiscal Year 2025 budget gap attributed to the cost of caring for new arrivals.
New York City's fiscal year 2024 budget is actually $112.6 billion when accounting for prepaid obligations, rather than the $107.1 billion reported on paper. Furthermore, the city faces significant future budget gaps reaching $11.5 billion by fiscal year 2027, driven by fiscal cliffs and chronic underbudgeting of programs.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City should flexibly allocate vacant positions where they are needed.
The City should speed up review and approval processes for hiring.
The City should increase flexibility of work rules, job titles, and schedules to improve staffing.
The City should modernize and better manage civil service regulations to address understaffing.
The City should identify other ways to better compete with the private sector for talent.
Key Data
$112.6 billion
— The actual total of the City's adopted budget for fiscal year 2024, including prepaid obligations.
26,000
— The number of vacant positions budgeted in fiscal year 2024.
$2.6 billion
— The average cumulative recurring savings from the Administration's savings plans.
$20 billion
— The total increase in the City budget over the five years between fiscal years 2019 and 2024.
$11.5 billion
— The projected budget gap in fiscal year 2027 after accounting for fiscal cliffs and underbudgeted programs.
New York State has made minimal progress on structural reforms needed to improve fiscal stability, transparency, and accountability in its budgeting process. Despite calls for change, the state continues to lack essential financial plan tables, independent oversight, and transparent long-term capital planning.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should manage, report, and balance the budget in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) on a modified accrual basis to avoid the pitfalls of current cash basis budgeting.
The State should require basic financial plan tables with enacted and one-house budgets to allow the public to compare proposals and evaluate the enacted budget.
The State should prevent the use of messages of necessity for budget bills to ensure they are subject to Constitutional requirements to age for three days before voting.
The State should establish an independent fiscal analyst's office to provide timely and accurate analyses of the State’s fiscal condition.
The State should implement a performance measurement and management system to ensure that annual spending delivers value and is informed by data-driven analysis.
Key Data
$19 billion
— The amount to which reserve balances have increased.
23 percent
— The recommended size of the Rainy Day Fund relative to State Operating Funds.
$27 billion
— The recommended amount in savings for the Rainy Day Fund.
$220+ billion
— The amount of annual spending in New York that requires a performance measurement and management system to ensure value.
$5 million
— The recommended annual budget for the Authorities Budget Office to provide appropriate oversight.
New York State's failure to enact a budget 20 days into the fiscal year creates uncertainty, with a structural budget gap estimated between $15 billion and $20 billion. Lawmakers must prioritize transparency by providing multi-year financial plan tables to ensure the public understands how taxpayer money is being allocated.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Lawmakers should give the public a reason to have faith in their government by providing basic multi-year financial plan tables that reveal the fiscal impacts of the budget when there is an agreement.
The State should ensure the budget process is transparent so that the people know how their money will be spent.
Key Data
20
— Number of days into the fiscal year that the budget remained unenacted.
$15 billion to $20 billion
— Estimated range of the State's massive structural budget gap.
$1 billion
— Amount of additional City spending that could be required due to State policies.
New York State's proposed fiscal year 2024 budget includes $14.8 billion in discretionary lump sum appropriations, which lack public scrutiny and are often allocated based on political considerations rather than clear public needs. To ensure accountability, the state should cease enacting new lump sum appropriations and mandate full, transparent disclosure of all existing discretionary spending.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should not enact any new lump sum appropriations that authorize spending on a broad range of projects or purposes to be determined and allocated at a later date.
The Governor and Legislature should omit the $6 billion Special Public Health Emergency Appropriation from the budget.
The State should reduce the Special Emergency Appropriation to $1 billion, and ensure it is subject to OSC oversight and competitive procurement rules.
The Executive should fully and completely disclose distributions from all lump sum pots currently being spent in a tabular, open data format.
The Governor and Legislature should pass a law codifying the Governor’s discretionary lump sum database to include improved requirements for disclosure.
The Governor and Legislature should provide full data for lump sum spending dating back to at least 2020.
Key Data
$14.8 billion
— Total proposed State FY 2024 discretionary lump sum spending authority.
$15.4 billion
— Total amount of oversight and bidding exemptions present in the FY 2024 budget.
$6.8 billion
— Standard non-emergency lump sum appropriations in the FY 2024 budget.
$8 billion
— Lump sums for the COVID emergency included in the $14.8 billion total.
$943 million
— New appropriations that are lump sums in the FY 2024 budget.
$5.8 billion
— Reappropriations that are lump sums in the FY 2024 budget.
New York State's failure to reach a budget agreement by the start of the fiscal year threatens to destabilize finances and increase the risk of future service cuts. To ensure accountability, the state must publish detailed, multi-year financial plans that clearly reveal the fiscal impacts of the budget rather than obscuring them.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should publish basic, multi-year financial plan tables to reveal, rather than hide, the fiscal impacts of the budget.
The final agreement should maximize reserve deposits to protect New Yorkers from economic shocks.
The final agreement should boost housing production.
The final agreement should restrain spending to stave off massive future cuts.
The final agreement should not raise taxes.
The final agreement should stabilize the MTA while improving its efficiency.
The final agreement should eschew wasteful subsidies.
New York State's current budget process provides insufficient information to the public at the time of agreement, with detailed financial plans only becoming available weeks later. To improve transparency, state leaders should publish basic, multi-year financial plan tables alongside budget agreements and codify this requirement into law.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
We urge you to publish basic, multi-year financial plan tables when you agree on the Fiscal Year 2024 Enacted Budget.
These should include at least one financial plan table each for All Funds, State Operating Funds, and the General Fund.
The tables should include reasonably disaggregated and totaled lists of receipts, disbursements, transfers, annual bottom line results, and allocations of fund balances.
We recommend that this requirement be codified in State law for both the one-house budget bills and enacted budget.
The Legislature should include these tables with their one-house proposals for the same reasons.
Key Data
4
— Number of weeks after the Enacted Budget that the Division of the Budget releases a detailed financial plan.
400
— Approximate number of pages in the detailed financial plans that include extensive data and narrative description.
The New York State legislature is urged to reject extraordinary executive budget powers that grant unilateral spending and borrowing authority without necessary oversight or competitive bidding. These measures, originally enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, are now deemed unnecessary and fiscally risky, threatening to undermine legislative input and transparency in the state budget process.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The legislature should reject universal appropriation transfer and interchange authority within the State Operations bill.
The legislature should reject authority to issue up to $3 billion in revenue anticipation notes.
The legislature should reject authority to utilize a $2 billion line of credit.
The legislature should reduce the “Special Emergency Appropriation” from $2 billion to $1 billion.
The legislature should reject the $6 billion “Special Public Health Emergency Appropriation.”
The legislature should reject a $1 billion transfer from the General Fund to the “Health Care Transformation Account” unless its uses are more clearly defined in appropriations with oversight.
The legislature should reject provisions added to other appropriations that remove competitive bidding requirements and the Comptroller’s oversight.
Key Data
$3 billion
— The amount of revenue anticipation notes the Executive requested authority to issue.
$2 billion
— The amount of the line of credit the Executive requested authority to utilize.
$2 billion
— The original amount of the “Special Emergency Appropriation” proposed by the Assembly.
$1 billion
— The reduced amount of the “Special Emergency Appropriation” recommended by the Senate and supported by watchdog groups.
$6 billion
— The amount of the “Special Public Health Emergency Appropriation” that is recommended for rejection.
$1 billion
— The amount of the transfer from the General Fund to the “Health Care Transformation Account” recommended for rejection unless uses are clearly defined.
The New York State legislative budget proposals lack the necessary financial plan tables to help the public understand the size and impact of the budget on future gaps. Furthermore, the proposals fail to provide sufficient information regarding reserve deposits, obscuring the state's ability to manage economic downturns.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State must include essential basic financial plan tables in budget proposals to allow the public to understand the size of the budget and its impact on future gaps.
The Senate should provide clear information regarding reserve deposits to allow for an accurate assessment of the State's ability to weather an economic storm.
Key Data
$2 billion
— Additional annual taxes on personal income and business taxes proposed in the legislative budget.
$1 billion
— Business tax surcharge extension proposed by the Governor.
$5 billion
— New spending added in the legislative budget proposals, most of which is likely to be recurring.
The New York City Housing Authority faces a structural budget gap driven by rising operating costs, deferred maintenance, and a record-low rent collection rate. To achieve solvency, the agency must move beyond reliance on non-recurring revenue and subsidies by implementing structural reforms to its operations and management.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
NYCHA should fix deteriorating buildings through the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program and the Preservation Trust.
NYCHA should improve property management to address operational inefficiencies.
NYCHA should boost rent collections to ensure adequate revenue to operate and maintain its housing units.
NYCHA should negotiate savings and increased productivity through collective bargaining.
Key Data
64%
— The rent collection rate fell to an all-time low in December 2022.
$454 million
— The amount of unpaid rent accrued by 46 percent of households in arrears as of December 2022.
$789 million
— The amount of non-operating sources used to balance the 2022 budget, representing 28 percent of the total revenue budget.
$152 million
— The amount spent on overtime in 2022, which increased by 3 percent despite efforts to reduce it.
$1,500
— The average cost to operate NYCHA's public housing per unit per month.
$211 million
— The amount remaining in reserves at the end of 2022, representing less than one month of expenses in cash on hand.
New York State's fiscal health is threatened by unsustainable spending growth and a lack of transparency in the budget process, which obscures the true financial picture from legislators and the public. To improve accountability and fiscal stability, the state must publish comprehensive multi-year financial plan tables, reject lump-sum appropriations, and require fiscal impact estimates for all non-budget legislation.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should publish basic financial plan tables with the Legislative one-house budgets and the Enacted Budget when voted on.
The Legislature should reject proposed Executive universal appropriation transfer authority and lump sum appropriations.
The State should require non-budget bills with fiscal impacts be accompanied by multi-year fiscal impact estimates.
The State should establish a public, comprehensive performance measurement and management system to ensure the State’s $220 billion in spending delivers real results for New Yorkers.
The State should restrain annual SOF spending growth to 2 percent to structurally balance the budget by fiscal year 2028.
Key Data
$14.4 billion
— The exposed structural budget imbalance in fiscal year 2028.
$7.2 billion
— The projected budget gap in fiscal year 2027.
$220 billion
— The total amount of state spending that lacks a comprehensive performance measurement and management system.
$8.6 billion
— The projected budget gap in fiscal year 2026.
$2.4 billion
— The amount of new, recurring spending added in the Fiscal Year 2024 Executive Budget.
New York State's budget process requires significant reforms to improve transparency and accountability, including the provision of detailed financial tables and fiscal impact statements for all legislation. Additionally, the state should limit extraordinary budget powers, increase oversight funding for public authorities, and hold public hearings to address long-term fiscal management strategies.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Legislators should include basic financial plan tables with one-house budgets and the enacted budget to ensure the public understands the implications of fiscal proposals.
The state must include complete fiscal impact statements with all relevant bills to provide transparency regarding the costs of legislation.
Leadership should avoid using messages of necessity for budget bills, which currently bypass the three-day aging process and prevent adequate review.
The state should further increase funding to the Authorities Budget Office to ensure oversight is commensurate with the office's responsibilities.
Legislators should exclude excessive budget powers and appropriations, such as lump sum transfers, to prevent unilateral spending and maintain fiscal transparency.
The legislature should hold a joint legislative hearing on the budget process to examine strategies for long-term fiscal management improvements.
Key Data
nearly 600
— Number of public authorities overseen by the Authorities Budget Office.
$273 billion
— Amount of public debt held by public authorities.
nearly $80 billion
— Annual spending of public authorities.
more than $5 million
— Estimated annual funding required for the Authorities Budget Office in current dollar terms.
$2.1 million to $2.9 million
— Increase in funding for the Authorities Budget Office in the previous year's budget.
New York State's budget and fiscal management processes suffer from a lack of transparency and accountability, often relying on cash-basis accounting that masks true spending trends and fiscal conditions. To improve decision-making and oversight, the state should adopt GAAP-compliant accounting, strengthen reserve funds and debt caps, and implement more rigorous, transparent reporting and performance management systems.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Manage, report, and balance the budget in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) on a modified accrual basis.
Strengthen the Rainy Day Fund by raising deposit and balance caps, combining all reserve funds, and mandating deposits when revenues are strong.
Strengthen the debt cap to ensure debt and debt service are affordable.
Tightly tie appropriations to planned spending by reducing unfunded and undefined spending authority.
Require financial plans to be published with the enacted and one-house budgets.
Require fiscal estimates with other legislation to ensure the impact of new laws is understood.
Prevent the use of Messages of Necessity on budget bills to allow for thorough review before passage.
Implement comprehensive, transparent long-term capital planning processes.
Fully fund the Authorities Budget Office to ensure it can fulfill its oversight mission.
Establish the Independent Fiscal Analysis Office to provide nonpartisan data analysis and monitoring.
Key Data
$1.7 billion
— Amount of Medicaid payments delayed by the State to shift them into the following fiscal year, obfuscating spending growth.
$220 billion
— Annual amount of funds the New York State budget directs for collection and spending.
$27 billion
— Estimated amount needed to cover two years of average recessionary receipt shortfalls plus one percent spending growth.
$853 billion
— Total spending authority in the FY 2023 Enacted Budget.
$273 billion
— Total public debt of the close to 600 State and local authorities overseen by the Authorities Budget Office.
$102.4 billion
— Value of 21,282 contract transactions received by the Office of the State Comptroller in 2019.
New York City's property tax system is widely considered overly complex and opaque, with many property owners unable to understand their market value, assessment, or tax bill. Comprehensive reform is necessary to replace the current inequitable structure with a more transparent and fair system that accurately reflects market values and eliminates disparate tax burdens.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City should release a detailed analysis that assesses how tax burdens would be redistributed within the proposed new residential class.
There should be public discussion about the goals of these programs and whether the proposed designs would provide the necessary amount of tax relief to the appropriate set of property owners.
The Commission should make additional recommendations if current assessment procedures do not lead to equitable treatment within rental and commercial property classes.
The City should analyze the extent to which there may be intra-class inequities resulting from the Department of Finance’s valuation methods.
Policymakers must consider the recommendations holistically rather than pulling them apart, as implementing reforms piecemeal could lead to greater inequities and uncertainty.
Key Data
$1.5 trillion
— Estimated total market value of the new residential class, representing a 40 percent increase from current valuation.
0.81 percent
— Nominal tax rate for the new residential class before a homestead exemption and circuit breaker.
20.309 percent
— Current tax rate for Class 1 properties.
12.267 percent
— Current tax rate for Class 2 properties.
$0.83 per $100
— Median effective tax rate for one- to three-family homes.
$1.53
— Median effective tax rate for large rental buildings.
New York City has received over $25 billion in federal COVID-19 relief funds, yet the lack of a robust tracking system makes it difficult to assess the impact and outcomes of these investments. Furthermore, the reliance on this one-time aid to fund recurring programs has created a significant fiscal cliff, requiring the City to provide greater transparency regarding future program funding and potential budget gaps.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City should establish a tracking system that identifies funds, lists programs and funding levels, specifies goals and benchmarks, and provides a portfolio of resource and performance metrics for each program.
The City should closely assess how best to allocate remaining funds and provide clear and transparent information about the programs being funded, including goals, benchmarks, and performance metrics.
The City should release a list of programs that will be underfunded when the federal aid is depleted.
The City should quantify the shortfall in funding by program and clearly state whether the program will be ended.
If the City intends to continue these programs with City dollars, it should include them in baseline spending in the financial plan and either widen budget gaps or fund them with resources reallocated from existing programs.
Key Data
$25 billion
— Total federal COVID-19 relief funds received by New York City from all sources.
$19 billion
— Amount of federal COVID-19 relief funds spent through the end of fiscal year 2022.
$6.2 billion
— Remaining federal COVID-19 relief funds to be spent over the next three years.
$1.1 billion
— Federal funding fiscal cliff projected for fiscal year 2026.
$5.1 billion
— Projected fiscal year 2026 budget gap if fiscal cliff programs are continued without reallocation of City funds.
The NYC Ferry system relies on significant public subsidies, with an average per-trip cost of at least $9.85 in fiscal year 2021, while fare revenues covered only 20 percent of operating expenses in fiscal year 2019. To improve fiscal transparency and sustainability, the system should include debt service costs in financial reporting and evaluate success based on the reduction of total and per-ride subsidies.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The EDC should include the cost of debt service on City capital spending related to the ferry system in its supplementary financial data.
The EDC should evaluate the success of the Ferry Forward plan and the new operating agreement by measuring whether and how much the subsidy—per ride and in total—is reduced.
The EDC should eliminate the lowest-ridership routes to reduce the total subsidy.
The EDC should increase fares for other riders to match those of comparable premium transit services, like the MTA’s express bus system.
The EDC should structure the discounted 10-ticket package so that it can only be used by individual commuters and not by groups.
Key Data
$9.85
— Average per-trip subsidy for NYC Ferry in fiscal year 2021.
20 percent
— Portion of NYC Ferry’s operating expenses covered by fare revenues in fiscal year 2019.
$25
— Potential subsidy per trip for the proposed expansion to Coney Island.
$40 million
— Amount of revenue diverted by the EDC in 2019 to fill the gap between ferry revenues and expenses.
$30 million
— Amount of federal COVID-related aid used by the City to support ferry operations in fiscal year 2022.
$6.75
— Cost per ride for the MTA express bus service, used as a comparison for ferry fare increases.
New York City's land use review process is overly complex, uncertain, and time-consuming, often taking years to secure approvals and increasing development costs by 11% to 16%. Reforming this system requires state-level changes to environmental review laws and local-level improvements to align project evaluations with strategic planning goals and streamline community-level advisory reviews.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
New York State should amend environmental review laws to reduce barriers to beneficial growth and development.
