Charter revision commissions are temporary commissions established under State law to review a city's Charter, its foundational governing document, and put proposed Charter amendments before the voters. This page covers CBC's work on NYC Charter Revision Commissions, which should clarify and refine the powers of government with a focus on changes that are appropriate to the Charter and cannot be done through local law alone.
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..
New Yorkers should vote Yes on Ballot Question 1, which would accelerate review of applications for the private use of public space.
New Yorkers should vote Yes on Ballot Question 3, which would expedite the review and approval of street safety and certain public real estate transactions.
New Yorkers should vote Yes on Ballot Question 4, which would streamline and modernize the process to approve construction documents.
New Yorkers should vote No on Ballot Question 5, which would require the City to develop a Rainy Day Fund policy but not ensure that the policy would strengthen the fund so that it protects New Yorkers from harm during a recession or severe emergency.
A Charter amendment should only be adopted if it strengthens the Rainy Day Fund.
The City should adopt stronger deposit and withdrawal rules to strengthen the Rainy Day Fund.
The City's Rainy Day Fund policy should require deposits when revenues are strong, grow the Fund to 16 percent of tax revenues, and restrict withdrawals to recessions and severe emergencies.
Key Data
In October 2026, the CBC analyzed ballot questions from the Commission on Government Efficiency, noting that Question 1 would allow revocable consents to be approved by administrative review, which COGE estimated could shorten approval time to 2 months from reviews that currently take up to 8 months.
In October 2026, the CBC opposed Question 5, which would establish a Rainy Day Fund target of 12% of tax revenues but could effectively cap the fund at 6% by counting other reserves.
In September 2025, the CBC supported the Charter Revision Commission's Question 2, which would fast-track reviews in the 12 Community Districts that permitted the least affordable housing over the preceding 5 years.
In September 2025, the CBC highlighted Question 5, which would digitize the City Map, currently consisting of over 8,000 individual paper maps administered by 5 Borough Presidents, reducing amendment times from months to days.
In October 2024, the CBC supported Question 3, which would require the City Council to notify OMB 8 days prior to a hearing and include OMB's fiscal estimate if provided more than 3 days before the hearing.
New York City voters should approve proposed Charter amendments to expedite public space permits, street safety infrastructure, and building document reviews, but reject the amendment concerning the Rainy Day Fund. The proposed Rainy Day Fund amendment fails to mandate deposits during prosperous years or restrict withdrawals, leaving the fund at $2 Billion when nearly $14 Billion is needed to survive a recession.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
New Yorkers should vote Yes on Ballot Question 1, which would accelerate review of applications for the private use of public space.
New Yorkers should vote Yes on Ballot Question 3, which would expedite the review and approval of street safety and certain public real estate transactions.
New Yorkers should vote Yes on Ballot Question 4, which would streamline and modernize the process to approve construction documents.
New Yorkers should vote No on Ballot Question 5, which would require the City to develop a Rainy Day Fund policy but not ensure that the policy would strengthen the fund so that it protects New Yorkers from harm during a recession or severe emergency.
A Charter amendment should only be adopted if it strengthens the Rainy Day Fund.
The City should adopt stronger deposit and withdrawal rules to strengthen the Rainy Day Fund.
The City's Rainy Day Fund policy should require deposits when revenues are strong, grow the Fund to 16 percent of tax revenues, and restrict withdrawals to recessions and severe emergencies.
Key Data
$2 Billion
— The current balance of the City's Rainy Day Fund, representing only one deposit made despite years of strong revenue growth.
$14 Billion
— The estimated amount the Rainy Day Fund should contain to adequately cover two years of a recession.
12%
— The target percentage of tax revenues for the Rainy Day Fund proposed by Question 5, which could be effectively capped at a lower rate.
16%
— The target percentage of tax revenues to which the Citizens Budget Commission recommends growing the Rainy Day Fund.
60-day
— The duration of the Expedited Land Use Review Procedure proposed to accelerate transactions on undevelopable properties.
seven months
— The potential duration of the standard Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) for acquiring and selling real estate.
The Charter Revision Commission missed a critical opportunity to establish a robust framework for the city's rainy day fund that would protect services and employees from layoffs during economic downturns. A strong policy should mandate adequate deposits during prosperous economic times and restrict withdrawals exclusively to periods of recession or severe emergency.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The administration should adopt a strong rainy day fund policy that requires adequate deposits during good economic times.
The administration should adopt a strong rainy day fund policy that permits withdrawals only during a recession or severe emergency.
The proposed charter amendment for the Revenue Stabilization Fund requires strengthening to ensure it functions as a true rainy day reserve by mandating deposits during strong revenue periods and limiting withdrawals to specific economic emergencies. Key improvements include increasing the target fund size to 16 percent of tax revenues and establishing implementation rules in local law rather than policy to reduce executive discretion.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The City should limit withdrawals to a recession or severe emergency to ensure the fund provides resources when New Yorkers need them.
The City should apply the target size only to the Revenue Stabilization Fund, rather than including other budgetary cushions that are spent down each year.
The City should require deposits based on revenue strength, such as a trigger like 3% tax revenue growth, to ensure the fund is reasonably resourced.
