← Max Politics
Max Politics
Finance Chair Linda Lee on the City Council's Budget Response to Mayor Mamdani
00:57:39
New York City Council Finance Chair Linda Lee, a …
Loading summary
Transcript90 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:08]
B
Hello and welcome to MAX Politics. This has been Max coming to you from New York Law School and its center for New York City and State Law. Thanks for tuning in. It's Thursday, April 2, 2026, and today on the show we're continuing to dig into the New York City budget picture as we now have a formal City Council response to Mayor Zoram Hamdani's preliminary budget which he released back on February 17th 17th. Joining me on the show today is City Council Finance Chair Linda Lee, a Queens Democrat who took on that post as the Council's budget point person, working closely with Council Speaker Julie Menon and others at the start of this year under the new council and new council leadership. After Mayor Mamdani presented his $127 billion preliminary budget plan for next fiscal year, which begins July 1 of this year, Councilmember Lee chaired weeks of council budget hearings which helped inform the Council's official response, which it released the day before we're speaking here, which was April 1. There are big differences of opinion between the Mayor and the City Council on how to address the city's budget and budget gap and we'll go over some of them here today as well as discuss with Chair Lee some of the bigger picture of the city's budget, spending savings and so forth, as well as the City Council push for more help from the state government in Albany where a state budget is currently being negotiated. And as we Talk here on April 2, the state has been passing extenders to pay the state's bills while a budget is overdue as the state fiscal year begins April 1st. And we're expecting a new state budget sometime this month, likely before May when Mayor Mamdani must present and an executive budget, the next phase of the city's budget cycle. Now Council Member Lee represents the 23rd Council District out in Eastern Queens. She was first elected to the council in 2021, becoming the first Korean American ever elected to the City Council and the first woman to hold her seat. She was reelected in 2023 and then 2025 and is now in a four year term which will be her last due to term limits. The new Council Speaker Julie Menon, named Lee Chair of the Finance Committee, one of the most important positions in the City Council of this year and the four year term. And Lee thus became the first Asian American Finance Chair in the City Council. Prior to taking office, Linda Lee was President CEO of Korean Community Services of Metropolitan New York, New York's first community based social service organization focused on the Korean community. When she got to the City Council. She first chaired the Committee on Mental Health, Disabilities and Addiction, and she was last on the show a while back now. And to discuss that work and the council's mental health roadmap, a lot to discuss ahead with Council member Linda Lee here on the show. City budget negotiations are in full swing. Mayor Mandani did not take kindly to the City Council's response to this preliminary budget. And things got pretty testy, especially on social media with council members taking him to task for his criticism of the preliminary budget response from the council. So a lot to dig into here on the substance with Finance Chair Linda Lee in a second, very briefly, if you missed any recent episodes of the show, been speaking a lot on the city budget, especially with New York City Comptroller Mark Levine. I've done two different episodes with him over the last couple months talking about city budgeting, but also the city economy and prospects for economic growth. So most recently on the show, we got into the latest in the city budget picture as well as his take on what's going on with the city economy and where it's headed and the the importance of an economic growth strategy from the city administration. Prior to that, I was joined by State Senator Gustavo Rivera of the Bronx, who gave a lot of insight on state budget negotiations. And then previously I talked about one of the biggest items up for debate and negotiation at the state level on policy, which is potential changes to state environmental review laws that could potentially speed up housing development significantly. Governor Hochul has proposed changes to the state's Environmental Quality Review act secra, and that's being negotiated with the legislature. So I had two housing experts on to talk about that push and much more on city housing issues. That was Howard Slacken and Anne Marie Gray joining me a few weeks ago. And then the only other highlight to mention in recent episodes, City Council member Lincoln Ressler joined me to talk about a whole bunch of interesting things at the city level, including his bill to create a Department of Community Safety, which potentially, if negotiated with the Mamdani administration, could help the new mayor fulfill his promise of a Department of Community Safety, which he started by launching an Office of Community Safety within the mayor's office. So that's a scaled down version of a potential fulfillment of a department. So got into a lot there with council member Ressler. That's a sampling of recent highlights. A lot to check out if you missed any of those after you listen to this one. All right. I'm very pleased to welcome back to Max Politics, New York City Council member Linda Lee, a Queen's Democrat and chair of the City Council Finance Committee, which is tasked with oversight and negotiation of the city budget in concert with the City Council Speaker, Julie Menon, other council members, the budget negotiating team, and the full 51 member city council, more or less. There are lots of questions here, as I was getting at in the intro, about where city budget negotiations stand. We're speaking here on April 2nd. So there's still some time before the end of June when the city budget needs to be finalized, but big questions about spending and revenue and savings and the structural balance of the city's budget, getting more aid from Albany, finding more efficiencies without cutting services, and much more. Council Member Lee, thanks for joining me to discuss where things stand right now. How are you?