New York State should encourage local governments to streamline approvals of projects that help achieve identified regional housing and job creation goals.
New York City should create a process that evaluates proposals based on potential benefits and alignment with goals of its Charter-mandated strategic plan and other plans.
New York City should make advisory reviews at the community level more collaborative, participatory, and productive.
New York City should streamline and rationalize environmental review within limitations of State law.
New York City should better balance citywide needs and neighborhood concerns through an appeals process or requirement of a City Council supermajority to reject an application.
Key Data
171
— Number of private rezoning applications citywide initiated over the four-year period between 2014 and 2017.
103
— Number of private rezoning applications that were ultimately approved.
59
— Number of projects that were withdrawn without completing a land use application and environmental review.
11% to 16%
— Estimated increase in development costs resulting from a two-year-long discretionary approval process.
223
— Median approval time in days for projects over 50,000 square feet in Boston.
887
— Median approval time in days for all private discretionary projects in New York City.
A coalition of organizations is urging the Governor to issue an executive order requiring state agencies to provide annual updates on their transparency plans to ensure accountability and progress. These updates should include checklists for compliance with Freedom of Information and Open Data laws, as well as the publication of discretionary lump sum and capital appropriations by the Division of the Budget.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Mandate via Executive Order annual transparency plan updates that identify specific actions agencies will undertake in the coming year and assess progress made on prior years’ plans.
Require annual transparency plan updates to include a checklist showing how well agencies comply with transparency mandates like the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) and the Open Data Executive Order 95 of 2013.
Publish the top three deliverables from each agency transparency plan and progress made to date, as pledged in the Executive Chamber transparency plan.
Improve a key commitment in the Executive Chamber plan by having the Division of the Budget (DOB) publish complete discretionary or “MOU” lump sum and capital appropriations.
Publish the “public facing performance website” identified in the Division of the Budget’s transparency plan to inform lawmakers, administrators, and the public on the State’s progress toward providing services.
Key Data
70
— Number of state agency transparency plans rated in the report referenced by the coalition.
The NYC Ferry system is implementing variable pricing and improved financial reporting to address high subsidies, but further transparency is needed to accurately reflect total operating costs. Comprehensive reporting must include all direct and indirect spending, as well as debt service for capital expenditures, to ensure the per-ride subsidy is not understated.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Economic Development Corporation should ensure that reported costs are comprehensive, including all direct and indirect spending on ferry operations, and City spending, critically including debt service for all capital expenditures related to the system.
The Economic Development Corporation should provide transparent reporting to ensure that the per-ride subsidy is not understated by excluding necessary cost components.
The Economic Development Corporation should reassess the most subsidized routes to determine if they provide the broad-based value and effectiveness the public deserves from its resources.
New York City's reported fiscal year 2023 budget of $101.1 billion obscures the actual spending obligations of $104.7 billion due to accounting practices like prepaying bills and rolling funds. Adjusting for these factors reveals that City-funded spending actually grew by 7.7 percent, or $5.5 billion, compared to the previous year.
Key Data
$101.1 billion
— Reported total expenditures for New York City's Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2023.
$104.7 billion
— Actual spending obligations for Fiscal Year 2023 after adjusting for prepayments, reserves, and other accounting changes.
$77.6 billion
— Adjusted City Funds spending for Fiscal Year 2023.
7.7 percent
— Year-over-year increase in City-funded spending from fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 2023.
$5.5 billion
— Dollar amount increase in City Funds spending over fiscal year 2022.
$1.8 billion
— Amount of spending added to the budget between the Executive Budget and the Adopted Budget for fiscal year 2023.
New York State's budget process lacks transparency, as the financial plan is released 40 days after budget bills are passed without public information on size, balance, or out-year trends. To address this, the Legislature and Governor should release basic financial plan tables alongside both the one-house and enacted budget bills.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should improve accountability and transparency by implementing performance management and developing plans to restrain Medicaid and education spending growth.
The Legislature and Governor should release basic financial plan tables with both the one-house and enacted budget bills to ensure the public has information on the budget's size, balance, and out-year trends.
Key Data
40 days
— The amount of time that passed between the budget bills being passed and the release of the financial plan.
$222 billion
— The total amount of All Funds spending in the fiscal year 2023 enacted budget.
$130 billion
— The amount of State Operating Funds spending after adjusting for off-budget shifts and payment timing.
$8 billion
— The amount of annual budget gaps likely to open beginning in fiscal year 2028.
$15.4 billion
— The total amount of planned deposits to reserves over a four-year period.
New York State's budget includes billions of dollars in opaque lump sum appropriations that allow for unilateral spending decisions without public notice, creating significant corruption risks. To ensure accountability, the state must reduce these funds, itemize planned spending, and provide full public disclosure of all past and future lump sum allocations.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
New York should fulfill its pledge to bring greater transparency and accountability to state government by vastly reducing the use of lump sum funds in the budget and instead specifically itemizing planned spending.
The state should avoid using lump sum pots in the state budget unless there are clear limitations on their use and full disclosure of what they fund.
Any remaining lump sum pots included in the budget should be subject to Comptroller review to ensure oversight.
The state must fully disclose all details of past and future lump sum pots, as promised in the Executive Chamber and Division of the Budget October 2021 Transparency Plans.
The Governor should support and sign into law A7925-A / S6809-A to restore many of the Comptroller’s powers to review state contracts before they are signed.
Key Data
$350 million
— The amount allocated to the 'Long Island Investment Fund,' which is an example of a broadly defined pot planned for unidentified purposes.
$8 billion
— The total amount of lump sum funds approved in the state operations budget alone in the final FY 2023 budget.
$6 billion
— The size of the 'public health emergency' pot included in the FY 2023 budget that is exempt from Comptroller review.
$2 billion
— The size of the 'special emergency' pot in the FY 2023 budget that is solely for transfer by the governor and exempt from Comptroller review.
The New York State fiscal year 2023 budget agreement lacks essential fiscal transparency, as basic financial plan tables have not been released and key bills are being rushed to a vote without public review. Furthermore, the budget adds significant recurring spending without commensurate efforts to improve operational management or public accountability.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The reported set aside of reserves equal to 15 percent of State operating funds is important, substantial, and welcome; these funds all should be deposited in a locked Rainy Day Fund.
The State should be bringing spending growth in line with long-run receipts to protect New Yorkers from future emergencies and to ensure last year’s tax increases expire on time or early.
A comprehensive, public performance management system to improve quality, efficiency, and accountability in New York is long overdue.
Hopefully important strides will be made, such as standardizing how a job is defined in economic development programs and enlarging the Database to cover all economic development programs, not just those of ESD.
Key Data
15 percent
— The reported set aside of reserves of State operating funds.
$40 billion
— The average reduction in expected receipts over three years during recent recessions prior to 2020.
$10 billion
— The Governor's proposed spending increase.
The delay in finalizing the New York State fiscal year 2023 budget limits public and legislative review, undermining accountability and confidence in government operations. To improve transparency and fiscal management, the state should implement a performance management system that publicly reports metrics and ensures that any new recurring spending is offset by savings rather than budget gaps.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Final negotiations should include provisions to manage State programs actively to deliver results and to report publicly metrics of State performance.
A performance management system should be implemented to improve services today, help lawmakers make fiscal and programmatic decisions in future budgets, and help show New Yorkers what they are getting for what promises to be another record-breaking spending plan.
The State's leaders should enact a budget soon to avoid delays that diminish public accountability and New Yorkers’ confidence that their government can fulfill its obligations well.
Any additional recurring spending should be offset by savings elsewhere and not by reducing the amount the Executive Budget smartly allocated to reserves or by opening budget gaps that will require future service cuts or economically damaging tax increases.
Key Data
$6 billion
— Likely amount of flexible funding the State has for the new year, comprised of the Executive Budget’s proposed property tax credit, COVID relief funds, and additional tax receipts.
New York State's budget negotiations for fiscal year 2023 involve significant spending increases that threaten future fiscal stability, potentially creating budget gaps of $7.7 billion by 2026. To ensure accountability and fiscal health, the state must improve budget transparency by publishing detailed financial plans and implementing rigorous performance management systems for its programs.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should improve budgeting transparency by publishing basic financial plan tables that show the receipts and disbursements with the one-house and enacted budgets.
The Governor and Legislature should implement statewide performance management to ensure and assess how successful its spending is in delivering results efficiently for New Yorkers.
The Governor and the Legislature should adopt a budget that keeps to the Executive Budget’s top line on spending and focuses on allocating the $5 billion available for relief and recovery.
The Governor and Legislature should diligently manage and provide oversight of funded programs by developing plans, identifying goals, measuring activities and results, and ensuring accountability by managers and local governments.
Key Data
$16.2 billion
— The Legislature's one-house budgets propose to increase fiscal year 2023 spending by this amount.
$7.7 billion
— The estimated budget gap for fiscal year 2026 if the Legislature's spending proposals are adopted.
$15 to $17 billion
— The estimated annual tax receipts shortfall that would result from a typical recession.
$10.1 billion
— The proposed increase in State Operating Funds spending for fiscal year 2023 under the Governor's Executive Budget.
$55 billion
— The four-year tax receipts surplus compared to pre-pandemic projections.
$6.1 billion
— The amount the Assembly's proposal adds in State Operating Funds disbursements above the Governor's proposal.
New York State should publish basic, multi-year financial plan tables at the time of budget agreement to ensure the public and legislators understand the budget's size, balance, and long-term impacts. This requirement should be codified in state law for both one-house budget bills and the final enacted budget to improve transparency.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should publish basic, multi-year financial plan tables when the Fiscal Year 2024 Enacted Budget is agreed upon.
These tables should include at least one financial plan table each for All Funds, State Operating Funds, and the General Fund.
The financial plan tables should include reasonably disaggregated and totaled lists of receipts, disbursements, transfers, annual bottom line results, and allocations of fund balances.
The requirement to publish these tables should be codified in State law for both the one-house budget bills and enacted budget.
The Legislature should include these tables with their one-house proposals to provide basic transparency on the size, balance, and out-year impacts of the budget.
Key Data
four weeks
— The amount of time after the Enacted Budget is passed that the Division of the Budget typically releases a detailed financial plan.
400-pages
— The approximate length of the detailed financial plans that are released after the budget is enacted.
New York State's proposed budget lacks necessary improvements in accountability and transparency, failing to provide clear financial plans alongside legislative budget proposals. The state should mandate the release of multi-year financial plans and gap-closing data with all budget bills to ensure meaningful public review of how taxpayer money is raised and spent.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Governor and Legislature should include financial plans—the basic tables outlining receipts and disbursement—with the release of the Legislature’s one-house budget proposals and the enacted budget agreement.
The Legislature should enact a law or work with the Executive to implement a statewide comprehensive, performance management program that sets goals for each major program and employs a management review and accountability process.
The State should reform economic development program management and transparency by establishing a unified economic development budget and standardizing metrics for programs.
The State should adopt appropriate and meaningful changes to the Medicaid global cap and dramatically improve the program’s transparency to ensure fiscal sustainability.
The Legislature should release multi-year financial plans and any needed gap-closing plans and data in line with key tables included in the Executive Budget financial plan.
Key Data
$10 billion
— The adjusted year-to-year spending growth in the proposed fiscal year 2023 budget.
$25 million
— The amount appropriated for 'data analytics' in the Executive Budget, which lacks sufficient detail for performance evaluation.
$2.7 billion
— The amount of annual aid received by wealthy school districts that already self-fund a sound basic education.
$10 billion
— The annual price tag of the State’s economic development spending, which lacks meaningful reform to management and accountability.
New York City's reported budget of $101.1 billion for fiscal year 2023 masks the actual spending obligations of $104.7 billion due to accounting practices like prepaying bills. Adjusting for these factors reveals that City-funded spending grew by 7.7 percent, the highest rate in the past decade.
Key Data
$104.7 billion
— Actual spending obligations for fiscal year 2023 after adjusting for prepayments and other accounting changes.
$77.6 billion
— City Funds spending obligations for fiscal year 2023 after adjustments.
7.7 percent
— Year-over-year increase in City-funded spending, representing the highest growth rate in the past decade.
$101.1 billion
— Reported total expenditures for fiscal year 2023 on paper.
$5.5 billion
— Dollar increase in City Funds spending from fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 2023.
$1.8 billion
— Amount the fiscal year 2023 budget increased from the Executive Budget to the Adopted Budget.
New York City expects to receive over $22 billion in federal COVID-19 aid between fiscal years 2020 and 2025, yet current reporting tools fail to provide the transparency needed to track how these funds are spent or their impact. To ensure accountability and effective management, the City should establish a robust public tracker and implement a citywide performance management system to monitor program outcomes and goals.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City should create a robust public tracker to support diligent management, ensure funds have maximum impact, and allow the public to hold government accountable.
The Administration should implement a citywide performance management system where leaders regularly review tracker data to identify what is working, address problems, and hold managers accountable.
The COVID-19 tracker should be built and maintained by government, based on consultation with nonprofit and private organizations and fiscal oversight entities.
The Mayor should establish a COVID Federal Aid Tracking Working Group to develop the overall framework and metrics for each subject area.
The tracker should include performance goals and metrics for program inputs, outputs, outcomes, quality, and efficiency to ensure it is robust and well-structured.
Key Data
$22 billion
— The amount of COVID-federal aid the City expects to receive between fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2025.
$16.5 billion
— The total federal aid in the New York City budget for fiscal year 2022, which is well over twice what is received in a typical year.
$700 million
— The amount of expected American Rescue Plan State and Local Recovery funds that are not currently reflected in the November 2021 financial plan.
$5.9 billion
— The priority amount of ARP State and Local Recovery Funds that should be tracked.
$7.0 billion
— The priority amount of Education Stabilization Funds from both the ARP and the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act that should be tracked.
$251 million
— The amount the City is directing to special education, including afterschool and Saturday programs, additional pre-K seats, and expanded workshops.
New York State should improve its fiscal management by publishing a financial plan when the budget is enacted, allowing bills to age, and transitioning to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to eliminate fiscal gimmickry. Additionally, the state needs to increase oversight by funding the Authorities Budget Office and restoring the Comptroller's procurement powers to ensure greater accountability.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should produce a financial plan when the budget is enacted and ensure adequate time and information to evaluate proposals to increase transparency in budget negotiations.
The Governor and Legislature should allow budget bills to age and should release basic financial plan information before and after the budget is enacted to vastly improve transparency.
The State should not obfuscate spending by shifting it off-budget or delaying payments, and should improve oversight by increasing funding to the Authorities Budget Office and restoring procurement powers of the Comptroller’s office to increase budget accountability and transparency.
The State should transition to budgeting and reporting in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to eliminate fiscal gimmickry and increase the integrity of financial reporting.
The State should improve its reporting of economic development activities in the Database of Economic Development Incentives by reporting standardized performance metrics to increase transparency and accountability in economic development spending.
Key Data
$8.9 billion
— Projected increase in State Operating Funds spending in fiscal year 2022.
$3.2 billion
— Projected increase in State Operating Funds spending in fiscal year 2023.
$19.6 billion
— Estimated two-year impact of a typical recession on state revenues.
$3.5 billion
— Amount of recurring program spending supported by federal aid in fiscal year 2025 that will create a fiscal cliff thereafter.
The proposed Penn Station Area Civic and Land Use Improvement Project lacks sufficient detail regarding its financing structure, specifically how value capture will be calculated and how the State will fund its share of the project. Without greater transparency on the scope of capital improvements and the potential fiscal impact on the City, it is difficult to evaluate whether this approach is the most cost-effective strategy for the renovation.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Empire State Development should provide additional information to answer questions regarding the scope of capital improvements and the estimated cost for each phase before proceeding with the General Project Plan.
The public approval process should include broader discussions about financing risks and the most effective strategies for mitigating and managing those risks.
New York City should have a substantive role in the planning process and should be a partner that agrees to the use of tax revenue that would otherwise flow to the City’s general fund.
There should be additional public discussion about the merits of the financing strategy compared to other alternatives and whether this is the most appropriate financing approach for the renovation of Penn Station.
The plan should avoid costly, non-essential cosmetic improvements and should not preclude the possibility of future capacity or service enhancements.
Key Data
$17 Billion
— Reported cost of the entire Penn Station project, including renovation, expansion, land acquisition, demolition, and public space improvements.
$6 to $7 Billion
— Estimated cost of a scaled back renovation project without the proposed Penn South expansion.
$1.3 Billion
— Amount included in the State’s Fiscal Year 2022 Enacted Budget for Penn Station-related projects.
New York City faces significant long-term fiscal challenges, including annual budget gaps estimated between $3.9 billion and $4.1 billion and a $122 billion long-term liability for retiree health benefits. To ensure a stable recovery, the city must improve budget transparency, implement rigorous performance management, and establish sustainable fiscal policies like regular deposits into the Rainy-Day Fund.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The current or next Administration should make public detailed data on federal COVID revenues, expenditures, and program activities, including indicators of outputs and outcomes.
The incoming Administration should increase transparency by publishing a comprehensive database of economic development incentives, including benefits paid, jobs created, and economic impact.
The City should publicly provide data on the use and impact of federal funds to ensure accountability.
The City should enact a local law to limit withdrawals to a recession or severe emergency, both of which should be legally defined.
The City should ensure the Mayor’s Management Report’s identified priorities and data reflect the Administration’s priorities to improve accountability.
Key Data
$3.9 billion and $4.1 billion
— Estimated annual budget gaps beginning in fiscal year 2023.
$21.1 billion
— COVID-related federal aid expected from fiscal year 2020 through fiscal year 2025.
$122 billion
— City long-term fiscal liability for other postemployment benefits (OPEB).
$498 million
— Total Rainy-Day Fund balance as of fiscal years 2020 and 2021.
$18 billion
— Expected fiscal year 2022 City-funded expenditures.
$1.3 billion
— Amount of federal aid supporting recurring programs, including education for 3-year olds.