The City should increase the target size to 16 percent of tax revenues, which is the amount needed to cover two years’ worth of recessionary tax revenue losses.
The City should require the City Comptroller to publish an opinion on the reasonableness and appropriateness of the implementation policy to provide independent information.
The City should set the Revenue Stabilization Fund’s implementation rules and definitions in local law rather than policy to provide a more deliberative process.
Key Data
16 percent
— The recommended target size for the Revenue Stabilization Fund to cover two years of recessionary tax revenue losses.
12 percent
— The target size of tax revenue in the preceding year proposed by the current amendment, which is considered too small.
3 percent
— The tax revenue growth threshold suggested as a trigger for requiring deposits into the fund.
1 percent
— The threshold for revenue losses or increased expenditures that defines a severe emergency for fund withdrawals.
two-thirds
— The maximum portion of the fund balance that should be allowed for withdrawal in the first year of a recession or emergency.
$100-billion-plus
— The City's liability for retiree health insurance, which the Retiree Health Benefits Trust is intended to offset.
The City Charter should be amended to establish strict rules for the Rainy Day Fund, including mandatory deposits during periods of high revenue growth and specific limitations on withdrawals to ensure funds are reserved for true fiscal emergencies. These reforms aim to prevent the misuse of reserves for ongoing budgetary needs by setting a target fund size of 16 percent of tax revenues and defining clear, formula-driven triggers for both contributions and access.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The Charter should include only the basic guardrails—the framework requiring deposits, governing withdrawals, and setting a target size—while requiring detailed formulas and definitions be established in local law.
The Charter should require mandatory formula-driven deposits when tax revenue growth exceeds the greater of 3 percent or inflation.
Withdrawals should be permitted only during a recession, based on economic indicators established in law, or during a temporary emergency that leads to a revenue decrease or expenditure increase exceeding two percent of City funds.
Annual withdrawals should be limited to two-thirds of the Fund, preserving some reserves for the future while providing immediate relief.
The Charter should establish a target size of 16 percent of tax revenues, allowing policymakers to fund other non-recurring priorities once reached.
Key Data
3 percent
— The threshold for tax revenue growth that triggers mandatory formula-driven deposits into the Rainy Day Fund.
two percent
— The threshold for a revenue decrease or expenditure increase during a temporary emergency that permits withdrawals from the Rainy Day Fund.
two-thirds
— The maximum portion of the Rainy Day Fund that can be withdrawn annually.
16 percent
— The proposed target size of the Rainy Day Fund relative to tax revenues.
New York City should amend its Charter to mandate regular, representative resident feedback surveys and establish a comprehensive performance management system to improve government efficiency. Additionally, the Charter should require the Mayor and City Council to enact specific rules governing the deposits, withdrawals, and target size of the Rainy Day Fund to ensure long-term financial stability.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
Modify the Charter to require the City to conduct a statistically valid and representative resident feedback survey at least every four years.
Require a comprehensive performance management system that promotes quality and efficiency.
The Charter should require the Mayor’s Management Report to include a portfolio of indicators for each agency and major program, and implementation benchmarks for initiatives.
Create rules for Rainy Day Fund deposits, withdrawals, and balances to ensure wise stewardship.
The Charter should 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.
Key Data
2008
— Year the City last conducted a resident survey.
2017
— Year the Citizens Budget Commission conducted a resident survey.
2023
— Year the Citizens Budget Commission conducted a resident survey.
2025
— Year the Citizens Budget Commission conducted a resident survey.
The NYC Charter Revision Commission has proposed four ballot questions aimed at streamlining the city's land use and zoning processes to accelerate housing production. These measures include creating fast-track reviews for affordable housing, establishing an appeals board, and digitizing the city map to improve administrative efficiency.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
New Yorkers should vote yes on Question 2, which would create fast track reviews for affordable housing through the Board of Standards and Appeals and for mixed-income residential projects in neighborhoods that produce the least affordable housing.
New Yorkers should vote yes on Question 3, which would create an Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP) for three types of zoning proposals.
New Yorkers should vote yes on Question 4, which would create an Affordable Housing Appeals Board to balance citywide needs with neighborhood concerns.
New Yorkers should vote yes on Question 5, which would modernize the administration of the City Map by digitizing it and transferring administration to the Department of City Planning.
Key Data
$82,000
— The amount added to the cost of each housing unit in 2025 dollars due to the current land use process.
2 to 3 years
— The time it takes for private rezoning application approval under the current land use process.
8,000
— The number of individual paper maps currently administered by the offices of the five Borough Presidents.
30 percent
— The maximum increase in residential capacity allowed in medium- and high-density districts under the proposed Expedited Land Use Review Procedure.
The 2025 NYC Charter Revision Commission has proposed an expedited land use review procedure to accelerate housing production, but specific modifications are needed to prevent new sources of delay. These include allowing all necessary approvals through the expedited process, leveraging existing environmental reviews to avoid redundant assessments, and clarifying notice requirements to reduce legal uncertainty.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
Allow all necessary land use approvals for Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP)-eligible projects to go through ELURP.