- [06:03]
A
Good. Thank you so much for having me on again.
- [06:06]
B
Thanks for taking the time. Been a little while we spoke when you were in the past term chairing the mental health committee of the council, and that was a very interesting conversation, but glad to have you back now chairing the Finance Committee and getting into city budget negotiations in the deepest way possible here.
- [06:24]
A
So.
- [06:26]
B
All right, big picture. We started the year just three months ago. Now a tiny bit over that. New mayor, new comptroller, new council speaker, new council finance chair, et cetera, et cetera. But middle of the city's fiscal year, so it's always a tricky time. But there were alarm bells being rung by the new comptroller, Mark Levine, then by Mayor Mamdani about the under budgeting and large budget gaps that were needed to be filled in the current fiscal year 2026 and the next fiscal year 2027, which begins July 1st of this year. So the mayor starts to put together his plan, then the council's looking at things too, and holding hearings on the mayor's plan. So I want, I want you to hopefully help people understand sort of the big fundamental differences here between how the mayor is approaching the budget and how you and the speaker and the council are approaching. But first, is it fair to say for people that we're talking about something sort of marginal here? Very important, but marginal. Right. We're talking about the last maybe five to $10 billion of a roughly 125 to $130 billion budget. Is that fair to say that we're sort of, we're sort of, there's a lot of agreement on roughly, you know, 115 to $120 billion of the budget, basically.
- [07:43]
A
So, yeah. I mean, as you said, big picture wise, I think that there are a lot of Things in the budget that on the council we can agree on with the mayor, certainly on the affordability side of the fact that we wanna make sure that New Yorkers are able to stay in the city, that their services are protected. And so we are talking about mostly in FY26 and 27, closing that budget deficit gap, which as we know, the mayor init had said that it was about a $12 billion gap and then it's 7 and now it's down to 5.4. And so, you know, this is our job. You know, we're just, I feel like starting the real process of looking and digging deeper into the budget and just going back and forth and looking at numbers and comparing notes with each other. And so I think, you know, on our side on the city council, we really feel strongly we need to deliver on a smart and responsible budget that is going to protect and the services that New Yorkers rely on, you know, and we feel very strongly, and I know that we're probably going to go into this more, but we feel strongly that we're going to be able to deliver on the smart and responsible budget without having to raise property taxes, without having to cut services and without having to drain the rainy day funds. And you know, this is something where we want to be a partner with Albany as well as with the mayor on. And you know, we have a lot of shared responsibilities for New Yorkers and shared goals. And so this is something that is just the beginning process now that we're starting with the negotiations.
- [09:25]
B
Right. And so some of what you just got at is the root of where there's some disagreement. Right? You say the budget can be balanced, these gaps can be filled without property tax increases, without using the rainy day funds and without service cuts. But the question there, and again, those are all shared goals with the mayor, Right. Even though he outlined a budget with a potential property tax increase and use of reserves, he was adamant in saying this is not what I want to do. So there's shared priorities there. But the question is, how do you really get to closing those billions of dollars in gaps? And as you got at, one very key player will be Albany and the state budget that's due. Well, it's overdue now, but it'll be coming in any, any week. Now they're, they're passing extenders to pay the state bills and they'll do their thing in Albany. But, but as you said, it's, it's relatively early in the process here. We'll have a state budget, then we'll Have a mayor's executive budget buyer first and then some more council hearings. You just chaired a month worth there. I wanted to ask you to reflect on that first time as, you know, council finance chair, you've been in the council, of course you've participated in budget hearings. But what were your big takeaways from those weeks of council hearings on the mayor's plenary budget? I mean, you really got a chance to grill, you know, top officials across city agencies and then culminating with the mayor's budget director. Were there a couple of big takeaways you had from those hearings and your experience doing that and things that you felt like you learned from those hearings or you got at or frustrations from those hearings? What were your big sort of takeaways from those weeks of examination?