The Authorities Budget Office requires an increase in annual funding to $5 million to effectively oversee nearly 600 state and local authorities that manage billions in public debt. Current staffing and budget levels prevent the agency from conducting necessary investigations, ensuring procurement compliance, and monitoring ethics, which undermines government accountability.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The state should provide an annual allocation of $5 million to the Authorities Budget Office to ensure it has the resources to fulfill its statutory duties.
The state should increase the existing budget of the Authorities Budget Office by $2.95 million to reach the recommended funding level.
Key Data
$5 million
— The recommended annual funding level for the Authorities Budget Office to fulfill its statutory duties.
$243 billion
— The amount of public debt held by the nearly 600 state and local authorities overseen by the Authorities Budget Office.
40 percent
— The current staffing level of the Authorities Budget Office compared to the level envisioned when it was reestablished in 2010.
$2.95 million
— The amount by which the existing $2.05 million budget of the Authorities Budget Office needs to be increased to reach the recommended funding level.
$40 billion
— The minimum amount state authorities collectively spend annually.
$20 billion
— The amount local authorities spend annually.
New York State has frequently used accounting maneuvers to mask the true size and growth of its budget, creating a misleading fiscal picture. To ensure long-term stability, the state must prioritize financial transparency by adopting standard accounting practices and clearly reporting the actual level and growth of state spending.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should improve budgeting and financial reporting, including foregoing fiscal maneuvers, making clear how any accounting practices affect spending growth, budgeting and reporting in accordance with GAAP, and presenting timely adopted financial plans and quarterly financial plan updates.
The State should identify actions to reduce the existing out-year gaps, avoid the fiscal cliff, and bolster reserves needed to mitigate the inevitable next downturn.
The State should retain flexibility in how it will reduce future budget gaps, including restraining new aid growth for wealthy districts since that is preferable to other alternatives to meaningfully control spending.
Key Data
$3.5 billion
— The projected fiscal cliff, or gap between available funding and planned spending, in fiscal year 2025.
5.7 percent
— The decline in State Operating Funds (SOF) spending in fiscal year 2021 after adjusting for fiscal maneuvers.
15.5 percent
— The projected increase in State Operating Funds (SOF) spending in fiscal year 2022 after adjusting for fiscal maneuvers.
$12.7 billion
— The amount of American Rescue Plan (ARP) federal fiscal relief received by the State in May 2021.
The MTA Open Data Act would require the agency to publish more data, including financial information currently hidden in inaccessible PDFs, to improve transparency and efficiency. This legislation mandates that the agency designate a data coordinator and establish a public schedule for releasing open data over the next three years.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Governor should sign A1442B (Carroll)/S4625A (Comrie), the MTA Open Data Act, into law to increase transparency and efficiency.
The MTA must designate a data coordinator to oversee compliance with open data requirements.
The MTA must create a schedule for the release of open data over the next three years to increase public accountability.
Key Data
$18 billion
— The MTA's annual operating budget.
76
— Number of datasets currently published by the MTA on the state's open data portal.
563
— Number of datasets currently published by the NYS Department of Health on the state's open data portal.
180 days
— The timeframe within which the MTA must create a schedule for the release of open data.
3 years
— The period over which the MTA must release open data according to the new schedule.
New York State's massive increase in school funding, including $11.4 billion in federal pandemic aid, necessitates rigorous performance measurement and detailed financial reporting to ensure funds are used effectively. To maintain fiscal stability and address educational disparities, the state must prioritize funding for high-need districts while implementing transparent tracking systems for all recurring and one-time expenditures.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Legislature, Governor, and Comptroller should work together to make sure that all recurring and one-time aid is tracked and reported in detail.
The State should ensure that spending supported by funding sources is recorded in sufficient detail to evaluate their uses and the effectiveness of this massive spending increase.
The State should set goals, track performance, evaluate initiatives, and adjust programs and spending as necessary to ensure transparency, results, and accountability.
The State should focus funding on districts with the greatest need, and reduce aid and aid increases to wealthy districts to address the greatest educational needs and stabilize the State’s finances.
The State should implement a performance measurement and management system to help increase achievement, reverse learning loss, and reduce disparities.
Key Data
$11.4 Billion
— One-time federal pandemic aid that will be spent over four years.
$2.9 Billion
— Increase in State aid this year.
$32,352
— Total per pupil spending this school year.
$78 Billion
— Projected recurring revenues for districts this year.
$3.5 Billion
— The fiscal cliff the State will face once extraordinary federal aid is depleted.
$2.5 Billion
— Amount of State aid received by 168 districts that already have sufficient local and recurring federal funding.
New York State’s fiscal management suffers from a lack of transparency, including the use of fiscal maneuvers like moving revenue off-budget and delaying a $1.7 billion Medicaid payment to artificially lower spending figures. To improve accountability and public confidence, the state must adopt Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, publish financial plans and reports on time, and move funds back on-budget.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The state should move funds back on budget to improve fiscal management.
The state should stop manipulating the timing of spending to improve fiscal management.
The state should budget and report using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to improve fiscal management.
The state should publish the financial plan when the budget is adopted to improve fiscal management.
The state should publish other financial reports on time to improve fiscal management.
Key Data
$1.7 billion
— The amount of a state Medicaid payment that was delayed by three days to make spending appear lower.
$212 billion
— The total size of the state budget for the year.
$5 billion
— The amount of excess receipts collected above the budgeted amount.
$3.5 billion
— The amount of recurring programs currently supported by federal aid that will be in trouble when that aid runs out.
New York City's official fiscal year 2022 budget plan reports expenditures of $98.7 billion, but the actual spending obligation is $103.3 billion due to accounting practices like prepaying bills. These adjustments, including $6.1 billion in prepaid obligations and deductions for reserves and capital transfers, reveal a $4.6 billion discrepancy that distorts the true picture of city spending.
Key Data
$98.7 billion
— Reported expenditures in the Fiscal Year 2022 Adopted Budget Financial Plan.
$103.3 billion
— Actual fiscal year 2022 expenditure obligation after accounting adjustments.
$4.6 billion
— Difference between the reported budget expenditures and the actual expenditure obligation.
$6.1 billion
— Fiscal year 2022 obligations that were prepaid in fiscal year 2021.
$500 million
— Deposit to the Rainy Day Fund, which is a savings account rather than spending.
$300 million
— Amount in the General Reserve, a budgeted contingency fund that may be rolled into the following year.
The New York City Fiscal Year 2022 Adopted Budget fails to provide necessary transparency regarding the use of federal aid and relies on unspecified labor savings to mask significant future budget gaps. To ensure fiscal sustainability, the city must implement rigorous tracking of federal spending, establish mandatory deposits for the Rainy Day Fund, and conduct thorough evaluations of agency operating budgets.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
It is imperative that the City track federal spending in detail, including metrics for program goals and results.
To build the Rainy Day Fund to provide the resources the City should have to weather a recession, the City should enact legislation that sets minimum mandatory deposits.
The City must scrub agency operating budgets, evaluate the effectiveness in order to prioritize programs, and increase the efficiency of operations.
Key Data
$500 million
— Deposit made into the Rainy Day Fund.
$11 billion
— Estimated resources the City should have to weather a recession.
$2.1 billion
— Amount by which fiscal year 2021 tax revenues exceeded expectations.
$15 billion
— Amount of additional federal aid received.
$5 billion
— Annual budget gaps projected for fiscal years 2023 to 2025.
$1 billion
— Amount of annual unspecified labor savings included in the budget.
The city's current approach to distributing federal aid lacks strategic focus and fails to establish a foundation for long-term fiscal stability. Business and civic leaders urge the administration to prioritize sustainable funding for baseline services and implement a more transparent process for allocating federal relief funds to support economic recovery.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Federal relief monies should not be used to expand the city payroll and long-term program commitments.
City priorities such as Universal Pre-K and appropriate reimbursement for human services agency contracts should be part of the baseline budget funded by sustainable city tax revenues not by temporary federal grants.
Federal aid from the American Rescue Plan (ARP) should be concentrated on strategic interventions designed in partnership with industry and nonprofit groups.
The administration and City Council should reconsider federal funding allocations and adopt a process for greater transparency and consultation with affected industries on how ARP funds are invested to leverage the strongest and fastest recovery.
Key Data
$6 billion
— One-time infusion of flexible federal aid available to New York City to achieve a rapid and equitable recovery.
$98 billion
— Total value of the proposed Executive Budget that requires amendment to better support strategic recovery.
500,000
— Number of lost private sector jobs that federal aid should be focused on restoring.
New York needs a comprehensive performance management system to track how the state's massive budget and federal aid are being spent, rather than just focusing on the total dollar amount. Implementing such a system would provide necessary accountability and transparency regarding the effectiveness of investments in areas like education, infrastructure, and public health.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should enact a ten-point framework by statute to promote consistency in reporting across agencies, authorities, and administrations.
The State should implement a comprehensive and transparent performance management system to combine managerial action and accountability with key measures of program performance.
The State should ensure the public is fully and regularly informed about how federal funds are flowing, to whom, how efficiently, and their impact on people, the economy, and the long-term State budget.
Key Data
$212 billion
— The size of the State budget that includes billions of dollars of new federal aid.
$12 billion
— The amount of direct fiscal support included in federal aid.
$14 billion
— The amount of federal aid allocated for schools.
$200 billion
— The total State budget amount that was exceeded for the first time.
$4 billion
— The amount of new tax increases annually.
The next New York City Comptroller will play a critical role not only in holding the next Administration and agencies accountable, investing and managing five pension funds with $248 billion in assets, and partnering in $13 billion City debt issuance, but also in spotlighting and promoting New York City’s fiscal…
New York State's fiscal year 2022 budget agreement relies on tax increases and temporary federal aid to support recurring spending, creating long-term fiscal risks without systemic improvements. The state fails to provide a timely financial plan, leaving the public without necessary information on how federal funds are utilized and the long-term implications of the budget.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State must produce a financial plan—the elemental fiscal representation of the budget—concurrently with the budget agreement rather than weeks later.
The enacted budget report must identify how the federal funds are being used so that the public can determine if those uses are wise and how they affect the State in the long-run.
Key Data
$22 Billion
— Additional funds available over the next two years compared to the Governor's January proposal.
$4.3 Billion
— Annual amount of personal income and corporate tax increases agreed upon by lawmakers.
$212 Billion
— Total planned All Funds spending for the fiscal year.
$5 Billion
— Estimated increase in school aid, representing the largest increase in recent history.
0.75 percentage points
— Increase in corporate tax rates when combined with NYC and MTA taxes.
The state must provide full transparency regarding fiscal year 2021 budget withholdings and repayments by agency, while also removing extraordinary executive budget powers that undermine legislative oversight. These measures are necessary to ensure the public and the legislature can properly evaluate and debate the state's financial proposals.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Division of the Budget should publish on its website timely and complete information about funds that were withheld and repaid as part of the fiscal year 2021 State budget midyear adjustment process.
Budget transparency information should be provided monthly and broken out by agency or recipient, and major program.
The state should omit from the Enacted Budget three extraordinary budget powers that are unnecessary and inhibit the Legislature’s ability to exercise its appropriate role in the budget process.
State Operations spending should be managed within amounts appropriated for specific, clearly identified purposes by the Governor and Legislature in the budget.
The state should provide detail for the final proposed 5% spending reductions in the current year and permanent spending reductions in the out-years, including detail about proposed dedicated fund transfers to the State’s general fund.
Key Data
$700 Million
— Amount of withholdings in calendar year 2020, representing roughly one quarter of all withholdings.
$628 Million
— Total amount of Transportation withholdings.
$584 Million
— Amount of Transportation withholdings listed as 'non-statutory, non- 18b Transit Operating Aid, Mobility Tax.'
$426 Million
— Amount withheld from and to be repaid to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).
$98 Million
— Amount to be cut from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in fiscal year 2021.
New York City's capital planning process requires a comprehensive needs assessment and better alignment between the Ten-Year Capital Strategy and the Capital Commitment Plan to ensure transparency and effective prioritization. Current budget reports fail to provide a clear picture of infrastructure needs or planned spending, necessitating reforms that maintain mayoral authority while improving the quality of budget documentation.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Ten-Year Capital Strategy should reflect how the City plans to prioritize investments given its overall needs and its financial outlook.
The Ten-Year Capital Strategy would adequately cover long-range capital planning needs if it were aligned with a comprehensive needs assessment, an assessment of affordability, and guided by measurable goals and objectives.
The Mayor should retain the role of submitting a capital budget to the Council and the right to propose how to prioritize investments based on strategic planning documents, a revamped AIMS report, or a newly conducted comprehensive physical needs assessment.
The Mayor, through the Office of Management and Budget and mayoral agencies, should conduct and oversee the needs assessment process to ensure a balance between citywide and community needs.
Improving the Capital Commitment Plan would require it to be aligned better with Ten-Year Capital Strategy strategies and investment categories.
Key Data
78%
— Percentage of spending in the Preliminary Fiscal Year 2022 Ten-Year Capital Strategy allocated for state of good repair needs or programmatic replacement.
$92 billion
— Amount of spending in the Preliminary Fiscal Year 2022 Ten-Year Capital Strategy allocated for state of good repair needs or programmatic replacement.
The state has withheld funds and made advanced payments without providing sufficient public detail, making it difficult to assess the impact on agencies and nonprofits. To ensure accountability, the state should publish timely, comprehensive, and granular data on these budget adjustments on its website.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Division of the Budget should publish on its website timely and complete information about funds that have been withheld or advanced as part of the state budget adjustment process, ideally monthly and broken out by agency and major program.
The state must make the details of withheld and advanced payments public in a timely manner to ensure accountability.
Key Data
$1.5 Billion
— Advanced payments announced at Governor Cuomo’s December 16 press conference.
$2.4 Billion
— Withholdings through September in ten broad categories, which are not broken down by agency or individual program.
$500 Million
— Subset of withholdings that were withheld beyond a statutory payment date through August.
$10 Billion
— Cash shortfalls the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is struggling to survive over the next 4 years.
3,000
— Layoffs of adjunct professors at the City University of New York resulting from the lack of payment.
1,800
— Nonprofit social service providers at risk of closure.
New York State needs to release a detailed plan to address its $9 billion budget gap for the 2020-2021 fiscal year to end the uncertainty facing schools, non-profits, and local governments. Providing transparent disclosures regarding budget actions is essential so that all stakeholders can understand the planned reductions for affected programs.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State must release a specific and detailed plan for closing New York State’s fiscal year 2020-2021 $9 billion budget gap.
The State should provide transparent disclosures regarding State budget actions, similar to the updates provided on the State’s COVID-19 response.
The State must release the budget balancing plan so all stakeholders know the planned reductions for each affected program.
Key Data
$9 billion
— The size of New York State’s fiscal year 2020-2021 budget gap.
$1.7 billion
— The amount of aid to localities payments withheld by the Division of Budget.
$8 billion
— The amount of potential cuts in local aid outlined in state budget reports.
$1 billion
— The amount of potential cuts in state operations outlined in state budget reports.
New York State faces projected budget gaps totaling $58 billion over the next four years, necessitating a shift from spending growth to difficult budget cuts. To address this, the state must abandon reliance on fiscal maneuvers and accounting shifts that have obscured spending growth and instead implement a timely, transparent plan to balance the budget.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The state requires a timely, transparent plan that makes the hard choices needed to balance the budget.
The budget plan should not rely on fiscal maneuvers and accounting shifts that have obscured spending growth and exacerbated budget pressures for three years running.
The state should consider reducing school aid to wealthy districts to help close the $8 billion gap.
The state should finance capital projects with bond proceeds rather than on a pay-as-you-go basis to help balance the budget.
The state should eliminate unproductive economic development spending and walk back tax policy expenditures to address the budget gap.
Key Data
$58 billion
— Projected budget gaps for New York State over the next four years.
$8 billion
— Amount of to-be-determined State aid to localities reductions included in the gap-closing plan.
$1.7 billion
— Total amount of Medicaid payments deferred into fiscal year 2020 at the conclusion of fiscal year 2019.
$726 million
— Additional federal Medicaid funding expected as of July 1, 2020.
$1 billion
— Amount of State agency spending reductions included in the gap-closing plan.
$102.2 billion
— Reported fiscal year 2020 spending in the April update to the financial plan.
The fiscal year 2021 budget relies on questionable savings and lacks necessary specificity regarding how $1 billion in savings will be achieved through labor union collaboration. Without implementing recurring efficiency savings and aggressive attrition, the city faces significant risks of drastic service reductions and layoffs.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
City leaders should sharpen their pencils and focus their management on actions that reduce the yawning multiyear budget gaps presented by the fiscal crisis.
The city must implement a program of recurring efficiency savings and aggressive attrition to avoid placing residents, businesses, and employees at risk of drastic service reductions and layoffs.
City leaders must provide specific details on the actions needed to produce $1 billion in savings from collaboration with labor unions, as the current lack of specificity is highly concerning.
Key Data
$300 million
— The amount of police overtime reduction that is highly unlikely given the weak history of overtime management.
$1 billion
— The amount of savings from collaboration with labor that lacks specificity on the actions needed to produce it.
New York State lacks a comprehensive, transparent performance management system that links agency goals and spending to measurable outcomes, hindering accountability and effective resource allocation. Implementing such a system, codified in statute, would provide the public and decision-makers with the necessary data to evaluate government efficiency and improve service delivery.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should implement a performance management system that identifies key agency and authority programs and establishes output and outcome goals for each program.
The State should implement a performance management system that identifies metrics for each program, including input, process, output, outcome, quality, and efficiency measures.
The State should implement a performance management system that establishes performance targets for each program’s outputs, outcomes, quality, and efficiency.
The State should implement a performance management system that establishes implementation benchmarks for new initiatives.