The Charter language should clarify that applicants can leverage CEQR findings to satisfy the infrastructure requirement and RER reviews to evaluate projects’ consistency with the fair housing plan.
The Charter language could also clarify that the CPC assessment is not subject to a private right of action, which is one of the primary sources of delay and uncertainty in the CEQR process.
Specifying clearly what needs to be transmitted to Community Boards and Borough Presidents would make the process more certain and less open to legal challenge.
The ELURP reform could further streamline the process by simply requiring DCP to transmit the completed ELURP materials at the start of the 30-day pre-certification notice period.
The Charter language should also clarify that the 30-day pre-certification period is the maximum amount of time that Community Boards and Borough Presidents have prior to the start of their ELURP review period.
Key Data
45 feet
— Height threshold for projects eligible for expedited review through ELURP.
2.0
— Floor-to-area ratio threshold for projects eligible for expedited review in low-density districts.
30 percent
— Density increase threshold for projects eligible for expedited review in medium- and high-density districts.
30-day
— Duration of the pre-certification period for ELURP.
60-day
— Duration of the review period for ELURP.
90-day
— Combined duration of the pre-certification and review periods for ELURP.
To accelerate housing production, the City should fast-track residential projects with 250 or fewer units in moderate- to high-density districts and 175 or fewer units in low-density districts through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). Additionally, the Charter Revision Commission should exempt non-zoning actions—such as minor revocable consents, as-of-right public projects, and special permits—from the full ULURP process to reduce administrative burdens.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The City should fast-track residential buildings of 250 or fewer units in moderate- to high-density zoning districts and 175 or fewer units in low density districts through ULURP.
The City should exempt all “minor” revocable consents and franchise agreements from the full ULURP process to allow modest projects to move more quickly.
The City should exempt otherwise as-of-right public projects, such as new parkland, from the full ULURP process.
The City should exempt special permits from the full ULURP process because they are administrative, not legislative actions.
The City should allow the City Council to call up special permits only if the applicant is required to conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement under CEQR.
Key Data
250
— Maximum number of units for residential buildings in moderate- to high-density zoning districts to be fast-tracked through ULURP.
175
— Maximum number of units for residential buildings in low density districts to be fast-tracked through ULURP.
The testimony proposes specific Charter revisions to strengthen the city's Revenue Stabilization Fund by mandating clear deposit, withdrawal, and target size rules. It also advocates for increased transparency in financial planning by requiring detailed explanations when revenue or expenditure estimates deviate significantly from historical or independent projections.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The Charter should be revised to 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, with withdrawals prohibited until such a law is in effect.
The local law should identify a minimum target size for the Revenue Stabilization Fund that is 16 percent or more of tax revenue.
The local law should require deposits into the Revenue Stabilization Fund when tax revenue growth is at least 3 percent, year-over-year, on a common rate and base.
The Charter should be revised to include new transparency requirements when revenues or expenditures vary significantly year-over-year or differ substantially from estimates made by the City and State Comptrollers.
The Charter should not be revised to establish more formula-derived or mandated departmental budgets, as this would restrict mayoral and Council discretion.
The City should maintain the current process for setting Units of Appropriation to ensure they are neither too broad nor too narrow.
The City should ensure that citywide needs play a substantial role in zone and land use decision making to foster housing production.
Key Data
16 percent
— The minimum target size for the Revenue Stabilization Fund should be at least 16 percent of tax revenue.
3 percent
— Deposits to the Revenue Stabilization Fund should be required when tax revenue growth is at least 3 percent, year-over-year.
2 percent
— A severe emergency is defined as a temporary event causing an increase in expenditures or decrease in revenues equal to or greater than 2 percent of total City funds.
two-thirds
— The first withdrawal from the Revenue Stabilization Fund following a recession or severe emergency should be limited to two-thirds of the fund's balance.
10 percent
— The Charter should require explanations for any tax revenue change greater than 10 percent from the prior fiscal year.
20 percent
— The Executive Budget Message should explain any major program expenditure where the Comptroller's estimate varies by 20 percent or more.
The New York City Charter should be amended to mandate the publication of a statistically valid resident feedback survey every five years, broken down by Community Board and demographic group. This initiative would provide essential data on public satisfaction with government services, enabling more effective resource allocation and improved management accountability.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The City Charter should be revised to 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.
Key Data
below 20 percent
— The rating of neighborhood quality of life in the southern and central Bronx, which was among the lowest in the City.
New York City's current land use review process is excessively long, expensive, and uncertain, adding $82,000 to the cost of each housing unit and taking up to three years for rezoning approvals. Reforming the City Charter to streamline these procedures, including merging advisory reviews and creating an appeals process, would accelerate housing production and reduce administrative burdens.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The City Charter should be amended to merge the Community Board and Borough President advisory reviews into a single review under the Borough President.
The City Charter should be amended to allow applicants to appeal actions rejected by the City Council to a ULURP Appeals Board consisting of the City Planning Commission and Council Speaker.
The City Charter should be amended to focus ULURP on zoning and shift review of non-zoning actions and modest rezoning applications with no adverse impacts to City agencies or commissions.
The Charter could be modified to shift review and approval of smaller rezoning projects to the City Planning Commission.