- [11:01]
A
Sure. So it's interesting because I wanted to try to make it a point to attend every single budget hearing, just because I think that's the best way to learn is just by sitting in those spaces and hearing what the commissioners are talking about, what some of their struggles are, things that they're trying to accomplish and what their goals are. And, of course, a lot of the, you know, conversation, at least from my end, was around the chief savings officers, which we know that the mayor put into place. And, you know, it was interesting. So the directive that they received from the mayor's office is that for FY26, which is the current fiscal year we're in right now, they need to look for 1.5% in savings. And then for the following fiscal year, for FY27, they need to look for 2.5% inefficiencies in savings. So it's interesting what came out of some of those hearings in terms of how some of the agencies, obviously, with the larger budgets, I think it'll be interesting to see where they land in terms of their savings as well as, you know, some of the smaller agencies, which quite honestly don't have as much room to shave off their budgets. But one of the things that I noticed is, you know, throughout this whole process, when they're talking about who they contract with, you know, one of the questions I'd asked OMB one of the last days was, do you guys do group purchasing at all in the city? And perhaps is this a way where you can find efficiencies? Because it seems like every agency has different vendors that they contract with for various things. Right. But when you look at our city's budget and the numbers of employees and the types of services that we provide, I feel like that's one area where I think it would be interesting moving forward to see how the city can look at that as a potential savings. Because obviously, if you're buying things in more bulk, hopefully the idea is you can get them, you know, at less expensive prices. And that could be anything from paper and pens to licensing on software that we all need to use for, you know, services. And so. And. And I know that specifically, I know the speaker had brought this up yesterday in the press conference. But, you know, one of the things that was also surprising is that, you know, some of the agencies, like Department of Education, they do a lot of contracting with consulting firms like Ernst and Young. And there has not really been any sort of audit or, you know, I don't know when the last time that they RFP these out to see, you know, who would be the best consultant to provide these services. But, for example, Ernst and young is paid 17 million for their services with Department of Education, but there has not really been any sort of audit on. Is, are they doing a great job? Are they delivering on outcomes? Are they providing information that's necessary to do? So? I think those are the types of things, hopefully, moving forward, that we can dig deeper into that. You know, and honestly, when I asked the chancellor, do you guys do group purchasing? Like, you know, you have a ton of, like, there's a ton of schools across New York City, like, that would be maybe potentially beneficial to principals and staff. And he smiled because I think that's a conversation that they're having right now in doe. And to be honest, I was a little surprised that that hasn't been had before. So it'll. It'll. It'll be interesting to see what the actual reports are that come back. I know they were due March 20th.
- [14:42]
B
Yeah. I was going to ask if you were frustrated that we haven't seen more of that. You know, the mayor released a list of some initial ones that were sort of offered and accepted, but it was a very small percentage of the $1.7 billion promised.
- [14:54]
A
Right, exactly. So we had asked when we first got the briefing from the mayor's office, because that's when they initially told us, okay, the reports are coming. They're due March 20th. Okay. So I was kind of, like, nudging. So our preliminary budget hearings are still happening after the 20th. Like, how soon are we going to be able to see some of those numbers and savings? And there was no definitive timeline there, but I do think, hopefully we'll be able to. And this is something I asked OMB during Our final day of hearings was, you know, instead of waiting all at once towards the end, like, are there numbers that you can release as they come? Right. And so hopefully those reports will be forthcoming soon.
- [15:38]
B
I know the council's waiting for those and I know the press is waiting for those and lots of other people. To your point, even in the initial menu of some of the ones that were accepted, the mayor, there were some outside contracts that were being canceled or renegotiated in there. So I think to your point there, you know, the mayor seems to have a similar like mindedness around looking at outside contracting consultants and so forth. I mean, he talked about this on the campaign trail as well.
- [16:06]
A
Right.
- [16:07]
B
You know, that's sort of, that sort of been out there though for a very long time as you're getting at. And there hasn't been a lot of action on that. So maybe that is. I know and I know Speaker Menon has talked about that a lot, so.