The State should implement a performance management system that institutes a management and accountability process to review metrics and incorporate findings into ongoing management.
The State should implement a performance management system that links to the budget cycle to inform budget and policy decisions for elected officials, agency administrators, and staff.
The State should implement a performance management system that provides public information about agency, authority and program performance that is accessible, readily understood, and provides quantitative measurements of service delivery efficiency, cost, and quality.
The State should implement a performance management system that is established through statutory provisions that promote consistency in reporting across agencies, authorities, and administrations.
Key Data
244
— Number of data files available when the Open Data NY portal launched in March 2013.
1,683
— Number of data files in the Open Data NY catalog as of April 2020.
$34 Million
— Estimated savings in workforce costs at State agencies in the first four years of the Business Services Center's operation.
34 percent
— Reduction in infant mortality rates in New York State in the past decade, attributed to maternal care program strategies.
47 percent
— Rate of kindergarten readiness in Maryland during the 2014-15 school year.
13 minutes 14 seconds
— Current average wait time for Virginia DMV Direct services.
The proposed legislation to establish a Rainy Day Fund for New York City lacks necessary safeguards, potentially allowing the fund to function as a slush fund rather than a reserve for emergencies. To ensure fiscal responsibility, the law should strictly limit withdrawals to defined periods of economic recession or severe emergency, specifically requiring revenue losses or expenditure increases of at least 1% of city-funded spending.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The law should limit withdrawals to times of economic recession or severe emergency, which should be defined in law.
Legislation should define a recession as two successive quarters of economic contraction as indicated by declines in real gross city product or employment.
The law should specify that a severe emergency should be accompanied by revenue losses or increased expenditures of at least 1% of city-funded spending.
The Governor should negotiate a chapter amendment with the bill sponsors and legislative leaders to require that any withdrawal be limited only to times of economic recession or severe emergency, as defined in law based on economic and fiscal indicators.
Key Data
1%
— The threshold for revenue losses or increased expenditures of city-funded spending that should define a severe emergency.
50%
— The portion of the Rainy Day Fund balance that the bill currently allows to be withdrawn to balance the budget.
The state's new mid-year budget modification powers require enhanced transparency to ensure the public and legislature understand planned spending reductions and their impacts on local governments and schools. Additionally, the Division of the Budget, Senate, and Assembly should fulfill their obligations to provide “Quick Start” revenue and spending forecasts to improve the budget negotiation process.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Executive should make the notification and details of the budget plan publicly available as soon as practicable to ensure the Legislature and the public can reasonably understand possible reductions for each affected program and the impact on each local government or school district.
The notification regarding budget modifications should include a detailed description of revenue shortfalls or spending overages.
The Division of the Budget, Senate, and Assembly must fulfill their existing obligation to provide “Quick Start” revenue and spending forecasts in the fall of each year.
State officials should provide as much advance notice as possible to allow localities and agencies facing budget cuts to plan and manage the impact.
New York City needs a well-designed Rainy Day Fund to protect against economic downturns, as current methods for saving money lack transparency and fail to amass sufficient reserves. To ensure fiscal responsibility and prevent the fund from becoming a slush fund, the city must implement strict legislative rules regarding deposits, withdrawals, and the specific conditions under which the money can be accessed.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
State law should define a recession as two successive quarters of economic decline and an emergency as a revenue shortfall or expenditure increase equal to or greater than 1 percent of the budget.
Withdrawals from the Rainy Day Fund should be limited to no more than two-thirds of the fund balance in any year to ensure funds are available for the second year of a recession or emergency.
The City should implement mandatory deposits equal to 75 percent of the tax revenue growth above 3 percent to ensure sufficient funds are accumulated.
The City should establish a target size of 17.2 percent of tax revenue to serve as a cap on the size of the Rainy Day Fund.
Any amendments to the Financial Emergency Act should be as narrow as possible in order to preserve the beneficial aspects of the law and prevent misuse.
Key Data
$1.25 billion
— Amount set aside in reserves for next year.
$6 billion
— Near-term revenue loss estimated by the Office of the New York City Comptroller.
$20 billion
— Three-year shortfall estimated if a recession occurs.
$9 billion
— Potential reserves that would have been netted if the recommended Rainy Day Fund strategy had been followed.
71 percent
— Voters who approved the amendment to the New York City Charter to create a Rainy Day Fund.
17.2 percent
— Recommended target size of tax revenue to serve as a cap on the size of the Rainy Day Fund.
New York State's fiscal year 2021 budget includes a new midyear modification process that lacks sufficient transparency and accountability, potentially minimizing the Legislature's role in setting priorities. Furthermore, the budget relies on significant short-term borrowing to cover revenue losses, a practice that should only be used as a last resort to avoid burdening future generations.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Executive should make its plan publicly available so that the Legislature and public can review and debate the budget modification process.
The Legislature should generate its own contingency plans as soon as possible, so that it can productively respond within the 10-day period if it so chooses.
The new midyear modification process, which lacks sufficient transparency and accountability, should be rectified in practice.
The State should ensure that short-term debt is not extended or repaid with long-term debt.
Using long-term debt for operating purposes should only be done as a last resort.
Key Data
$7 billion
— budget gap faced by New York State even before the current economic disruption
$15 billion
— estimated revenue loss in the current fiscal year due to economic disruption
$1.1 billion
— federal aid provided for education in fiscal year 2021
$4.5 billion
— federal aid provided for Medicaid in fiscal year 2021
$250 million
— cost local governments are now responsible for in support for distressed hospitals
$8 billion
— amount of short-term borrowing authorized to cover liquidity needs due to the extension of the income tax filing deadline
The FY2021 Executive Budget contains several proposals that would reduce fiscal oversight and transparency, including measures to allow fund transfers without legislative approval and changes to accounting classifications. These policies, along with modifications to prevailing wage requirements, design-build authority, and MTA procurement, should be deferred to ensure public engagement and maintain necessary checks on executive power.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Lawmakers should reject the proposal to allow the State Budget Director to transfer certain appropriations to another department, agency, or public authority without legislative approval.
The state should reject the provision allowing the State Division of Budget to determine whether a reimbursement or refund to the State is considered a revenue or a reduction of expenses.
Lawmakers should reject the expansion of prevailing wage requirements to privately funded projects that receive public funds or tax breaks.
The state should reject the proposal to make design-build projects subject to Wicks Law, as it undermines the key benefits of combining project designers and contractors.
Lawmakers should reject the proposal to allow the MTA to shorten bid solicitation periods and limit bid advertisements to its website.
Key Data
13 to 25 percent
— The range by which prevailing wage mandates increase construction costs on public projects.
30 percent
— The threshold of public funding for construction projects that would trigger the proposed prevailing wage requirement expansion.
100
— The number of appropriations from which the State Budget Director could transfer funds without legislative approval under the proposed budget.
$3 million
— The project cost threshold in New York City above which Wicks Law requirements would apply to design-build projects.
$1.5 million
— The project cost threshold outside of New York City above which Wicks Law requirements would apply to design-build projects.
5
— The number of days for bid solicitation proposed for the MTA, down from 15 business days.
The Medicaid Redesign Team's proposals fail to meet the $2.5 billion savings target, leaving the state financial plan $851 million short while neglecting necessary improvements to budget transparency and accounting. The state must prioritize making fiscal and statutory details publicly available and address the $1.7 billion payment delay that occurred due to a lack of reporting.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Critically important data should be publicly provided regularly and should include information such as spending data for all Medicaid agencies and unit costs of services.
The Executive and Legislature should commit to making fiscal and statutory details available promptly.
The final negotiated budget should include the fundamental fixes to the Medicaid program that will ensure reforms meet fiscal goals while minimizing negative impacts on the state’s health care system and patients.
Key Data
$2.5 billion
— The savings target for Medicaid in fiscal year 2021 that the Medicaid Redesign Team's proposals failed to meet.
$851 million
— The amount by which the State financial plan is short due to the Medicaid Redesign Team's proposals failing to meet the savings target.
$1.7 billion
— The value of a payment delay made in March 2019 that went unreported for months due to a lack of transparency.
$1 billion
— The amount of funding provided to hospitals serving predominantly Medicaid and uninsured patients through the Indigent Care Pool.
Two proposed measures in the Executive Budget threaten to obscure state spending by allowing the executive branch to hide reimbursements and unilaterally transfer funds between agencies. These changes would undermine legislative oversight and conflict with the State Comptroller's constitutional authority to accurately report on and audit state finances.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The state should reject the measure in the Executive Budget which broadens so-called refunds of appropriation, as it would make actual spending for particular appropriations in the budget less clear.
The state should reject the proposal that would authorize the Director of the Division of the Budget to transfer funding from state operations to any department, agency or public authority, as it would allow the Executive to effectively override a legislatively approved funding allocation.
The state should ensure the Comptroller’s Office retains its independent constitutional authority to utilize best practices in monitoring state revenues and expenditures.
The legislature should preserve its authority in the budget making process by rejecting proposals that undermine transparency.
Key Data
over 100
— Number of appropriations throughout the State Operations appropriation bill that would be affected by the proposal to allow the Director of the Division of the Budget to transfer funding.
50-53
— Sections of part VV of Public Protection and General Government Article VII that contain the proposed changes to refunds of appropriation.
New York's Medicaid program requires improved fiscal management and transparency, as current accounting practices like cash-based reporting obscure unsustainable spending growth. To address these issues, the state should adopt generally accepted accounting principles, publish detailed monthly spending reports, and better target supplemental payments to hospitals based on need.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should make the Global Cap global by including all spending to ensure all Medicaid costs are accounted for and managed within the cap.
The State should make the Global Cap a cap by following accounting principles such as modified accrual basis to prevent the use of payment deferrals.
The State should adhere to and improve the law requiring Medicaid spending transparency by publishing monthly reports and enhancing their content.
The State should again publish the Medicaid Statistical Reports that were discontinued after 2014 to provide better insight into program growth.
Public stakeholders should have access to cross-tabular, longitudinal spending and utilization data disaggregated by geography, demographics, and other categories.
Key Data
$1.7 billion
— Amount of Medicaid payments deferred in fiscal year 2019 to adhere to the Cap.
$1,000
— Annual increase in health insurance premiums paid by the average commercially insured family in New York due to healthcare taxes.
$500 million
— Cost for the health homes care coordination model in the first five years after its 2011 launch.
$2.5 billion
— State-share Medicaid savings identified as the goal for the Medicaid Redesign Team.
44.1%
— Share of the Global Cap budget comprised by long-term care in fiscal year 2015.
47.6%
— Estimated share of the Global Cap budget comprised by long-term care in the most recent year.
New York State's budget relies on accounting maneuvers and reclassifications to mask actual spending growth, which has exceeded the 2 percent benchmark in recent years. These practices undermine transparency, making it difficult to accurately assess the state's financial position and the impact of proposed spending cuts.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
As the Legislature considers the budget and its wish list, it should be mindful that spending already is larger than it appears.
Key Data
$2.5 billion
— in Medicaid savings that have yet to be identified, upon which the Executive Budget for Fiscal Year 2021 is dependent.
$6.2 billion
— lower the fiscal year 2021 budget would be if the State had actually held spending growth to 2 percent annually since fiscal year 2017.
$4.5 billion
— in disbursements being shifted out of fiscal year 2021 State Operating Funds spending.
$110.4 billion
— in total proposed State Operating Funds spending in fiscal year 2021.
New York State's financial plan obscures a significant Medicaid budget shortfall by delaying payments rather than addressing underlying cost growth. To ensure fiscal transparency, the state must accurately account for these costs and provide a detailed, multi-year plan to reduce spending instead of relying on accounting maneuvers.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State must recognize actual and timely payments for the Medicaid program and explain how it will address the estimated $9 billion Medicaid budget shortfall.
The Mid-Year Update should identify multiyear savings targets, approaches to make programmatic changes, and programs to target.
The Fiscal Year 2021 Executive Budget should not delay payments to forestall a more serious reckoning.
The budget should include the cost of the delayed fiscal year 2019 payment and a full year of Medicaid payments for fiscal year 2020.
Fiscal year 2020 spending should not be “reduced” by delaying payment until fiscal year 2021.
The financial plan should reflect increased annual spending and concurrent increases to out-year deficits over the previous financial plan.
Key Data
$9 billion
— Cumulative understatement of Medicaid costs in the four-year financial plan.
$1.7 billion
— Medicaid payments delayed from fiscal year 2019 into fiscal year 2020.
$3 billion to $4 billion
— Estimated State share gap in fiscal year 2020.
$2.0 billion
— FY 2020 savings expected from adjusting the timing of payments.
$3.5 billion
— Amount added to State Operating Funds spending in fiscal year 2020 if the budget is realigned with fiscal reality.
The New York State Legislature has passed 18 bills that expand public employee pension and disability benefits, many of which lack fiscal notes and would increase costs without providing additional services. These measures threaten to undermine previous fiscal reforms, and the Governor is urged to veto all of them to maintain budgetary discipline.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Governor should veto all 18 bills that expand pension or disability benefits without providing enhanced services or offsetting savings.
The state should reject these 18 unwarranted expansions of employee and retiree benefits to avoid undermining hard-fought fiscal compromises.
Key Data
$71 million
— The projected first-year cost of the 18 benefit sweetener bills, though the actual impact is likely higher as six bills lack fiscal notes.
$5.6 million
— The annual cost of A7620-A/S5903-A, which would allow New York City police officers to receive retirement credit for time spent as cadets.
$41 million
— The first-year cost of A4431/S5207, which would establish a 20-year retirement plan for certain state law enforcement positions.
$15.7 million
— The first-year cost of A7874-A/S5905-A, which would require New York City paraprofessionals to join the Teachers Retirement System.
$2.1 million
— The first-year cost of A5324/S5133, which would grant enhanced disability benefits to ambulance medical technicians in Nassau County.
$1.5 million
— The first-year cost of A5021/S3946, which would expand performance of duty disability benefits for Nassau County sheriffs and correction officers.
Ballot Question 4 proposes amending the New York City Charter to establish a Rainy Day Fund, allowing the city to save revenue during growth periods to mitigate service cuts and tax increases during economic downturns. While the proposal also includes changes to budget modification timelines and minimum budget requirements for certain offices, the primary benefit remains the creation of a fiscal buffer for emergencies.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
CBC urges New York City voters to support Ballot Question 4 to amend the New York City Charter to allow the City to create and use a Rainy Day Fund (RDF).
It is imperative these changes limit use of the RDF to times of economic recession and severe emergency, which would ensure the RDF is not used during periods of economic growth.
CBC does not support minimum or guaranteed budgets since they restrict the budgetary discretion of the executive and legislative branches.
New York City's spending on leased real estate has surged to over $1.1 billion annually, yet the Department of Citywide Administrative Services fails to publish the necessary lease-level data to determine if this space is used efficiently. Improving transparency and management of these holdings is essential to control rising costs and ensure taxpayer funds are utilized effectively.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Department of Citywide Administrative Services should accelerate efforts to improve its management, monitoring and analysis of leased space to ensure its use is efficient and cost-effective.
The City must prioritize upholding the Charter-mandated obligation to collect, monitor, and publish data on the City’s real estate holdings as an important first step.
The City should utilize space standards and continuous analysis and management to evaluate whether agencies efficiently use their facilities and whether owning or leasing space is more cost-effective.
Key Data
$1.1 billion
— Total spending on leased space for public facilities and offices in fiscal year 2018.
40 percent
— Growth in lease costs from fiscal years 2014 to 2018.
$9.7 billion
— Total future rent obligations on the City’s existing leases.
22 million square feet
— Amount of real estate the New York City government leases from private owners.
$1.2 billion
— Expected spending on leased space in fiscal year 2020.
$829 million
— Amount of City spending on leased space overseen by the Department of Citywide Administrative Services in fiscal year 2018.
A coalition of organizations is calling on New York State legislative leaders to increase transparency regarding the allocation of transit funds, specifically requesting that lists of 'set-aside' funds and Outer Borough Transit Account distributions be published in open data formats. The groups also emphasize that the Capital Program Review Board must adhere to the Open Meetings Law when approving the designation of these transit funds.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State Legislature should publish in an open data format on the Senate and Assembly websites a list of funds “set-aside” for the State Legislature from the forthcoming 2020-2024 Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Capital Program.
The MTA or Capital Program Review Board should publish in an open data format a list of funds being distributed from the Outer Borough Transit Account, or the State Legislature should publish such a list if the MTA or CPRB fails to do so.
The Capital Program Review Board should conduct the designation of Outer Borough Transit Funds publicly in an open meeting to comply with the Open Meetings Law.
Disclosures regarding transit projects should include detailed information in CSV or equivalent formats, such as the project's purpose, location, requesting member, responsible agency, total amount, and relevant dates.
Key Data
$50 million
— Annual funding amount for the Outer Borough Transit Account.
2020-2024
— The timeframe for the upcoming Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Capital Program.
2015-2019
— The timeframe of the previous Capital Plan where the Capital Program Review Board failed to abide by the Open Meetings Law.
The Budget Navigator provides an interactive platform for the public to explore New York City and New York State revenue and expense trends dating back to fiscal year 2008. This resource allows users to visualize and compare long-term financial data from the preliminary and executive budgets.
New York State is approaching its statutory debt limit, necessitating a more disciplined approach to capital spending that prioritizes significant infrastructure investments over discretionary local projects. State spending should be allocated through a transparent budget process that allows for the evaluation of priorities and tradeoffs, rather than funding "pork-barrel" projects without a public needs assessment.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should limit capital spending to investments justified on the basis of need or rate of return.
State debt should only be issued for capital investments that are justified by need for repair or service enhancement identified through a systematic evaluation of state needs.
If the State is going to add debt-funded capital appropriations, the additional spending should be limited to significant state infrastructure investments.
Absent an emergency, State spending should be allocated during the budget process, where state leaders can adequately consider priorities and tradeoffs.