Key Data
2 to 3 years
— The time required for private rezoning application approval under the current land use decision-making process.
$82,000
— The additional cost added to each housing unit by the current land use decision-making process.
90 days
— The combined time currently taken by Community Board and Borough President advisory reviews.
14 months
— The median time to approve dispositions of City-owned land through the Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s Urban Development Action Area Program.
15%
— The minimum amount by which the ULURP process increases the cost of small residential buildings.
The New York City Charter should be amended to mandate a statistically representative resident feedback survey every five years, alongside stricter rules for Rainy Day Fund deposits and withdrawals. Additionally, the City must provide detailed explanations for significant budget estimation discrepancies, specifically when tax revenues or expenditures shift by more than 10 percent or executive estimates deviate from Comptroller projections by over 20 percent.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
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 when tax revenues or major program expenditures are projected to change more than 10 percent in any year.
The Charter should require detailed explanation of the causes of significant annual changes or estimation differences when executive expense budget estimates vary more than 20 percent from estimates by the City or State Comptrollers.
Local law should require mandatory formula-determined deposits, limit withdrawals to a recession or severe emergency, and set a target size for the Rainy Day Fund.
Key Data
$3.6 billion
— Amount added in this fiscal year's quarterly budget modifications to support current year spending for expenses that were predictable when the budget was adopted.
10 percent
— Threshold for requiring a detailed explanation of the causes of significant annual changes or estimation differences for tax revenues or major program expenditures.
20 percent
— Threshold for requiring a detailed explanation of the causes of significant annual changes or estimation differences when executive expense budget estimates vary from estimates by the City or State Comptrollers.
five years
— Frequency at which the City should be required to conduct and publish a statistically valid resident feedback survey.
New York City's land use decision-making process is currently too uncertain, lengthy, and costly, often discouraging development and failing to address citywide needs. Reforming the City Charter to better align land use decisions with strategic planning goals and balance neighborhood concerns with citywide requirements is essential to increase housing and job growth.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The process should evaluate proposals based on potential benefits and alignment with the goals of its Charter-mandated strategic plan and other plans.
Advisory reviews at the community level should be more collaborative, participatory, and productive.
Balancing citywide needs and neighborhood concerns should not be circumvented by member deference.
The City should offer ample opportunity for as-of-right development while also facilitating approval of discretionary actions aligned with citywide goals for jobs, housing, and resiliency.
Reforming the Charter’s land-use decision-making processes would enable the City to modernize the zoning code to increase as-of-right zoning capacity, give private landowners guidance and predictability, and encourage projects that advance City priorities and goals.
Key Data
$82,000
— A two-year-long review process increases construction costs by as much as $82,000 per unit.
2.5 years
— Private rezoning applications filed between 2014 and 2017 took an average of 2.5 years to secure approvals.
30,000
— Compromises demanded by the City Council to secure approval for the City of Yes plan cut nearly 30,000 potential units.
14 months
— The median time to approve dispositions of City-owned land through the Urban Development Action Area Program was 14 months.
60 percent
— Of the 171 private proposals that came forward in the four years studied, 60 percent were ultimately approved.
10 percent
— Privately initiated rezonings account for only 10 percent of new housing units completed in New York City.
Voters should support Question 3, which mandates the publication of Fiscal Impact Statements before legislative hearings to improve transparency and decision-making regarding city costs. While the proposed changes to the capital planning process in Question 5 are unlikely to have a material effect, the fiscal impact requirements for legislation represent a necessary step toward informed governance.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
Voters should cast 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 publish a Fiscal Impact Statement (FIS) for each bill at or before any Committee hearing or vote on proposed legislation.
The City Council should notify the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) eight days before an upcoming hearing to allow for fiscal impact estimation.
Key Data
eight days
— The required advance notification period for the City Council to notify the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget before a hearing.
three days
— The deadline by which the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget must provide its own fiscal impact estimate before a hearing to be included in the Fiscal Impact Statement.
six to four months
— The compression of the formal response and revision process for the Ten-Year Capital Strategy involving the City Planning Commission and Borough Presidents.
The 2024 Charter Revision Commission considered requiring a periodic resident feedback survey on the ballot but ultimately deferred the proposal for future study. Implementing such a survey would provide critical data on resident satisfaction with city services, which is currently lacking in the Mayor's Management Report.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The City should conduct a periodic, statistically valid and representative resident feedback survey to inform management and operations.
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 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 PMMR that include numerical targets.
66.4 percent
— share of restaurants inspected in fiscal year 2024.
3,026
— deaths from unintentional drug overdoses in fiscal year 2023.
$57 million
— spending on HRA food assistance programs in fiscal year 2023.
16,919
— target for the number of patients treated with buprenorphine.
46.7 million pounds
— of food distributed by City Food Connection in 2023.
The New York City Charter should be amended to improve fiscal transparency and management by strengthening legislative fiscal impact statements, requiring accurate financial plan estimates, and establishing clear rules for the Rainy Day Fund and debt service limits. Additionally, the city should mandate a statistically valid resident feedback survey every five years to better inform service quality and management.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The Charter should be revised to require publication of the City Council Fiscal Impact Statement at least 72 hours prior to the initial Committee meeting.