- [16:15]
A
Exactly. She's been very big on the no bid contracts and getting rid of those.
- [16:20]
B
The problem, of course, as you know, is a lot of these things can be multi year contracts. You know, they can be canceled for cause or maybe with a penalty. You know, it's tricky once you really get under the hood. It takes a lot of long term planning. It's not necessarily all things that can be done very quickly.
- [16:38]
A
Yeah. And I think, you know, that's the difference, right. Is that, you know, for service providers, for example, you have contracts with nonprofits and usually those RFPs tend to run anywhere between three to five years. Right. In length. Whereas I would say consulting contracts, maybe there's a different sort of set of rules and regulations around those where, you know, perhaps they need to be regulated or reports need to be more frequent. So I think, you know, that's something that we would need to look at in the future as well.
- [17:10]
B
And I know on the bulk purchasing, you know, I know that some of this comes up from time to time. There's an announcement maybe about new purchases that are going to save the city money in certain ways or whatever it might be. Maybe there's the, you know, some of the discussion of the new trash bins and things like that. But I do remember this is, this is probably almost 10 years ago now. But I remember Deputy Mayor Phil Thompson under Bill de Blasio, he talked a lot about this idea of using the city's purchasing power better. I think he was, he might not have been thinking about it as a cost saving measure so much, but sort of better services, better Products, et cetera, but also some cost savings. I think I remember that discussion going back a ways. But again, to this point, you know, I'm looking back at this list that the mayor released and it was, you know, again, it is fairly heavy on contracts. You know, Department of Social Services will insource nearly two dozen IT contracts saving $600,000 in fiscal year 27. You know, the EDC will insource a marketing contract saving $626,000. So there that's interesting that that might be a shared agenda here as we talk about some of the differences in opinion between the two sides of City Hall. Right. Okay. So you sort of agreed with the mayor on, you know, you've taken his sort of assessment and the new look at the budget and trying to account for the under budgeting and all these additional expenses that the city is now trying to be more sort of transparent and realistic about. And you're sort of saying, okay, we accept generally that there's this $5.4 billion budget gap to fill after, you know, re estimates of revenue and some other mechanisms, a little bit more state money that was promised the mayor's savings plan. You all then up that to about 6 billion because there were some things the mayor wasn't funding that you wanted to make sure that got funding. So you're looking for $6 billion and you have a plan now to get that 6 billion. Will you go over sort of the big buckets of how you got to that 6 billion without raising property taxes, without using the rainy day fund and without the major, you know, tax revenue through state approvals that Mayor Mamdani says he really wants, you know, he wants these significant increases in personal income and corporate taxes on, you know, high earning individuals and corporations to get to get those billions. But you're saying at the council now you can get to $6 billion here without any of the above property taxes, using the rainy day funds, new taxes from the state level. So what are your big ways of getting there, if you don't mind, and an example or two that you can give.
- [19:49]
A
Sure. So I think that where we can agree with the mayor is that, you know, and he even said this on his campaign trail, is that there is a lot of waste. Right. That is in the budget. And realistically I think we can get there with doing some of the saving measures exercises which I'll go through. I think what's not realistic and just to reiterate is that, you know, what's not realistic is that we cannot do this, especially now during A time when New Yorkers really are struggling so much financially by raising the property taxes. And I'll just give one example of that, because, you know, I know that in some, you know, reports, they were saying this would be a modest increase. But, you know, it depends who you're talking to. I would beg to differ. Right. I have parts of southeast Queens in my district, for example, in Queens Village, where you have two union workers, right? It could be a bus operator as well as a teacher. And they've spent, you know, a lot of time and hard work earning their ability to purchase their first home. Right. And this is their generational wealth. And so if they're paying $10,000 already in property taxes, and then to say that we're going to increase it by 9.5, almost 10%, you know, that's. That's. Those are real dollars that's going to impact that family. And it's not like their incomes are necessarily going to be increasing. It's how do we make sure that folks are not getting pushed out of their homes and that they can afford to stay here? Because, you know, we would love. We need people to stay in New York, and we would love for people to stay in New York City. And then in terms of cutting services, I just want to, you know, take two steps back with this, because I think there's been a lot of misinformation in social media about the fact that we on the council are cutting services. First of all, I just want to emphasize this is not our budget. This is the mayor's budget, and this is our response. You know, what came out yesterday on April 1st is our response to his budget. And I also want to emphasize that there was about $1.1 billion that the mayor did not include in services that we are saying in our budget response need to be put back in. For example, there were. You know, this is something that I'm sure you're familiar with because we fought so hard the last four years as a council to make sure that library, parks, funding, you know, cultural groups don't get cut, because a lot of them do provide essential services to the community. And I think of, for example, Flushing Library. I don't know if you've been to Flushing Library, but it is a hub of activity. There is so much going on there. There's all sorts of adult literacy classes signing up for food stamps there. They literally have so many services that are provided at Flushing Library. So when I think about the overall budget and how we need to make sure that we're protecting New Yorkers by not cutting services. That's the first thing, you know, that's like a visual that comes to my mind because I, you know, when I was in my former nonprofit days, we partnered so much with Flushing Library to provide services to the community. So I think, you know, when we,
- [22:53]
B
since you asked, we haven't talked about this, but I grew up in Whitestone and Flushing, so I did.