The legislature should close out session without passing any capital pork.
Key Data
$1.4 billion
— Debt capacity available in fiscal year 2021.
$107 million
— Available debt capacity remaining by fiscal year 2024.
$1.9 billion
— Authorized for small grants to local governments and nonprofits via the SAM Facilities Program.
$157 million
— Reappropriation from 2008 for the New York State Capital Assistance Program.
$475 million
— SAM funding amount in the fiscal year 2019 budget.
4 percent
— Cap on state debt as a percentage of personal income.
New York State's reported spending growth of 2 percent is misleading because it relies on accounting maneuvers like shifting expenses off-budget and prepaying debt. These practices obscure the actual spending growth of 4.9 percent and make it difficult to accurately compare year-to-year state finances.
Key Data
$4.7 billion
— Amount shifted out of fiscal year 2020 State Operating Funds spending due to accounting maneuvers.
$1.4 billion
— Reduction in reported State Operating Funds spending in fiscal year 2019 due to shifting the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax off-budget.
$1.5 billion
— Amount of debt prepayments shifted into the prior year for fiscal year 2020.
$1.24 billion
— Amount by which State Operating Funds spending appears lower due to the reclassification of STAR benefits.
$1.7 billion
— Total decrease in reported State Operating Funds spending in fiscal year 2019 resulting from shifts and reclassifications.
4.9 percent
— Actual State Operating Funds spending growth in fiscal year 2020 after adjusting for accounting maneuvers.
New York City's financial management framework has historically produced balanced budgets, but establishing a Rainy Day Fund and properly structuring the Retiree Health Benefits Trust would improve long-term fiscal stability. Additionally, the Charter Revision Commission should ensure transparency by presenting ballot proposals as discrete groups and expanding the capital asset inventory to include all assets meeting the $35,000 eligibility threshold.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Commission should consider presenting them as discrete groups of like proposals so that voters can consider the worthiness of each.
Any proposal the Commission pursues to improve the City’s land use and capital planning documents should include expanding the Charter-defined components of the capital asset inventory to include all assets that meet capital financing eligibility criteria.
The Charter should be amended to exclude from its balanced budget requirements a deficit that is funded by an RDF that adheres to the sound principles laid out in the report To Weather a Storm.
The Commission should not propose to create independent or formula budgets for certain offices, since they would not ensure these offices’ independence and would undercut the City Council and Mayor’s role in setting budgetary priorities.
The Commission should not propose to narrow the Mayor’s power to impound funds, as this power rarely has been an impediment to good financial management.
Key Data
$15 billion to $20 billion
— Cumulative tax revenue shortfalls over three years that New York City would face in a recession comparable to the prior two.
$35,000
— The current capital financing eligibility criteria for assets included in the capital asset inventory.
The NYC Ferry system operates with a lack of financial transparency because it is funded through the Economic Development Corporation rather than the City's general budget, shielding its operating expenses from City Council review. This funding model makes it difficult to track public spending and compare the ferry's high per-ride subsidies, which reached $10.73 in fiscal year 2018, against other transit investments.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
City officials should fund the ferry system through the City’s General Fund rather than the Economic Development Corporation to improve financial transparency and oversight.
The City should implement dynamic pricing models for long, low-productivity routes that require substantial subsidies and see demand spikes on weekends.
Officials should charge higher fares on weekends and for noncommuters to offset the cost of subsidies for daily commuters.
The City should adopt a different fare structure to mitigate the need to charter vessels or purchase larger boats.
City officials should review the system’s costs and subsidies to determine if the current operating strategy, pricing model, and expansion plans are the most efficient use of transportation funding.
Key Data
$10.73
— NYC Ferry per-ride subsidy in fiscal year 2018.
$638.5 million
— Total capital commitments for the NYC Ferry system as of February 2019.
$43.9 million
— Contractual payments made to Hornblower in 2018.
$41.3 million
— Revenue retained by the Economic Development Corporation in fiscal year 2017 that would have otherwise been remitted to the City.
$39.4 million
— Revenue retained by the Economic Development Corporation in fiscal year 2018.
$30.0 million
— Contractual payments made to Hornblower in 2017.
The New York City Charter should be amended to improve fiscal management by establishing a Rainy Day Fund, mandating the Retiree Health Benefits Trust, and expanding the capital inventory to include all eligible assets. Additionally, the city should eliminate specific capital budget allocations for Borough Presidents and require statistically valid resident feedback surveys to enhance service delivery accountability.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Charter should be amended to make an exception to the balanced budget requirement to permit use of a Rainy Day Fund.
The Charter should be amended to mandate the Retiree Health Benefits Trust, require annual deposits into the fund, and limit disbursements to the PAYGO cost of retiree health and welfare benefits.
The Charter should be amended to make the City’s capital inventory and needs assessment more comprehensive by including all assets that meet capital financing eligibility criteria.
The Charter should be amended to focus the Borough Presidents’ roles on identifying borough-based needs and advising the Mayor and the City Council on how best to address those needs.
The Charter should be amended to eliminate the capital budget Borough President allocations.
The Charter should require the City to solicit resident feedback on quality of life and City service delivery in a manner that produces statistically valid results at the community district level at least every four years.
Key Data
$15 billion and $20 billion
— Estimated potential tax revenue shortfall over three years in a recession.
$3.2 billion
— RHBT balance in fiscal year 2008.
$1.4 billion
— RHBT balance in fiscal year 2013.
$4.5 billion
— Current RHBT balance.
4.4 percent
— RHBT balance as a percentage of the total liability at the end of fiscal year 2018.
$103.3 billion
— Total OPEB liability at the end of fiscal year 2018.
New York City's procurement process, which involves nearly $20 billion in annual spending, is hindered by outdated laws and bureaucratic inefficiencies that limit competition and increase costs. Implementing reforms such as centralizing purchasing, modernizing digital systems, and streamlining capital project approvals could improve efficiency and generate significant taxpayer savings.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City should continue to improve e-procurement systems, including e-invoicing and payment, to increase transparency and accountability.
The City should centralize more procurement under the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) to leverage staff expertise and potentially save more than $80 million per year.
The City should streamline the approval process for capital projects and change orders to reduce project timelines and generate savings.
The City should continue to urge the State to change construction procurement laws, specifically to permit best value awards, design-build authority, and the elimination of the Wicks Law.
Key Data
$20 Billion
— Total amount spent by New York City on goods and services in fiscal year 2018.
42 percent
— The portion of city contracts that were initial competitive bids.
179 days
— The median cycle time for the city's procurement process from solicitation to registration in fiscal year 2018.
$80 million
— The amount that could potentially be saved per year by centralizing more procurement under the Department of Citywide Administrative Services.
86 percent
— The share of city contracts that were valued at $100,000 or less.
$10 Billion
— The total value of the 120 contracts that were greater than $25 million.
New York City's capital project spending has grown to over $10 billion annually, yet tracking these costs remains difficult due to fragmented data and limited public access. Establishing a comprehensive, machine-readable online database of all pending construction projects would significantly improve transparency and allow for better oversight of public infrastructure investments.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City should use the existing Capital Projects Dashboard as the basic platform for the new database, while requiring the broader scope of projects, downloadable format, and up-to-date data.
The City should require the inclusion of each project’s associated capital budget lines and project ID codes to allow the database to be linked to budget documents.
The database should retain data on completed projects to allow for retrospective assessment of performance.
The City should expand the existing Capital Projects Dashboard to include more data elements, such as historical data on changes to each project’s budget.
Key Data
$7.4 billion
— The City's annual capital investments in fiscal year 2014.
$11.8 billion
— The City's annual capital investments in fiscal year 2018.
$83.8 billion
— Forecasted capital commitments from fiscal years 2019 through 2023.
$25 million
— The current threshold for capital projects included in the existing Capital Projects Dashboard.
$10 billion
— The City's annual capital commitments that require greater oversight.
New York State has failed to enact substantial clean contracting reforms despite the rigging of over $1B in state economic contracts. To address this, officials are urged to fulfill campaign promises by establishing a 'Database of Deals' to track business subsidies and prohibiting campaign contributions from state vendors.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Governor should establish a Database of Deals listing all business subsidies received by companies.
The Governor should ban campaign contributions by vendors doing business with the State.
Speaker Heastie and Senate Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins should pass legislation to reform the state’s contracting if a three-way agreement cannot be reached.
The Governor should honor his campaign commitments and act on clean contracting, a database of deals, and limits on campaign contributions by potential vendors.
The legislature should enact the Comptroller’s Procurement Integrity Act to review contracts before they are executed for state-affiliated nonprofits.
Key Data
$1B
— Amount of state economic contracts rigged by top aides and campaign contributors to the Governor.
2018
— Year the Assembly included a Database of Deals in its one-house budget resolution.
2017
— Year the Assembly included a Database of Deals in its one-house budget resolution.
Watch the original segment here . Progressive, first, best are all terms have been used to describe New York’s economy. One non-partisan watchdog group took a look at how responsible the state has been with its money since Andrew Cuomo took office eight years ago. "See what has actually changed…
The NYC Money Meter dashboard utilizes the Budget Function Analysis and the Mayor’s Management Report to provide transparency into agency spending and performance metrics. Expanding the Budget Function Analysis to include more departments would improve the city's fiscal transparency, as it currently only covers 34% of the fiscal year 2018 budget.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Budget Function Analysis (BFA) should be expanded to cover more agencies.
Key Data
34%
— The Budget Function Analysis report accounts for only 34% of the city’s fiscal year 2018 budget.
15
— The NYC Money Meter dashboard allows you to explore spending on core services provided by 15 New York City agencies.
44
— The Mayor’s Management Report currently reports on 44 city agencies.
New York State's self-imposed 2 percent spending growth cap has been undermined by accounting maneuvers, such as shifting expenses off-budget and reclassifying funds, resulting in an actual budget increase of 4.5 percent for fiscal year 2018. These budgetary shifts and reclassifications artificially reduced State Operating Funds spending by $674 million in fiscal year 2018 and over $3.1 billion in fiscal year 2019, obscuring the true extent of state spending.
Key Data
4.5 percent
— The actual budget increase from fiscal year 2018 after adjusting for spending shifts.
$3.1 billion
— The amount shifted out of fiscal year 2019 State Operating Funds spending.
$1.5 billion
— The amount of the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax shifted directly to the MTA to decrease State Operating Funds spending.
$862 million
— The reduction in State Operating Funds spending in fiscal year 2019 resulting from changing STAR benefits to a personal income tax benefit.
$674 million
— The total decrease in fiscal year 2018 State Operating Funds spending due to shifts and reclassifications.
$3.107 billion
— The total decrease in fiscal year 2019 State Operating Funds spending due to shifts and reclassifications.
The School Bus Grant Program, which has cost taxpayers $136 million over four years, circumvents competitive bidding and should be rejected to restore fiscal accountability. Pupil transportation costs have ballooned to over $1.2 billion annually, necessitating a rebid of contracts to foster competition and identify potential savings.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City Council should reject the School Bus Grant Program, which circumvents the public procurement process and increases costs to taxpayers without enhancing services.
The de Blasio Administration should find savings in pupil transportation, which will cost $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2018.
All new school bus contracts should be awarded with an eye toward realizing savings in the costs of pupil transportation.
The City should rebid all transportation bus contracts to foster competition, increase use of technology, and improve efficiency.
The City Council should prioritize investigation and oversight of major city services to find savings in pupil transportation.
Key Data
$42 million
— Proposed spending to extend the School Bus Grant Program for a fourth year in fiscal year 2018.
$1.1 billion
— Cost of pupil transportation in fiscal year 2018.
$1.2 billion
— Current annual cost of pupil transportation.
$136 million
— Total four-year cost of the School Bus Grant Program.
$400 million
— Savings achieved by rebidding contracts without employee protections for seniority and pay.
$28 million
— Cost of the School Bus Grant Program in its first year, fiscal year 2015.
The proposed New York State Executive Budget for fiscal year 2019 lacks sufficient transparency regarding economic development spending and grants excessive authority to the executive branch to shift funds without legislative oversight. Legislators should demand better documentation of results for economic development projects and reject measures that allow the Division of the Budget to transfer appropriation authority without public or legislative input.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Legislators should reject new economic development proposals and impose a moratorium on new projects until more transparency and documentation of results are achieved for existing programs.
Necessary reforms for economic development spending include the creation of a consolidated economic development budget, universal reporting requirements, improved program design, and administrative reforms.
The State should reject the expansion of executive power that allows the Division of the Budget to transfer appropriation authority without public or legislative input.
Key Data
$4.0 billion
— Amount New York State spent on economic development in fiscal year 2016, highlighting the need for greater transparency.
$850 million
— Threshold of federal aid decline that would trigger the Division of the Budget's authority to transfer appropriation authority without legislative input.
$338 million
— Increase in Empire State Development capital spending, which lacks sufficient transparency and documentation of results.
New York State's fiscal year 2019 executive budget claims a 1.9 percent spending growth, but accounting reclassifications and shifts actually mask a 4.1 percent increase. These maneuvers, including moving tax collections off-budget and altering debt service payments, obscure the true rate of state spending growth from the public and the legislature.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
If a shift in accounting methodology is warranted to more appropriately record an item of expense, an adjustment should be made when calculating spending growth to enable the Legislature and the public to accurately assess changes from the prior year.
Legislators should be mindful that spending growth is twice as much as advertised when considering the FY2019 Executive Budget.
Key Data
1.9 percent
— The claimed growth in State Operating Funds (SOF) spending in the FY2019 Executive Budget.
4.1 percent
— The actual increase in SOF spending after adjusting for accounting shifts and reclassifications.
$2.8 billion
— The total amount shifted out of fiscal year 2019 SOF spending.
$1.5 billion
— The amount of the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility tax shifted off-budget.
$938 million
— The amount of the School Tax Relief (STAR) program excluded from SOF spending in fiscal year 2019.
$340 million
— The amount of debt service prepaid in fiscal year 2018 that was not due until fiscal year 2019.
The Authorities Budget Office requires increased funding to $3.105 million to effectively oversee 578 state and local authorities that spend $51 billion annually. This investment would enable the agency to fulfill its statutory duties, including conducting investigations and ensuring compliance with transparency and ethics laws.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The state should provide an allocation of $3.105 million to the Authorities Budget Office to ensure it can adequately fulfill its statutory duties.
The state should increase funding to the Authorities Budget Office to improve oversight and transparency of public authorities operating in New York State.
Key Data
$3.105 million
— Proposed annual funding for the Authorities Budget Office.
$51 billion
— Amount spent annually by the 578 state and local authorities overseen by the office.
$270 billion
— Total public debt held by the authorities overseen by the office.
40 percent
— Current staffing level of the office compared to the level envisioned when it was reestablished in 2010.
$1.169 million
— The amount of the proposed funding increase over the $1.936 million currently in the Executive Budget.
Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in New York City collect over $100 million in annual assessment fees, necessitating rigorous public oversight and transparent performance evaluations during contract renewals. To ensure accountability, the City should mandate specific performance metrics, require regular member satisfaction surveys, and hold annual oversight hearings for BIDs with expiring contracts.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The current contract should be revised to specify that BID contract renewal is conditioned upon a thorough performance review and analysis of progress in implementing the BID's strategic plan and should include specific evaluation criteria and performance metrics to be utilized by SBS.
The contract should also require BIDs to survey their members at least once every five years to determine satisfaction with the BID’s strategic plan and performance.
The additional performance measurement data, combined with the data SBS already collects, should be included in the annual BID Report for every BID for which a contract is renewed in that year.
SBS should also disclose any written notices of violations it has issued to BIDs, as well as the actions taken by BIDs to correct these concerns.
The City Council should hold oversight hearings at least once each year to review the SBS’s oversight of BIDs with contracts up for renewal.
Key Data
$100 million
— Total BID assessment revenues in fiscal year 2016.
$134 million
— Total revenue collected by BIDs from all sources in fiscal year 2016.
$106 million
— Revenue from the special assessment fee in fiscal year 2016.
$838
— Median BID assessment fee for properties.
74
— Total number of Business Improvement Districts in New York City as of August 2017.
The Mario M. Cuomo Bridge project faces significant uncertainty regarding future toll increases, as the state has not yet specified how it will cover the $2.9 billion in long-term debt. To ensure fiscal responsibility and fairness, the state should prioritize transparency by immediately initiating public discussion on toll adjustments that cover the bridge's specific debt and maintenance costs rather than relying on systemwide increases.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
There should also be transparency and public discussion on the toll increase now, as the bridge is opened for use.
Increasing the toll on the new Cuomo Bridge alone is the appropriate approach, and the new toll should cover all of the bridge’s debt and maintenance costs.
The freeze should be reconsidered and the Thruway Authority should increase tolls by the rate necessary to service the debt when the costs are payable.
Key Data
$2.9 billion
— in loans and bonds that will need to be repaid for the bridge in the long term.
$10.61
— projected toll for passenger vehicles based on current debt projections.
$5
— current toll for passenger vehicles on the bridge.
$174 million
— average annual debt service costs for the Cuomo Bridge's loans and bonds.
24%
— increase on all Thruway tolls required to fund the increase in debt service if the costs are spread systemwide.
New York City has significantly increased spending on preventive services for children to $313 million, yet current reporting fails to demonstrate whether these investments effectively reduce foster care placements or child maltreatment. Future funding increases should be contingent upon the implementation of comprehensive, outcome-based public reporting that evaluates the actual effectiveness of these services.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Further investment in preventive services should be contingent upon a more thorough public reporting on outcomes.
The City Council should work with the Administration for Children’s Services to expand the required indicators to measure outcomes rather than just outputs.
Reporting should differentiate between the different service models and case severity to better understand what works best for specific populations.
The Administration for Children’s Services' performance should be evaluated consistently, using data and metrics, rather than in response to headlines of tragic cases.