The Charter should be revised to require the Independent Budget Office to either release its own Fiscal Impact Statement or certify the reasonableness of the Council estimate within 30 days for high-cost proposals.
The Charter should be revised to require the financial plan to include a detailed explanation for significant year-over-year variation in projected tax revenues or program expenditures.
The Charter should be revised to require the City to conduct a resident survey at least once every five years, with statistically valid results published at the Community Board level.
The Charter should be revised 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.
The Charter should be revised to add a provision that debt service payments may not exceed 15 percent of projected tax revenue in any year of the financial plan.
Key Data
$100 Billion
— Estimated long-term liability for other postemployment benefits.
15%
— Proposed cap on debt service as a percentage of tax revenues.
16%
— Proposed minimum target size for the Rainy Day Fund as a percentage of tax revenue.
3%
— Proposed tax revenue growth threshold for mandatory Rainy Day Fund deposits.
2%
— Proposed threshold for a severe emergency, defined as a revenue loss or expenditure increase of this amount.
72 hours
— Proposed minimum time for publication of the City Council Fiscal Impact Statement prior to a committee meeting.
The City Charter should be amended to require a statistically significant resident survey every five years and establish mandatory rules for the Rainy Day Fund's deposits and withdrawals. Additionally, the Charter should limit debt service to 15 percent of tax revenue and mandate greater transparency and accuracy in legislative fiscal impact statements and executive financial plans.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The Charter should require a city resident survey every five years that is statistically significant at the neighborhood, race/ethnicity, and income-band level.
The Charter should require a local law that sets mandatory deposit and appropriate withdrawal rules for the City’s Rainy Day Fund.
The Charter should limit debt service to 15 percent of City tax revenue to ensure long-term debt does not crowd out operating budget priorities.
The Council should produce legislative Fiscal Impact Statements earlier in the process.
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 only 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 when Executive estimates vary more than 20 percent from estimates by the City or State Comptrollers.
Key Data
15 percent
— The proposed limit on debt service relative to City tax revenue to prevent long-term debt from crowding out operating budget priorities.
$100 million
— The cost 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.
20 percent
— The threshold for variance between Executive estimates and City or State Comptroller estimates that would trigger a requirement for a detailed explanation.
The New York City Charter should be revised to strengthen fiscal oversight by establishing clear rules for the Rainy Day Fund and Retiree Health Benefits Trust, while also mandating earlier publication of fiscal impact statements for legislation. Additionally, the Charter should require a comprehensive performance management system and a recurring, statistically valid resident feedback survey to improve government accountability and service quality.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The Charter should include clearly defined rules governing the Rainy Day Fund, including a target size, mandatory deposits, and strict withdrawal limits.
The Charter should be revised to establish the Retiree Health Benefits Trust, ensuring it accumulates resources for long-term liabilities and is not used as a de-facto rainy day fund.
The Charter should require fiscal impact statements to be published earlier in the legislative process to provide a reasonable estimate of the cost of proposed policies.
The Charter’s requirement that revenue and expenditure estimates be reasonable and appropriate should be bolstered to prevent the understating of necessary expenditures.
The Charter should limit debt service to 15 percent of tax revenues to ensure that long-term debt remains affordable.
The Charter should establish a basic performance management framework that includes management, planning, and reporting requirements across all agencies.
The Charter should require the City to conduct and publish a statistically valid resident feedback survey at least every five years, with results broken down by Community Board and key demographics.
Key Data
17.2%
— The recommended target size for the Rainy Day Fund as a percentage of pre-recession tax revenue.
$100.3 billion
— The total amount of the City's current OPEB liability.
4.8%
— The percentage of the City's OPEB liability currently covered by the Retiree Health Benefits Trust balance.
$3.7 billion
— The annual additional deposit required to fund the normal cost of retiree health benefits.
$10 billion
— The estimated cost of the FHEPS program expansion over five years, according to the Council's own fiscal impact statement.
15%
— The recommended cap for debt service relative to tax revenues.
The City Charter should be amended to mandate Rainy Day Fund rules, establish a Retiree Health Benefits Trust, and strengthen requirements for legislative fiscal impact statements. Furthermore, the Charter should be updated to improve financial plan accuracy, cap debt service at 15% of tax revenues, implement a comprehensive performance management framework, and require periodic resident feedback surveys.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The Charter should require mandatory deposits, withdrawals limited to a recession or severe emergency, and a target size for the Rainy Day Fund.
The Charter should establish the Retiree Health Benefits Trust to ensure it is available to accumulate resources to pay for the City’s long-term liability for retiree benefits.
The Charter should require impact statements be published earlier so the Council and the public have time to consider them.
The Charter should be bolstered to 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 cap debt service at 15% of tax revenues to help ensure that long-term debt is affordable.
The Charter should set forth a framework for a comprehensive performance management process to complement the Mayor’s Management Report.
The Charter should require the City to conduct and publish a statistically valid resident feedback survey at least every 5 years.
Key Data
15%
— The proposed cap on debt service relative to tax revenues to ensure long-term debt affordability.
5 years
— The frequency at which the City should be required to conduct and publish a statistically valid resident feedback survey.