Key Data
$313 million
— Projected spending on preventive services in the New York City Fiscal Year 2018 Adopted Budget.
17.0 percent
— Repeat substantiated maltreatment rate that has remained stable over the last 8 years.
63.5 percent
— Decline in foster care entries between fiscal years 2000 and 2016.
42 percent
— Increase in spending on preventive services from Mayor Bill de Blasio’s first year in office.
28 percent
— Planned increase in service capacity for preventive slots in fiscal year 2019.
16,000
— Number of available preventive slots the City expects to have by fiscal year 2019.
New York City's affordable housing plan lacks sufficient financial transparency, as official budget documents fail to detail how the additional $1.9 billion in capital funding will be allocated or used to enhance affordability. Without clear productivity benchmarks or regular updates on spending and subsidy values, it is impossible to evaluate whether the plan is deploying capital in a cost-effective manner.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City should provide a detailed accounting of the programs and changes that represent new capital funding added to the City’s capital plan.
The City should include productivity benchmarks in the Ten-Year Capital Strategy to allow for accurate estimates of unit production and costs.
The City should provide regular updates on how much has been spent to date and how much it will need to spend to reach its housing goals.
The City should include information on which affordable housing programs each project uses and the value of subsidies provided to each project in its project database.
Key Data
$1.9 Billion
— Additional capital funding added to the City's capital plan in the Executive Budget.
20 percent to 25 percent
— Increase in the projected share of units reserved for the lowest income New Yorkers.
$41 Billion
— Total public and private funds over 10 years for the Housing New York plan.
$6.7 Billion
— Total City capital funding for the Housing New York plan over 10 years.
62,506
— Number of units financed through the end of 2016.
$5.6 Billion
— Total planned housing commitments in the Ten-Year Capital Strategy.
The Open Budget Act mandates that the Office of Management and Budget publish key budgetary documents on the city's website, the NYC OpenData portal, and via an open application program interface. This legislation aims to enhance transparency and accountability by ensuring the accessibility and usability of critical financial data for the public.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Add the Preliminary and Final Mayor’s Management Reports, produced by the Mayor’s Office of Operations, to the list of documents that should be available on these platforms so as to facilitate the link between agency performance and budgeting.
Require the Office of Management and Budget to make public a document reporting prior fiscal year actual spending in a format similar to the Supporting Schedule, providing data by agency, unit of appropriation and budget code.
New York State's reported 2 percent spending growth cap for fiscal year 2018 is misleading, as accounting adjustments and shifts in payment timing mask an actual growth rate of 3.7 percent. To ensure accurate financial reporting, the state should adjust for these methodological changes rather than obscuring the true rate of expenditure growth.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Governor should not undermine transparency in order to make his significant accomplishments fit an artificial spending growth cap.
The fairest portrayal of spending growth should be utilized by adjusting for payment timing differences and accounting changes.
If a shift in accounting methodology is warranted to more properly reflect spending, then an adjustment should be made when calculating spending growth to avoid giving the impression that total expenditures have decreased when they have not.
Key Data
3.7%
— The actual growth in State Operating Funds spending for fiscal year 2018 after accounting for adjustments.
$100,200
— The actual spending in State Operating Funds for fiscal year 2018.
$1,383
— The total amount of spending shifted out of State Operating Funds in fiscal year 2018.
$683
— The total amount of State Operating Funds spending shifted to different years in fiscal year 2018.
$830
— The amount excluded from State Operating Funds spending in fiscal year 2018 due to the School Tax Relief (STAR) program changes.
To improve government accountability, state agencies should adopt competitive contracting standards and establish a public 'Database of Deals' to track business subsidies. Additionally, oversight should be strengthened by requiring comptroller approval for contracts exceeding $250k and restricting campaign contributions from entities seeking state business.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Require competitive and transparent contracting for the award of state funds by all state agencies, authorities, and affiliates.
Transfer responsibility for awarding all economic development awards to the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), and end awards by state non-profits and SUNY.
Empower the comptroller to review and approve all state contracts over $250k.
Prohibit state authorities, state corporations, and state non-profits from doing business with their board members.
Create a ‘Database of Deals’ that allows the public to see the total value of all forms of subsidies awarded to a business.
Limit campaign contributions from anyone who has or is seeking a state contract to reduce the potential for conflicts of interest.
Key Data
$250k
— The threshold for state contracts that the comptroller should be empowered to review and approve.
six
— The number of states that have already implemented a 'Database of Deals' to track business subsidies.
six months
— The duration after a contract ends during which vendors should be banned from making campaign contributions.
The Governor's Executive Budget for fiscal year 2018 includes proposals that would expand executive power to transfer funds and reduce local aid without public oversight, which threatens fiscal transparency. To ensure accountability, the state should reject these measures and impose a moratorium on new economic development programs until universal reporting requirements and a consolidated budget are established.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The legislature should reject the proposal to increase the Division of the Budget’s ability to transfer appropriation authority, as it would allow the Governor to increase spending without public or legislative input.
The legislature should reject the authorization for the Division of the Budget to implement across-the-board reductions in Aid to Localities appropriations, as this tool would undermine transparency.
The state should impose a moratorium on new economic development programs until more transparency and results are achieved in existing programs through the creation of a consolidated economic development budget and universal reporting requirements.
Key Data
$319 million
— The amount by which the Executive Budget would increase spending by Empire State Development.
$334 million
— The increase in non-ESD economic development capital spending proposed in the Executive Budget.
$650 million
— The total amount of non-ESD economic development capital spending proposed in the Executive Budget.
New York State's Executive Budget for Fiscal Year 2018 utilizes $1.2 billion in fiscal gimmicks to artificially keep spending growth at 1.9 percent, which would otherwise be 3.2 percent. These accounting maneuvers, including shifting workforce costs and delaying repayments, obscure the true financial picture and undermine budget transparency.
Key Data
$1.2 billion
— Total value of fiscal gimmicks used to fit spending under the 2 percent cap.
3.2%
— Projected spending growth in fiscal year 2018 absent the use of fiscal gimmicks.
$500 million
— Annual savings proposed in the Executive Budget that remain unidentified.
$227 million
— Savings generated by shifting the costs of more than 3,000 employees to Capital Projects Funds.
$277 million
— Disbursement savings achieved by converting the New York City School Tax Relief (STAR) benefit to a Personal Income Tax credit.
$193 million
— Savings in fiscal year 2018 resulting from the amendment of scheduled repayments to the New York Power Authority.
Following a major bid-rigging scandal, watchdog groups are calling for systemic reforms to ensure state funds are awarded through competitive and transparent processes. Proposed changes include empowering the Comptroller to oversee contracts, centralizing subsidy awards, and creating a public database to track business subsidies.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The state should require competitive and transparent contracting for the award of state funds, regardless of the contracting entity.
The state should transfer responsibility for awarding all business subsidy awards to the Empire State Development Corporation and end the use of state non-profits and SUNY in awarding these subsidies.
The state should empower the Comptroller to review and approve all state contracts.
The state should create a Database of Deals that allows the public to see the total value of all forms of subsidies awarded to a business.
The state should limit campaign contributions from anyone who has or is seeking a state contract to reduce the potential for conflicts of interest.
Key Data
$1 billion
— The amount of public funds affected by the scandal involving state contracts.
six states
— The number of states that currently maintain a Database of Deals for public subsidy information.
Nineteen states and NYC
— The number of jurisdictions that have implemented 'pay to play' laws to limit campaign contributions from state contractors.
The Governor's proposed fiscal year 2016-2017 budget requires scrutiny regarding spending growth, the allocation of windfall bank settlements, and the distribution of school aid. Additionally, the budget process demands greater accountability and transparency, particularly concerning the use of lump sum appropriations that have historically lacked oversight.
Key Data
$5.4 billion
— Amount of windfall bank settlements received by the state last year.
$2.2 billion
— Additional funds currently available for state officials to allocate.
$4 billion
— Increase in state funding for school districts over the last four years.
$1.2 billion
— Amount designated for the Family Tax Relief Credit and the Property Tax Freeze Rebate.
$8.3 billion
— Amount pledged by the Governor to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s capital plan.
28 percent
— Decline in the number of state inmates since 2000.
Regional Economic Development Councils have received $3 billion in state funding, yet inconsistent reporting and a lack of standardized metrics make it difficult to track project performance or evaluate the effectiveness of these investments. To improve accountability, the state must require annual, project-level reporting on costs and outcomes, and collect more comprehensive data to allow for meaningful comparisons across projects and regions.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Actual project-level information on total costs, jobs created, and jobs retained for all projects should be collected and published annually.
Empire State Development should collect more information for its centralized CFA Data Table to allow for comparisons across year of award, industry sectors, state agencies, and project types.
Better monitoring and performance evaluation is both necessary for analyzing the use of limited state resources for economic development and assessing which projects are successful in leveraging private funds.
Key Data
$3 billion
— Total amount committed to projects reviewed by Regional Economic Development Councils through 2014.
3,323
— Total number of projects awarded funding since the initiative's inception.
385
— Number of Priority Projects begun in 2012 selected for detailed analysis.
19%
— Share of analyzed projects that included employment results in 2014.
$94,000
— High end of the public subsidy per job based on initial projections.
$753
— Low end of the public subsidy per job based on initial projections.
New York City's ten-year capital strategy lacks the necessary transparency and performance metrics to justify its $83.8 billion price tag, as it fails to link investments to specific needs assessments or long-term operating costs. The city's reliance on borrowing to fund these projects has resulted in a high debt burden, with debt service costs projected to grow significantly faster than other operating expenditures.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Council should require improved reporting on the rationale for and performance goals of capital spending and should limit the capital budget to clearly defined projects with demonstrable benefits.
The Strategy should incorporate information from agency assessments and clearly spell out how much of state of good repair needs will be addressed by the proposed investments, and how quickly.
Specificity is necessary before dollars are appropriated for new initiatives like the OneNYC investments.
Agencies should improve their reporting regarding capital assets and their condition.
Operating costs or savings should be considered and incorporated in the operating budget to avoid skewing decision-making.
Key Data
$83.8 billion
— Total value of the Ten-Year Capital Strategy for Fiscal Years 2016 to 2025.
$100 billion
— Amount of debt outstanding for the City.
41 percent
— Growth in debt service since fiscal year 2005.
40 percent
— Projected growth in debt service by fiscal year 2019.
$7.7 billion
— Annual debt service projected by fiscal year 2019.
17 percent
— Projected growth of all other city operating expenditures in the same time period.
New York's economic development programs have grown significantly, reaching $8.1 billion in 2014, yet they lack sufficient accountability, standardized metrics, and transparent reporting. To improve cost-effectiveness, the state should implement a unified economic development budget and require comprehensive disclosure of project costs and benefits.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The state should implement a unified economic development budget to provide transparency and disclosure across all programs.
All economic development investments should be coordinated and aligned to regional strategies to ensure transparency in how funds are allocated.
Performance metrics should be standardized for all programs and across all regions to allow for better comparison and transparency.
More comprehensive disclosure requirements should be put in place so that the costs and benefits of each project can be weighed.
All programs should be reevaluated for effectiveness before existing programs are increased or new ones are added to ensure fiscal transparency.
Key Data
$8.1 billion
— Annual economic development investments in 2014.
$7.0 billion
— Annual economic development investments in 2010.
$2.8 billion
— Amount the State expects to have spent on economic development tax expenditures in fiscal year 2014.
$1.9 billion
— New capital appropriations for Empire State Development proposed in the fiscal year 2016 Executive Budget.
$427 million
— Estimated cost of the film production tax credit in 2014.
$1.2 billion
— State's unused Investment Tax Credit liability as of 2013.
The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation faces a growing financial imbalance, with projected budget gaps reaching $1.7 billion by fiscal year 2018 and cash reserves expected to be exhausted by fiscal year 2017. To address these challenges, municipal leaders must establish more stable funding guidelines and implement incentive-based models that prioritize cost-effective service delivery and improved financial planning.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Municipal leaders should develop more rational and stable guidelines for funding HHC in its efforts to meet its mandates.
The new approach should seek to improve HHC’s financial stability, its ability to engage in long-term financial planning, and its incentives for cost-effective service delivery.
City leaders should begin a dialogue with HHC and other national health care experts about the best way to rationalize the financial relationship.
To realize savings of that magnitude by fiscal year 2018 HHC will need to intensify its restructuring efforts.
In order to expand future enrollment HHC will need to take steps to improve the quality of the MetroPlus plan.
Key Data
$1.7 billion
— Projected budget gap for HHC in fiscal year 2018.
$3.2 billion
— Accumulated cash shortfall projected by fiscal year 2018.
$4.8 billion
— Accumulated GAAP deficit projected by fiscal year 2018.
$90 million
— Incremental savings from prior cost containment actions included for fiscal year 2015.
23.8 percent
— Potentially preventable admission rates for HHC facilities.
17.2 percent
— Citywide average for non-HHC facilities for potentially preventable admission rates.
The Port Authority has improved its financial planning by adopting a detailed annual operating budget and balancing it according to standard accounting principles, yet it continues to lack transparency regarding capital project status and performance metrics. Critical gaps remain in the public disclosure of project ratings, individual funding sources, and independent engineering assessments, which are necessary for full accountability.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Port Authority should base its capital strategy on a professional assessment of needed investment to maintain a state of good repair and accommodate long-term demand trends.
The Port Authority should indicate sources of funding for each capital investment to improve financial clarity.
The Port Authority should report quarterly on the status of each capital project relative to scheduled milestones and planned costs.
The Port Authority should use independent engineering consultants to monitor major capital projects and report to the board and to the public.
The Port Authority should adopt an explicit policy for financing capital investments with debt and pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) sources.
Key Data
$780 million
— Surplus available for capital investment shown in the adopted budget.
New York State's reliance on unspecified "future savings" placeholders and accounting tricks to adhere to a 2 percent spending cap obscures the reality of growing budget gaps. A more responsible fiscal approach requires abandoning these opaque practices in favor of a straightforward and transparent financial plan that accurately reflects baseline budget deficits.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should replace the use of unspecified "future savings" placeholders with concrete savings plans to close projected budget gaps.
State officials should end the practice of using accounting tricks to push school aid funding into subsequent fiscal years, as this increases fiscal pressure on future financial plans.
Policymakers should return to a straightforward and transparent financial plan that clearly presents the baseline budget gaps resulting from current budgetary actions.
To achieve baseline reductions in school aid, the State should better target resources to the neediest districts and reform overly rich reimbursement formulas for functions such as transportation and capital construction.
Key Data
$2.1 billion
— Amount of unspecified "future savings" used to plug budget gaps in fiscal year 2016.
$4.9 billion
— Amount of unspecified "future savings" used to plug budget gaps in fiscal year 2018.
$1.8 billion
— Lower bound of the State's projected budget gap by fiscal year 2018.
$3.4 billion
— Upper bound of the State's projected budget gap by fiscal year 2018.
$730 million
— Amount the Department of Health absorbed through a "stabilization fund" for mental hygiene services in fiscal year 2014.
$7.6 billion
— Value of new bond authorizations included in the adopted budget that will increase debt service costs.
This presentation was given by Maria Doulis, CBC’s Director of New York City Studies, at “The Measured City: Using Data to Improve New York City Government” Conference, on Oct. 30, 2013.
New York State's first 10-year capital plan consolidates planning across 47 agencies, but requires greater transparency regarding asset conditions, financing affordability, and project-level tracking to be truly effective. Future iterations should standardize reporting on commitments versus disbursements and provide granular data to allow for better assessment of infrastructure needs and agency performance.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The state should provide better information about asset condition and the match-up between planned levels of state of good repair spending and actual need.
The state should develop an improved financing plan that addresses the issue of affordability.
The state should provide better project-level data to facilitate project tracking.
The state should reconcile differences and standardize the approach to commitments versus financing and disbursements in future capital plans.
Future statewide plans should include information that allows the user to "roll down" to project-specific information to assess agency performance.
Key Data
$174 billion
— Total planned investment commitments for the New York State 10-year statewide capital plan for the fiscal year 2013-14 to 2022-23 period.
$117.8 billion
— Amount allocated for State of Good Repair (SOGR) projects within the capital plan.
$180.3 billion
— Total debt outstanding for the agencies and authorities included in the capital plan for fiscal years ending in 2011-12.
$641 million
— Projected amount that debt outstanding will be below the debt limit by fiscal year 2016-17.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey should adopt more rigorous financial management practices, including detailed annual operating budgets, multi-year financial plans, and long-term capital strategies. Implementing these measures, alongside regular public reporting on project status and performance metrics, will enhance transparency and public accountability.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The PANYNJ should have a detailed annual operating budget and a four-year financial plan.
The operating budget should be adopted only after opportunities for public review and should be revised and updated during the fiscal year.
The PANYNJ’s capital budgeting should be guided by a long-term (a period of 10 to 20 years) capital strategy that is revised every four years.
The capital budget should include an annual and a four-year commitment plan revised annually.
Regular and frequent (quarterly) reports should be made to the Board and the public on the status of each capital project relative to the scheduled milestones and planned costs for the project.
Performance measures of activities and accomplishments should be specified for each major agency activity, and regular and frequent (quarterly) reports should be presented to the Board and the public comparing actual and targeted performance.
The city's capital budget lacks transparency, as evidenced by $1.5 billion in economic development projects that proceed without any available cost-benefit analysis to justify them. Furthermore, only 52% of state-of-good-repair needs are funded for fiscal years 2013 to 2016, highlighting the need for clearer criteria and greater scrutiny in capital project prioritization.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Council should establish clear criteria for prioritizing capital projects based on condition, need, or return on investment.
The Council should require cost-benefit analysis to explain or justify economic development projects in the capital plan.
The Council should focus on structural changes to municipal finances rather than the traditional “budget dance” of Council restorations of proposed Mayoral cuts.
Key Data
$1.5 billion
— in economic development projects planned for fiscal years 2012–2015 that lack available cost-benefit analysis.