5
— The number of specific Charter revisions recommended to improve the City’s fiscal integrity and stability.
New York City must implement a holistic, growth-oriented housing plan that quantifies needs and sets goals for the entire housing market, rather than focusing solely on affordable units. To achieve this, the city should reform its land-use decision-making processes, including potential Charter reforms to streamline zoning approvals and balance citywide needs with local concerns.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The City should pursue Charter reforms to allow the appeal of City Council-rejected zoning changes to a body of citywide elected officials.
The City should consider Charter reforms to increase the number of votes required to overturn City Planning Commission approvals.
The City should improve the land-use decision-making process so that local representatives have a strong voice but do not hamper the city’s ability to meet its stated housing goals.
The City should implement a holistic, growth-oriented housing plan that quantifies needs and sets goals for the entire housing market, not just affordable units.
The City should pursue broad-based rezonings to increase as-of-right development capacity in every neighborhood.
Key Data
560,000
— Estimated number of housing units New York City needs by 2030 to meet existing needs and future population growth.
50,000
— Number of housing units that need to be permitted annually to meet housing needs, which is twice as many as issued in recent years.
40%
— Percentage fewer housing permits issued per resident in New York City compared to San Francisco.
20%
— Percentage of the city’s residential lots that have enough capacity under current zoning to make it worthwhile to develop.
22,000
— Number of vacant positions in the city that could be utilized to help improve basic operations like speeding up approval times.
New York City must adopt a holistic, growth-oriented housing plan that includes broad upzoning and operational improvements to meet the need for 560,000 new housing units by 2030. Land-use decision-making processes should be improved through Charter reforms, such as allowing appeals of City Council-rejected zoning changes or increasing the vote threshold to overturn City Planning Commission approvals.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The city should pursue Charter reforms to allow the appeal of City Council-rejected zoning changes to a body of citywide elected officials.
The city should pursue Charter reforms to increase the number of votes required to overturn City Planning Commission approvals.
Key Data
560,000
— Number of housing units New York City needs by 2030 to meet existing needs and future population growth.
50,000
— Number of housing units that must be permitted annually to meet housing needs, which is twice as many as issued in recent years.
22,000
— Number of vacant city positions that could be filled to help improve basic operations like speeding up approval times.
20%
— Percentage of the city’s residential lots that have enough capacity under current zoning to make it worthwhile to develop.
New York City needs a well-designed Rainy Day Fund to protect against economic recessions and severe emergencies, as the current methods for saving money are not transparent and fall short of necessary reserves. While voters approved an amendment to the City Charter to create such a fund, state and city leaders must now enact specific legislation to ensure the fund is properly structured and protected from misuse.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
State law should define a recession as two successive quarters of economic decline as indicated by private employment or gross city product.
An emergency should be defined as severe when it is accompanied by a revenue shortfall or expenditure increase equal to or greater than 1 percent of the budget.
Withdrawals from the RDF 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.
Mandatory deposits should be equal to 75 percent of the tax revenue growth above 3 percent to ensure sufficient funds are accumulated.
A target size of 17.2 percent of tax revenue should be established, which can serve as a cap on the size of the RDF.
Key Data
$20 billion
— Estimated three-year shortfall if a recession is similar to those in the recent past.
$9 billion
— Amount the City would have netted in reserves if the recommended strategy had been followed over the last 10 years.
17.2 percent
— Recommended target size of tax revenue for the Rainy Day Fund, which can serve as a cap on the size of the fund.
$1.25 billion
— Amount set aside in reserves for next year, which is less than one-quarter of the estimated near-term revenue loss.
71 percent
— Percentage of voters who approved the amendment to the New York City Charter to create a Rainy Day Fund.
75 percent
— Recommended mandatory deposit rate of tax revenue growth above 3 percent to ensure sufficient funds are accumulated.
New York City voters approved Ballot Question 4, amending the City Charter to establish a Rainy Day Fund that allows the city to save money during economic growth to mitigate service cuts and tax hikes during downturns. This vote provides momentum for necessary changes to state laws in the upcoming legislative session to further strengthen the city's financial management.
Spectrum News NY1 CBC President Andrew Rein explains the importance of voting "yes" on ballot question #4, which would allow for the creation of a “rainy day fund” and let the city save money during prosperous times.
New York City voters are presented with five ballot questions to amend the City Charter, including a proposal to establish a rainy day fund that would allow the city to save during prosperous times to avoid budget cuts or tax increases during recessions. This measure is critical because a potential recession could lead to multi-year revenue shortfalls of at least $15 billion, necessitating protections against harmful service cuts and tax hikes.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
Voters should vote yes to approve the change to the New York City Charter to create a rainy day fund.
Voters should vote yes on Ballot Question 4 to create a rainy day fund.
Key Data
$15 billion
— The potential multi-year revenue shortfall the city could face in the event of a recession.
5 is the number of questions on the ballot for New Yorkers this November. The ballot questions are the product of a year-long review of the NYC Charter by the Charter Revision Commission. Two Commissioners—Carl Weisbrod and the Commission’s Chair Gail Benjamin—joined the pod to tell us more about these…
Ballot Question 4 offers an opportunity to improve New York City's financial management by amending the City Charter to establish a Rainy Day Fund for use during economic downturns or emergencies. While the proposal also includes adjustments to budget processes and office funding, the primary benefit is the creation of this savings mechanism to mitigate the need for service cuts and tax increases.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
New York City voters should support Ballot Question 4 to amend the New York City Charter to allow the City to create and use a Rainy Day Fund (RDF).
Changes to the New York State Financial Emergency Act must limit use of the Rainy Day Fund to times of economic recession and severe emergency to ensure it is not used during periods of economic growth.
The proposed charter amendment establishes a Rainy Day Fund to allow New York City to save resources during periods of economic growth to mitigate spending cuts and tax increases during downturns. This amendment modifies the city's budget process to ensure that using these saved funds does not violate balanced budget requirements or state financial emergency laws.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The Charter Revision Commission should establish a Rainy Day Fund to improve the city's budgeting and financial management framework.
The Charter Revision Commission should specify that deposit and withdrawal rules for the Rainy Day Fund be codified in City law.
The Charter Revision Commission should permit the use of the Rainy Day Fund without violating the City Charter and the State Financial Emergency Act for the City of New York balanced budget requirements.
The Charter Revision Commission should have the proposed language reviewed and modified by those with deep expertise in drafting legislation.
The Charter Revision Commission should consult with staff and other stakeholders to refine the proposed charter amendment language.
Key Data
$100 million
— The minimum amount required for the general reserve at the beginning of any fiscal year.
The 2019 New York City Charter Revision Commission has the opportunity to amend the city's governing document to establish a Rainy Day Fund, which would allow the city to save revenue during economic growth to mitigate service cuts and tax increases during downturns. This mechanism would replace current, problematic fiscal workarounds by creating a structured, legally defined savings account capable of weathering future recessions.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The Charter Revision Commission should approve and advance the creation of a Rainy Day Fund to voters in November.
The commission should leave the charter’s budgeting and financial management framework intact while amending it to allow for a well-structured Rainy Day Fund.
The commission should set the target size of the Rainy Day Fund at 17 percent of tax revenues to effectively mitigate the impacts of a recession or emergency.
The commission should require annual deposits of 75 percent of all tax revenues in excess of 3 percent growth to ensure the fund is adequately capitalized during economic expansions.
The commission should limit withdrawals from the Rainy Day Fund to periods of recession or emergency with economic triggers defined in law.
Key Data
$1.25 billion
— The amount currently included annually for reserves in the city's financial plan.
$15 billion to $20 billion
— The estimated three-year revenue shortfall the city would face during a recession comparable to the past two.
17 percent
— The recommended target size of the Rainy Day Fund relative to tax revenues to mitigate damaging impacts.
75 percent
— The recommended portion of tax revenues in excess of 3 percent growth that should be deposited into the Rainy Day Fund annually.
$9 billion
— The amount the city would have accumulated in a Rainy Day Fund if the proposed deposit policy had been in place during the current record-long recovery.
The 2019 Charter Revision Commission is urged to adopt fiscal reforms, including the creation of a Rainy Day Fund and the proper structuring of the Retiree Health Benefits Trust, while avoiding changes to existing budgetary powers like revenue estimation and fund impoundment. Additionally, the Commission should present proposals as discrete ballot questions and improve capital planning by expanding the asset inventory and aligning Borough President allocations with the 10-year capital strategy.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The Commission should create and permit the use of a Rainy Day Fund (RDF) to improve the City’s Charter-defined financial management framework.
The Charter should be amended to exclude from its balanced budget requirements a deficit that is funded by an RDF that adheres to sound principles.
The Charter should be amended to properly structure the Retiree Health Benefits Trust (RHBT) to prevent its use as a de facto Rainy Day Fund.
The Commission should present proposed amendments as discrete groups of like proposals rather than as a single ballot question so that voters can consider the worthiness of each.
The Commission should not propose to modify the process and timeline for estimating non-property tax revenues, as the current framework reduces the risk of overestimation.
The Commission should not propose to create independent or formula budgets for certain offices, as they 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 changing it may yield unforeseen negative consequences.
The Commission should expand the Charter-defined components of the capital asset inventory to include all assets that meet capital financing eligibility criteria and are owned by a city-controlled agency.
The Commission should require the capital budget Borough President allocations to align with the City’s 10-year capital strategy.
Key Data
$15 billion to $20 billion
— Cumulative tax revenue shortfalls over three years that New York City would face during a recession comparable to the prior two.
$35,000
— Capital financing eligibility criteria for assets included in the capital asset inventory.
5-year
— Useful life requirement for assets included in the capital asset inventory.
The proposed charter revisions aim to eliminate specific mandates that set aside capital appropriations and maintenance funding for Borough Presidents, arguing that existing provisions already grant sufficient authority to identify capital needs. These changes would remove requirements for dedicated capital budget allocations and the maintenance of topographical bureaus, streamlining the budgetary process.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The Commission should eliminate § 211 of the Charter, which sets aside 5 percent of the capital appropriations over which the City has substantial discretion for the five Borough Presidents.