52%
— of state-of-good-repair needs that will be funded in fiscal years 2013 to 2016.
$3.6 billion
— in “one-shot” resources relied upon to close the fiscal year 2013 budget gap.
CUNY-TV CityWide series host Ken Fisher continues the 18th season on CUNY-TV, talking with Carol Kellermann, President of the New York City Citizens Budget Commission.
The process for determining New York City's 'prevailing wage' for public projects lacks transparency, as the Comptroller's Office does not disclose the methodology or the specific labor agreements used to set these rates. To ensure accountability, the City Council should require the Comptroller to publicly clarify the criteria for establishing job titles and identify the collective-bargaining agreements used in wage calculations.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City Council should not expand prevailing-wage requirements without also requiring more public information and explanation about how these standards are developed.
The City Council should direct the comptroller to clarify and make public his methodology for setting prevailing wages.
The comptroller should be required to periodically re-examine the criteria for establishing job titles and consider whether changes can be made to simplify the schedules.
Collective-bargaining agreements used to set prevailing-wage rates should be identified on the schedules and posted online.
Key Data
30 percent
— The threshold of workers in a job title covered by a union contract required to set the prevailing wage in the construction industry.
The process for determining prevailing wages in New York City lacks transparency, as the specific labor agreements used to set these rates are not publicly disclosed or easily accessible. To address this, the state and city should improve the clarity of wage determination criteria, simplify schedules, and mandate the online publication of all relevant contractual agreements.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Efforts should be undertaken to ensure wage surveys are inclusive and widely administered, and the definition of prevailing wage should be broadened to a standard greater than 30 percent.
The State Labor Commissioner and the City Comptroller should take steps to improve transparency in the determination of prevailing wage.
They should exercise their discretion to re-examine the criteria for establishment of titles and consider whether changes to prevailing wage schedules could be made within occupations to simplify the schedules and reduce the cost burden.
In addition, collective bargaining agreements used to set prevailing wage rates should be identified on the schedules.
These and other contractual agreements relevant to the determination of the prevailing wage should also be posted online.
Key Data
$7.25
— The federal minimum wage set by the government.
$10
— The hourly living wage requirement in New York City, excluding $1.50 in health benefits.
$35.28 - $37.88
— The supplemental rate for fringe benefits for boilermakers.
30 percent
— The threshold of trade union membership in a jurisdiction used to set the prevailing wage standard.
165 - 167%
— The ratio of prevailing wage to private sector wage for boilermakers.
New York City’s current method of defining a balanced budget relies on a narrow General Fund accounting standard that obscures the city's true financial health by excluding long-term liabilities like retiree health benefits and asset depreciation. Adopting more comprehensive accounting standards, which reveal significant deficits, is essential to ensure current residents do not unfairly burden future generations with today's costs.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
New Yorkers should be giving much more attention to the financial results disclosed under the new GAAP rules.
Municipal leaders should adopt a more meaningful standard for a balanced budget to replace the current self-deluding one.
The City should abandon its unique set of accounting rules that allow operating expenses to be labeled as capital investments and paid for with borrowed funds.
Local financial management should adopt a new standard for recognizing financial obligations, similar to the seven-year timeline used during the 1970s fiscal crisis.
Key Data
$9.6 billion
— The deficit reported under the new GAAP standard for fiscal year 2011.
$282 million
— The deficit the City would have faced in fiscal year 2011 if GAAP were strictly applied to remediation expenses.
$53.3 billion
— The added expense recognized in fiscal year 2006 when the accumulated liability for Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) was first reported.
$11.7 billion
— The amount of red ink under the new GAAP standard in fiscal year 2010.
$5 million
— The surplus reported in the City's General Fund for fiscal year 2011.
New York's economic development programs suffer from a lack of transparency and accountability, necessitating the adoption of a unified economic development budget and comprehensive disclosure requirements to ensure investments are merit-based. The state should also implement consistent performance metrics and prioritize the elimination of ineffective programs before increasing overall economic development spending.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
To be fully effective, the councils should have responsibility and authority over all state economic development resources, not just a subset of selected programs.
As ESD helps the new councils draw up their metrics it should make sure that consistent performance measures and standard benchmarks, such as actual results and results against planned performance, are used in every regional plan.
Benefits should be paid retroactively based on firm performance.
More comprehensive disclosure requirements and reporting would provide some guard against the politicized nature of some of the deals of the past and help ensure that investments are being chosen on the merits.
The ultimate goal should be the creation of a Unified Economic Development Budget.
All programs should be considered for elimination before the budget for economic development is increased.
Key Data
$6.6 billion
— Estimated annual cost to the State of all economic development programs in lost tax revenues, power subsidies, and direct spending.
$200 million
— Amount of competitively awarded grants available to Regional Councils.
$1 billion
— Total resources available through programs of different agencies and public authorities that the councils will help allocate.
$75.2 million
— Total appropriations received by the Regional Economic Development Partnership Program (REDPP) between 1985 and 1997.
$2.5 billion
— Amount state tax receipts are reduced annually by more than a dozen separate state tax credit programs.
$554 million
— Cost to the State in lost tax receipts for the Empire Zone program in 2010.
The Health Insurance Premium Stabilization Fund, which holds approximately $500 million in city-deposited funds, lacks clear public documentation regarding its governance, investment performance, and financial history. Establishing oversight through a formal audit is necessary to ensure accountability for these taxpayer-funded resources.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Comptroller should establish audit authority for the Health Insurance Premium Stabilization Fund, promptly followed by an audit.
It is important that there be full transparency concerning the operation of the Health Insurance Premium Stabilization Fund.
The Comptroller should conduct an audit of the Health Insurance Premium Stabilization Fund to ensure accountability for tax levy dollars.
Key Data
$500 million
— The estimated balance of the Health Insurance Premium Stabilization Fund.
New York should consider alternatives to rigid spending caps, such as implementing accrual-based accounting, strengthening balanced budget requirements, and providing more transparent fiscal information to the public. These measures offer a more effective path to fiscal discipline than formulaic caps, which often lead to unintended consequences like service cuts or budget manipulation.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Establish a more rigorous and comprehensive balanced budget requirement.
Move the executive and legislative budgets from a cash basis to an accrual system in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
Enhance the allowable size of the state’s rainy day fund and require that funds are dispersed only in an emergency.
Impose a new constitutional debt limit to rein in state borrowing.
Provide more timely and meaningful fiscal information to legislators and to the public.
Key Data
$17 billion
— The amount of state spending that would have been curbed in fiscal year 2007-08 had a spending cap been in place starting in 2002-03.
$60.3 billion
— The hypothetical spending cap in 2007-08 if annual spending growth had been limited to the three-year rolling average of the national inflation rate.
$77 billion
— The actual expenditures in state operating funds in fiscal year 2007-08.
$1.1 billion
— The predicted surplus in fiscal year 2011-2012 under a proposed spending cap.
$3.2 billion
— The total amount of rebate checks sent to Colorado taxpayers between fiscal year 1996-97 and fiscal year 2000-01.
$348
— The amount by which Colorado's per capita spending was lower than it would have been without the state's spending cap.
New York City spends $1 billion annually on union welfare funds that lack sufficient oversight, leading to poor financial management and inefficient benefit delivery. Reforming these funds by consolidating health benefits and implementing stricter accountability standards could generate significant taxpayer savings and improve service delivery.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The varying and inefficient package of drug, dental and optical benefits provided by the multiple welfare funds should be replaced by a standard set of benefits included under the City’s health insurance program.
For non-health related benefits, a new centralized plan should be developed to achieve meaningful economies of scale.
New standards should be set for accountability of existing and any new union welfare benefit funds, including placing limits on allowable administrative expenditures and establishing reserve requirements.
The Comptroller’s Office should be given new enforcement powers to sanction entities that fail to meet standards in an adequate or timely fashion.
Repeated violations by welfare funds should result in the removal of fund officials.
Key Data
$1 billion
— Annual City payments to union welfare funds.
$12.7 million
— Estimated annual administrative savings from consolidating welfare funds.
$146 million
— Total estimated annual gain from consolidating health benefits and administrative savings.
$285,000
— Questionable expenses found in the United Probation Officers Association welfare fund audit.
81
— Total number of welfare funds operated by unions.
15
— Number of funds identified with an administrative cost-to-revenue ratio significantly above their group average.
Granting 'formula budgets' to city agencies shields funding from public scrutiny and undermines the democratic budget process by removing it from annual review. This practice limits fiscal flexibility, as evidenced by California's 'ballot box budgeting,' where excessive earmarking restricts the ability to manage budgets during economic downturns.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
In the interest of fiscal prudence and maintaining an open and democratic budget process, you should reject establishing formula budgets for any City agencies or offices besides the IBO.
Consideration of these practical issues supports maintaining the current budgetary discretion exercised annually by the mayor and the council.
Key Data
10 percent
— The minimum annual budget allocation guaranteed to the Independent Budget Office (IBO) relative to the approved budget of the Office of Management and Budget.
12.5 percent
— The increased formula budget allocation for the IBO to cover estimated costs for newly mandated activities relating to public school performance analysis.
two-thirds
— The estimated portion of California’s general fund revenues that are earmarked for specific purposes, limiting the state's ability to achieve budget balance.
one-third
— The portion of the California budget over which the state actually has discretionary control, due to the impact of mandatory spending definitions.
New York City's capital planning process lacks sufficient transparency and strategic oversight, with many projects lacking clear justification or data-driven economic analysis. The City should implement a more rigorous, long-term capital strategy that includes regular condition assessments and clear, data-backed rationales for all expansion projects to ensure public funds are used effectively.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The City should improve its needs assessments, and develop a systematic plan or timetable for bringing all capital assets to a state of good repair.
The City should place all its capital assets on regular replacement cycles and fund their replacement with operating revenues, not from the capital budget.
Expansion projects should be clearly explained and justified with data that demonstrates economic and other benefits, or a high rate of return on the investment of public funds.
The strategic approach should also be expanded to encompass other agencies and capital assets.
The City should place all its capital assets on regular replacement cycles according to their useful lives.
Key Data
$83.7 billion
— Planned capital investments over the next ten years.
$23 billion
— Planned expansion projects for the next ten years.
$60.5 billion
— Total value of City-controlled capital assets.
$18.4 billion
— Value of the water and sewer system.
New York State's budgetary process suffers from an over-reliance on the General Fund, which obscures the true financial picture by excluding significant portions of state spending and revenue. To improve transparency and accountability, the state should adopt broader reporting measures, such as "State Operating Funds," and transition to accrual-based accounting to prevent the manipulation of deficits through cash management tactics.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The basis for reporting and budget reform should be broadened to encompass all of the activities of state government.
All documents and budget reform requirements should be based on the newly denominated “State Operating Funds” currently used by the Division of Budget.
The State’s capital budget should be separated from its annual operating budget plan and cover the activities of public authorities as well as State agencies.
More detailed GAAP reporting requirements should be adopted to provide a truer picture of State obligations.
A simpler, more transparent budget format that tracks cash disbursements should be developed so that the public and legislators can easily move from the Governor’s language to the Legislature’s.
The State should implement metrics that are well developed, regularly reported to the public, and discussed with agency heads in public hearings to improve accountability.
Key Data
$121.6 billion
— The total All Funds cash amount for the state.
$54.6 billion
— The portion of the state budget represented by the General Fund.
45%
— The percentage of the total state budget represented by the General Fund.
$3 billion
— Annual personal income tax revenues transferred out of the General Fund for the School Tax Relief program.
$13.5 billion
— The state deficit recorded on a GAAP basis.
$1.9 billion
— The positive year-end balance recorded on the state's cash report.
The New York City Department of Education needs to improve fiscal transparency by codifying the Comptroller's auditing role and integrating its internal accounting systems with the city's Financial Management System. Establishing a firm deadline for this system integration would ensure that oversight agencies can effectively monitor budget data and payment requests.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The New York City Comptroller’s role in auditing the Department of Education should be codified.
A firm deadline should be set by which the Department of Education must fully integrate with the City’s Financial Management System.
The relationship between the Comptroller and the Department of Education should be formalized to remove any ambiguity about the Comptroller’s role.
A firm deadline should be established by which the Department of Education's internal systems and the City's Financial Management System must interface with complete functionality.
Key Data
$25,000
— Threshold for all Department of Education contracts, competitive and non-competitive, that must be registered with the Comptroller.
2006
— Year since which the Department of Education has been working to integrate the FAMIS and FMS systems to increase financial access.
New York State's annual budget process suffers from a lack of timeliness, accountability, and transparency, often resulting in late budgets and a reliance on lump-sum appropriations that bypass public scrutiny. The state's failure to implement multi-year financial planning and binding revenue forecasts contributes to recurring budget gaps, including a projected $4.2 billion shortfall for the upcoming fiscal year.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Prepare more extensive multi-year financial plans to ensure long-term fiscal accountability.
Enforce and build upon new requirements for reporting by public authorities to improve transparency regarding their financial activities.
Require that lump-sum appropriations meet specific program criteria and be subject to sunshine provisions to prevent the allocation of funds without public discussion.
Publish the Adopted Budget in a format similar to the Executive Budget to make it more understandable and comparable.
Key Data
$4.2 billion
— Projected budget gap for the next fiscal year resulting from the current year's enacted budget.
$1.1 billion
— Additional expenditures added by the Legislature in June 2006 after the initial budget enactment.
8
— Number of New York's 11 competitor states that utilize a 'binding revenue forecast' mechanism.
$3,420 million
— General Fund deficit incurred in fiscal year 2001–02.
$4,221 million
— General Fund deficit incurred in fiscal year 2002–03.
The City should maintain adherence to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and only grant a temporary, one-year deferral for compliance with Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 49. Maintaining these rigorous accounting standards is essential for the City's financial reputation and ensures that remediation expenditures are properly prioritized within the budget process rather than financed through long-term borrowing.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Board should make clear on the public record that any deferral will be temporary, with no intention to grant permanent or long-term exemptions regarding GASB 49 compliance.
The Board should make clear that it supports the application of all current GAAP requirements.
Any deferral granted should be as brief as is necessary and practical, specifically limited to a one-year delay.
The City and the FCB should continue to accept the best available standard, the GASB rules, as the basis for defining a balanced budget.
The City should use its budget process to address the difficult tradeoffs among multiple services to taxpayers, and the affected remediation expenditures should be one of the priorities addressed in budget debates.
New York State's budget process has historically suffered from limited accountability and transparency, characterized by late budgets, opaque member item spending, and a lack of unified performance reporting. While recent reforms have introduced some improvements, further action is needed to establish rigorous balanced budget requirements, meaningful debt limits, and comprehensive performance measurement systems to ensure fiscal stewardship.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The state should expand the scope of the balanced budget requirement beyond the General Fund to include a wider range of governmental funds or the Statement of Activities for primary government.
New York should establish a constitutional debt limit that applies to all forms of state-supported debt, eliminating the "back-door" borrowing currently utilized by public authorities.
The state should combine the Statutory Rainy Day Reserve Fund and the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund, eliminating the cap and establishing mandatory contribution criteria based on revenue growth.
New York needs to pass a constitutional amendment to expand the Legislature’s budgetary powers, specifically regarding the ability to alter appropriation bills and limit the Governor's policy language insertions.
The state should move the start of the fiscal year to July 1 to provide more time for legislative deliberation and ensure decision-makers have accurate income tax collection data before passing a budget.
The Legislature should establish formal budget committees with jurisdiction over appropriation bills, allowing them to review and approve legislation before it goes to a full vote.
New York should create an independent, nonpartisan source of fiscal information, similar to the Congressional Budget Office or the New York City Independent Budget Office, to support legislative decision-making.
The state should require grantees of member items to report performance targets and make the goal, purpose, and performance results of these awards publicly available online.
New York should develop a comprehensive, centralized approach to performance measurement that integrates metrics into the budget process and aligns them with strategic priorities.
Key Data
$11.2 Billion
— The amount of long-term borrowing authorized by the State since 1991 to help support operating expenses.
$39.4 Billion
— The amount of "back-door" debt outstanding as of the end of fiscal year 2007, representing 92 percent of all State-supported debt.
$1,031 Million
— The balance of the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund (TSRF) by fiscal year 2006-07, reaching the legal limit.
$4.7 Billion
— The total cost of the School Tax Reduction (STAR) program in fiscal year 2008.
$2.1 Billion
— The total cost of Health Care Reform Act (HCRA) programs in fiscal year 2008.
$200 Million
— The approximate annual appropriation for the Community Projects Fund in recent years.
New York City's park system requires improved financial management and transparency, particularly regarding the complex, often opaque, relationships with the numerous nonprofit organizations that help manage public green spaces. Establishing clear, consistent guidelines for these partnerships and shifting routine maintenance funding from the capital to the operating budget are essential steps to ensure equitable park conditions across all neighborhoods.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Create a stronger incentive for increasing concessions and other earned revenues by dividing growth in these revenues between the City’s general fund and a new fund dedicated to parks improvements.
Make the relationships between DPR and its nonprofit partner organizations more transparent and consistent with core guidelines.
Encourage preventive maintenance and longer periods of usefulness by funding routine repairs and replacements in the operating budget.
Institutionalize responsibility for strategic planning for parks.
Bring all parks to an acceptable condition.
Improve productivity in parks maintenance and operations.
Key Data
$780 million
— City funds for DPR facilities in fiscal year 2006.
$65 million
— Estimated private funds added by organizations in fiscal year 2006.
$80 million
— Annual spending by park-specific conservancies.
$63 million
— Net amount devoted by conservancies to services in the parks annually.
$394 million
— Amount needed to bring major DPR assets to a state of good repair in fiscal year 2007.