The Commission should eliminate § 102-a of the Charter, which requires the City’s expense budget to dedicate nine-tenths of 1 percent of the cost of Borough Presidents’ capital projects to their maintenance.
The Commission should amend § 216 of the Charter, which refers to the capital budget borough allocation.
The Commission should amend § 249 of the Charter, which refers to the capital budget borough allocation.
The Commission should amend § 82 of the Charter, which requires Borough Presidents to maintain topographical bureaus, as such offices may not be necessary absent the capital budget borough allocation.
Key Data
5 percent
— The portion of capital appropriations over which the City has substantial discretion that is currently set aside for the five Borough Presidents.
nine-tenths of 1 percent
— The portion of the cost of Borough Presidents’ capital projects that the City’s expense budget is required to dedicate to their maintenance.
The 2019 Charter Revision Commission should focus on essential structural changes, such as establishing a Rainy Day Fund, mandating the Retiree Health Benefits Trust Fund, and expanding the city's capital inventory. Additionally, the city should eliminate specific capital budget allocations for Borough Presidents and implement a requirement for statistically valid resident feedback surveys to improve service delivery and accountability.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
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 Fund, require annual deposits, 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 eliminate the capital budget Borough President allocations to focus their roles on identifying borough-based needs.
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 tax revenue shortfall over three years in the event of a recession.
$103.3 billion
— Total OPEB liability at the end of fiscal year 2018.
4.4 percent
— The RHBT balance as a percentage of the total OPEB liability at the end of fiscal year 2018.
$182 million
— Total funding for the Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough Presidents, Community Boards, and the Civilian Complaint Review Board in fiscal year 2019.
5.3 percent
— Average annual growth of City-funded spending over the last 18 years.
2.3 percent
— Average annual rate of inflation over the last 18 years.
The 2019 Charter Revision Commission should focus on structural reforms that improve government effectiveness and accountability while eliminating obsolete, overly detailed provisions that clutter the document. By simplifying the Charter and removing specific operational mandates, the Commission can create a more streamlined framework that avoids the need for constant legislative revision.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The 2019 Commission should broaden its mandate to consider not just additions or amendments to the current Charter, but also simplifications and updates that eliminate obsolete provisions and the need for constant legislative revision.
As part of its top-to-bottom review, the 2019 Commission should also have as a goal to clear out the clutter of overly detailed provisions about operations and the duties and responsibilities of City agencies.
The 2019 Commission should pursue Charter revisions that simplify and update the document to avoid the shortcomings of recent commissions.
Key Data
$100
— The specific dollar cap on fines that can be levied for refusal to allow a building inspector entry to a building.
$10,000
— The specific dollar cap on fines for violations of private sewage disposal systems.
300-plus
— The number of pages in the current City Charter, which contains overly detailed provisions.
3 is the number of proposals on the November 6 ballot from Mayor de Blasio’s Charter Revision Commission. In this episode Commission Chair Cesar Perales discusses the proposed amendments.
Granting "formula budgets" to city agencies, which automatically ties their funding to other budgets, threatens the democratic process by shielding these entities from public scrutiny and limiting fiscal flexibility. Instead of adopting these rigid structures, the city should maintain its current annual budget process, which allows elected officials to allocate funding based on specific, yearly needs.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
The Commission should reject establishing formula budgets for any City agencies or offices besides the Independent Budget Office to maintain fiscal prudence and an open, democratic budget process.
The Commission should oppose granting charter-mandated formula budgets to certain City offices, as doing so would be fiscally imprudent and undermine the established budget process.
The Commission should maintain the current budgetary discretion exercised annually by the Mayor and the City Council, as allocating funding based on particular needs in a given year is the intended goal of the budget process.
Key Data
10%
— The minimum annual budget allocation guaranteed to the Independent Budget Office (IBO) of the approved budget of the Office of Management and Budget.
12.5%
— The increased formula allocation for the IBO to cover estimated costs for newly mandated activities relating to public school performance analysis.
2/3
— The estimated portion of California’s general fund revenues that are earmarked for specific purposes, according to a 2002 report.
1/3
— The portion of the California budget over which the state actually has discretionary control, due to the minimal definition of mandatory spending.
New York City's procurement process is currently hampered by excessive bureaucracy, heavy reliance on paper, and fragmented oversight, resulting in long contract cycles and high administrative costs. To address these issues, the report recommends centralizing procurement oversight, implementing an advanced e-procurement system, and reforming the legal framework to increase the independence of the Procurement Policy Board and raise small purchase limits.
Recommendations related to Charter Revision Commission
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.
No City employees should be PPB members, and members should have fixed terms.
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.
Permit the use of reverse auctions for some commodities.
Key Data
$8.6 billion
— Total amount spent by the City for construction, goods, and services in fiscal year 2001.
12 million
— Estimated number of sheets of paper produced to execute procurements.
$135 million
— Minimum annual savings the City would realize from implementing the recommended procurement reforms.
$200 million
— Likely annual payoff from implementing the recommended procurement reforms.
142,000
— Number of procurement transactions the City completes per year.
$75
— Estimated savings per transaction from implementing an advanced e-procurement system.
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.