New York state has implemented initial reforms to improve budget transparency and timeliness, including better disclosure of member items and clearer explanations of fiscal impacts. However, significant challenges remain regarding the state's growing debt burden and recurring budget deficits that require further legislative action.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The state should pursue an amendment to the state Constitution, limiting the amount of debt based on criteria for affordability and restricting its uses to long-term capital improvements.
Spitzer and the Legislature should agree on a budget for the coming year that closes projected budget gaps.
The state should reduce Medicaid spending by limiting support for long-term care of wealthier residents who benefit from eligibility loopholes.
The state should curb generous payments to nursing homes and hospitals that are among the most expensive in the nation.
Key Data
$50 billion
— The amount state debt exceeded in the current fiscal year.
$60 billion
— The amount state debt is expected to hit in the next two years.
$11 billion
— The amount of outstanding debt taken on to support operating expenses rather than capital investments.
$4.2 billion
— The projected budget gap for fiscal year 2008.
$5.1 billion
— The projected budget gap for fiscal year 2009.
New York City's budget lacks a clear connection to program performance, making it difficult for the public to understand how resources are allocated to specific goals. To improve accountability and transparency, the city should reorganize its budget to align with program outcomes and incorporate comparative performance metrics and citizen satisfaction data.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
City leaders should connect money and performance in the budget by reorganizing it to better track programs and program performance.
Measuring and reporting unit costs should be a high priority in every service area to focus on efficiency.
Leaders should push to develop and track desired results for every service area to improve outcome measurement and reporting.
New Yorkers should be able to compare the caliber of their services to those provided by other competitor cities.
Public perception of City services should be expanded to include satisfaction survey measures rather than just complaints.
Key Data
$4.9 billion
— The amount of spending represented by the Department of Education's single unit of appropriation for General Education Instruction and School Leadership.
$2.4 billion
— The amount of spending represented by the Police Department's unit of appropriation for Operations.
13.2 million
— The number of calls handled by the 3-1-1 system in fiscal year 2006.
354
— The number of output indicators reported by New York City for 41 agencies.
New York City's management framework lacks a strong connection between budget allocations and program performance, hindering accountability and the ability to assess the cost-effectiveness of government services. To improve transparency and management, the city should integrate performance metrics, comparative benchmarking, and resident satisfaction data into its budgeting and reporting processes.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The city should connect money and performance in the budget by reorganizing it to better align with programs and program performance.
City leaders should focus on efficiency by making the measurement and reporting of unit costs a high priority in every service area.
Leaders should improve outcome measurement and reporting by pushing to develop and track desired results measures for every service area.
The city should develop and present comparative performance measures so that the public and elected officials can understand how services compare to those delivered by competitor cities.
The city should expand the use of resident perception measures by incorporating satisfaction survey results, rather than relying solely on complaints.
Key Data
24 of the 30
— Number of the 30 largest U.S. cities that publish performance metrics in their budgets.
15 of 30
— Number of the 30 largest U.S. cities that use resident satisfaction survey measures in their performance reporting.
13.2 million
— Total number of calls handled by the 3-1-1 system in fiscal year 2006.
33%
— Percentage of local governments that use survey data to make policy decisions.
27%
— Percentage of local governments that use survey data to make budget decisions.
150
— Number of cities and counties that currently participate in the International City/County Managers Association Center for Performance Measurement.
New York State's debt has reached $50 billion, with a significant portion used to cover operating deficits rather than capital projects. To address this, the state must implement reforms such as integrating authority borrowing into the capital plan and establishing rigorous financial reviews to ensure fiscal responsibility.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
State leaders should stop issuing state-funded debt to cover operating deficits.
The state should make authorities' borrowing part of the state's capital plan.
The state should institutionalize rigorous financial review of authority borrowing.
The state should reduce future debt for capital spending.
Key Data
$50 billion
— New York State's debt hit this historic high during the current fiscal year.
20 percent
— Portion of nearly $12 billion in debt that has gone for operating costs.
$4 billion
— Amount of debt added in the past year.
8 percent
— Annual growth rate of state debt.
$2,700
— Per-capita debt amount for every man, woman, and child in the state.
$2.2 billion
— Cash surplus the state ended with in a year where there was no need to cover deficits.
New York's budget process lacks necessary transparency and accountability, often relying on late budgets and lump-sum appropriations that obscure fiscal decisions. To improve this, the state should adopt more rigorous multi-year financial planning and ensure the final adopted budget is presented in a clear, comparable format.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Prepare more extensive multi-year financial plans.
Enforce and build upon new requirements for reporting by public authorities.
Require that lump-sum appropriations meet specific program criteria and be subject to sunshine provisions.
Publish the Adopted Budget in a format similar to the Executive Budget.
Key Data
$4.2 billion
— Projected budget gap for the next fiscal year resulting from the budget enacted for the current year.
$1.1 billion
— Additional expenditures added by the Legislature in June 2006.
$1.6 billion
— Projected general fund deficit for the current fiscal year.
New York's public authorities have accumulated $166 billion in debt, largely due to a lack of accountability and opaque borrowing practices that bypass voter approval. To address this, the state must implement constitutional debt limits, require comprehensive multi-year capital planning, and mandate competitive, transparent processes for industrial-development projects.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The state should adopt a new constitutional limit that would apply to all state-supported debt, including any issued by authorities.
The governor and budget director should be given responsibility for preparing a comprehensive, multi-year capital plan that includes state agencies and authorities.
The Public Authorities Control Board, which has not been doing its job adequately, ought to be abolished.
Industrial-development authorities should select among private parties based on criteria established in advance and in response to competitive proposals, with the process conducted in the open.
Key Data
$166 billion
— Total outstanding debt of New York's public authorities.
$227 billion
— Total outstanding debt of New York state and local governments and their authorities.
583
— Total number of public authorities in New York.
$4 billion
— Amount of state-supported debt that has been approved by voters, representing 9% of the total.
$56 billion
— Total debt of industrial-development authorities.
116
— Number of local jurisdictions that have created industrial-development authorities.
New York State's extensive reliance on public authorities has led to significant issues regarding debt management, insufficient oversight, and a lack of transparency in financial reporting. To address these problems, authorities must be held to higher standards of accountability through comprehensive reporting, improved capital planning, and greater board independence.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should eliminate the misuse of authorities’ debt powers by setting comprehensive constitutional limits on the amount of State-supported and City-supported debt that can be issued.
The State should improve the oversight of non-State-funded authority debt by eliminating the PACB review process and replacing it with more comprehensive capital planning and project feasibility studies subject to professional, transparent review.
The State should improve the effective use of tax-exempt conduit debt by requiring more explicit advance allocation of its purposes and more competition among private entities for its benefits.
The State should make authorities more accountable through more complete and accessible reporting of financial and other information.
The State should enhance the governance of authorities through greater independence and professionalism among board members.
Key Data
$227 billion
— Estimated total amount borrowed by New York state and local governments and their authorities.
$43.1 billion
— Applicable constitutional debt limit for New York City at the end of fiscal year 2004.
$52.2 billion
— Actual City funded debt for New York City at the end of fiscal year 2004.
$10 billion
— Amount by which State-supported debt in 2003 exceeded the State’s danger-zone threshold.
New York State achieved its first on-time budget in 21 years, yet many essential reforms regarding transparency and fiscal accountability remain unaddressed. While some progress has been made, the state continues to balance its budget on a cash basis rather than using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and lacks binding revenue forecasts.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The Legislature should abandon this proposed amendment and work to design a new amendment that delivers to New Yorkers true budget reform including the elements identified above.
The Legislature should increase the usefulness of the existing rainy day fund by amending State Finance Law to raise its permissible limit from 2 percent to 5 percent of General Fund revenues.
Efforts in this area regarding performance assessment should be broadened in scope and accelerated.
The State should balance its budget in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, even though the State requires it of New York City.
State Finance Law should be revised to bind the leaders to the Comptroller’s revenue forecast.
Key Data
21 years
— The amount of time that had passed since the State last passed an on-time budget.
3 percent
— The limit of General Fund revenues for the rainy day fund in the proposed constitutional amendment.
2 percent
— The current permissible limit of General Fund revenues for the existing rainy day fund.
5 percent
— The proposed permissible limit of General Fund revenues for the rainy day fund.
New York State requires a unified, coherent accountability system to ensure that increased education funding is used effectively and efficiently. Districts must be required to transparently plan, report, and meet specific performance goals for both new and existing funds to ensure taxpayer money is achieving desired educational outcomes.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should develop a single set of accountability tools that are uniform across the State, that are consistent with federal guidelines, and that replace locally-generated systems.
New funds should only be used for purposes consistent with the CFE settlement.
Each District should be required to specify what progress it will achieve in the next four years with the additional funds.
Where standardized tests are used for accountability purposes, they should be based on 'value-added' methodologies.
Accountability systems should incorporate other quantifiable measures of performance, such as safety, parent engagement, and attendance.
Qualitative assessment programs should be implemented as part of the State-wide accountability system to verify challenges and progress.
The State accountability system should include measures of the relative efficiency of how resources are used by schools and districts.
Clear and reasonable State-wide sanctions for schools should be developed and implemented consistently.
Clear and reasonable rewards for good performance should be developed and implemented consistently.
Key Data
40%
— Percentage of all schools in New York City that have been designated as 'schools in need of improvement'.
99%
— Percentage of school districts in the State where ultimate accountability for performance comes through the election of the school board.
12 years
— Timeframe given by the federal government for states to meet ambitious goals of having every student meet State standards.
200 pages
— Length of some district planning documents (DCEPs) in the past, making them often unusable as accountability tools.
600 children
— Number of students in an average K-5 school.
40 children
— Size of a student group used for disaggregated reporting, where as few as two or three students can affect the future of the entire school.
New York's budget process suffers from persistent dysfunction, characterized by late budgets and a lack of transparency in how funds are allocated, particularly through the 'member item' system. Meaningful reform requires constitutional changes to establish a staged budget process, independent revenue estimating, and public campaign financing to increase accountability and competitiveness.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
A constitutionally defined staged process in the legislature for considering the executive budget, engaging key committees, with conference committees to resolve differences, may both build the legislative role and redistribute power within each house.
A consensus system for revenue estimating built into this process may be acceptable to the legislative houses, if their powers in budgeting are otherwise assured in the constitution.
Constitutionalization of the beginning of the fiscal year might be a first step toward establishing a real budget deadline.
Two less draconian but still fundamental steps are the adoption of legislative redistricting by commission and serious reform in campaign finance.
Public financing of legislative election campaigns, with concomitant limits on direct and indirect (through legislative campaign committees) private funding, would be salutary.
Key Data
$10,750,658
— The proposed budget for legislative fiscal staffs for 2003-2004, divided equally between the two houses.
$170 million
— The total amount controlled by the leaders of each house appropriated in 2003 to fund projects advanced by Senate Republicans and Assembly Democrats.
$1.5 billion
— The total amount available to Governor Pataki, Speaker Silver, and Majority Leader Bruno to separately allocate in the 1998 election year.
$7,506,885
— The amount raised by Democrats in the Assembly in 2002 to defend and extend their majority.
$14,736,106
— The total amount raised by Republicans in the Senate in 2002.
$30 - 40 million
— The estimated cost of a public financing program for state legislative races in New York.
New York State's fiscal practices are hindered by a lack of transparency and accountability, characterized by chronic budget lateness, reliance on off-budget spending, and weak multi-year financial planning. To address these issues, the state should implement structural reforms such as requiring balanced budgets based on generally accepted accounting principles, establishing an independent legislative budget office, and eliminating off-budget accounts.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Require that the adopted budget be balanced in accord with generally accepted accounting principles.
Require a four-year financial plan with quarterly modifications.
Replace the constitutional requirement for voter approval of general obligation debt with a constitutional limit on the amount of all state debt that is set based on relevant, changing economic factors.
Create a professional, non-partisan Legislative Budget Office to provide fiscal information to both houses of the Legislature and to the public.
Require that independently prepared revenue projections be used in the adopted budget, if the Governor and Legislature do not agree on revenue projections in a timely way.
Require a “rainy day” fund larger than the current Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund.
Eliminate the use of “off-budget” accounts.
Change the budget calendar to allow more time for deliberation on the Executive Budget by the Legislature.
Strengthen the committee process of the State Legislature to allow more participation by members in budgetary decisions.
Key Data
208 days
— The number of days late the state budget was in 2002, the worst year for budget timeliness.
$9.3 billion
— The size of the state budget gap in fiscal year 2003-04.
$1.7 billion
— The amount of HCRA spending disbursed outside the traditional budget process in fiscal year 2002-03.
$170 million
— The amount appropriated for legislative 'member items' in 2003.
$26 million
— The amount appropriated for legislative 'member items' in 1984.
New York State faces a severe fiscal crisis characterized by recurring deficits and a reliance on short-term borrowing and off-budget entities that obscure the true financial picture. To restore fiscal health and public trust, the state must adopt transparent accounting practices, including the use of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and the consolidation of all off-budget accounts into a unified financial plan.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The State should be required to balance its budget based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) in order to prevent the accumulation of a deficit.
The Division of Budget should be required to prepare a four-year financial plan with quarterly updates to ensure transparency and accountability.
All off-budget accounts should be brought on budget to provide a unified statement of all planned revenues and expenditures.
Key Data
$9.3 billion
— The estimated gap to be closed in fiscal year 2003-04.
$11 billion
— The projected annual gap in fiscal year 2005-06 due to baseline spending increases.
$2.9 billion
— The projected general fund deficit for fiscal year 2004-05.
$4.4 billion
— The projected general fund deficit for fiscal year 2005-06.
$5.6 billion
— The amount of spending cuts proposed in the Executive Budget for fiscal year 2003-04.
$2.5 billion
— The annual deficit the State would incur under the Governor's plan.
New York City faces significant budget gaps that cannot be solved by temporary measures or borrowing, requiring instead structural changes to government efficiency. By dispelling common myths about the budget, the document advocates for long-term strategies like restructuring special education, streamlining procurement, and rationalizing police staffing to achieve sustainable savings.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Concerned citizens should press their leaders to design multi-year budget strategies that will keep multi-billion dollar budget gaps from recurring.
The City should have a long-run strategy for limiting expenditures, in addition to its historical focus on short-run measures for the current year.
Current efforts to balance the budget should eschew borrowing and other gimmicks.
No part of the budget should be considered off limits when dealing with a large budget gap.
The City should not – and probably cannot because of creditor resistance – again borrow to close the coming budget gap.
Key Data
$6.4 billion
— The projected budget gap for fiscal year 2003-04.
$1 billion
— The amount the City could save annually by implementing five specific ways to lower the cost of government.
$15 billion
— The estimated 'controllable base' of the City's $42 billion budget.
$8.6 billion
— The amount the City spent on construction, goods, and services in fiscal year 2001.
$500 million
— The City's annual energy bill for electricity and fossil fuels.
New York City's procurement process is currently hampered by excessive paperwork, fragmented oversight, and outdated procedures that delay service delivery and increase costs. By adopting an integrated e-procurement system and reforming the legal framework to increase flexibility and independence, the City could achieve annual savings of at least $135 million.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
Replace the Mayor’s Office of Contracts with a new procurement entity that offers “one-stop” oversight, a central place for vendors to interact with the City, and improved agency support services.
Implement an advanced e-procurement system similar to those functioning in several other jurisdictions.
Change the legal framework for procurement to give the Procurement Policy Board more independence and to permit new, cost-effective procurement techniques.
Small purchase limits for all goods and services should be increased to $100,000.
Public hearings for non-competitively bid purchases should be required only for procurements above $500,000.
Key Data
$8.6 billion
— Amount the City spent for construction, goods, and services in fiscal year 2001.
12 million
— The latest estimate of sheets of paper produced to execute procurements.
$135 million
— The minimum annual savings from implementing the recommended procurement reforms.
142,000
— The number of transactions the City completes per year.
$100,000
— The proposed increased small purchase limit for all goods and services.
$500,000
— The proposed threshold for requiring public hearings for non-competitively bid purchases.
New York State's fiscal year 2002 budget process was marked by a 124-day delay and a lack of transparency, failing to implement necessary reforms like GAAP-based financial planning. Meanwhile, New York City's budget process, while more timely, suffered from a failure to clearly disclose certain revenues and debt service, obscuring overall budget trends.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
State leaders should manage the financial plan on a GAAP rather than cash basis to improve budget transparency.
The State should improve budget transparency by showing the enacted budget's impact on future years in the budget presentation.
The State should make the budget presentation clearer to improve transparency.
The City should address the repeated failure to show certain revenues and debt service which obfuscates budget trends.
Key Data
124 days
— The amount of time the State's bare-bones budget was late.
2 days
— The amount of time the legal deadline for passing the City budget was extended.
8 percent
— The annual growth rate of City debt service payments over the next four years.
$36 billion
— The total value of the City's five-year capital plan.
Municipal welfare funds suffer from high administrative costs and a lack of adequate oversight, with audits revealing significant accounting errors and operating deficits. To address these issues, the City should implement stronger accountability measures, including annual independent audits and the consolidation of smaller funds to achieve economies of scale.
Recommendations related to Budget Transparency
The next round of contracts should contain stronger accountability measures for those welfare funds that remain independently administered.
Welfare funds should be audited annually by independent firms in accord with generally accepted accounting principles and should be subject to sanctions for improper financial management.
The City should either contract on behalf of multiple funds with a private benefit program administrator or require a larger union or the Municipal Labor Committee to administer the smaller funds.
Key Data
$662 million
— Annual City contribution to union welfare funds in fiscal year 2000.
$3.7 million
— Estimated annual savings from reducing administrative costs for smaller welfare plans.
$1.8 million
— Administrative expenses identified in a 1997 audit of the DC 37 education fund.
$7.2 million
— Total operating deficits found in 17 welfare funds in a 1998 report.
No results for your current filters. Manually edit your filters, or
clear the filters.
Share Feedback
Give a star rating, write a comment of at least 10 words, or both.