- [22:58]
A
Okay.
- [22:58]
B
Yes, I've been to Flushing. It's been a while. I still have family in the area, but I haven't gone to Flushing Library in probably decades. But I used to go all the time, so even.
- [23:07]
A
Yeah. And I feel like it's even busier now than it was before, probably.
- [23:10]
B
But, yeah, I went. I went to elementary school and Flushing and was over there all the time. Anyway.
- [23:15]
A
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So.
- [23:16]
B
Yes. My answer is yes, but not in a long time.
- [23:19]
A
Yes.
- [23:19]
B
Had to interrupt you to answer the question.
- [23:21]
A
No, it's fine.
- [23:22]
B
No, it was rhetorical. But since I did have an answer.
- [23:25]
A
No, no, no. And it's. We. We should go back and get the food around there sometime soon.
- [23:29]
B
Yes. Good, good, good.
- [23:31]
A
So all that.
- [23:31]
B
Right, Point taken. You had other priorities. Right. So. Yeah, go ahead.
- [23:34]
A
Right. So, yeah. So I mean, I just want to paint the bigger picture that, like, obviously with. With this budget, you know, we, we, you know, because there's this framing that's out there that the council is cutting services. That's absolutely not the case. Right. We are trying to actually put a lot of these essential services back into what was not included in the mayor's preliminary budget. So that's something to note. And then also, you know, like you said and mentioned, we think that we can do this without having to drain the rainy day fund. And one thing I want to say about the rainy day fund, which I know the narrative is out there, but I just want to re. Emphasize this in a slightly different way, which is that it really is going to obviously impact our borrowing ability, which is going to impact the houses that we build, the bond rating, our ability as a city to. To get money for lot of really important projects. Right. Like housing projects and building in the city. So this is the rating.
- [24:33]
B
Rating agencies raised some red flags about the mayor's proposal to use reserves, largely because as everybody's talking about, it's about a structural big picture. Does the revenue match the expenses? So you can't really sort of paper it over in one. I mean, you can kick the can down the road another year maybe, but, you know, it's a structural issue issue. Yeah.
- [24:54]
A
Right. And this was one of the questions that I had when we had our briefing with the mayor's office and we noticed that they were draining the, the, the rainy day fund is, you know, how is this going to impact potentially our bond rating? That was like one of the first questions that I had because that's going to have a lot of other implications and a trickle down effect in terms of what we do in the future. So.
- [25:19]
B
And was their answer, don't worry about it, this is not going to, you know, did they sort of poo, poo that concern? Because now it looks like honestly they're scrambling a little bit. Yeah.
- [25:27]
A
Right. So I'm not going to lie. That was one of my concerns. And the response that we received back is, well, it's not going to really have that much of an impact because we are putting it back in fiscal year 28. And I said, okay, but a lot can happen in between that time. Right. So, and especially when the economy is, is not in a downturn, we're not in a recession or fiscal crisis right now. So I think that is setting off some alarm bells for these, creating credit agency ratings. Right. And so the way that we're looking at this budget is, and these are just like, I guess, back of the paper napkin type of numbers, which, you know, is if you just look at what we know is there and again, we're going based off of OMB's numbers. These are not our numbers. Right.
- [26:17]
B
So.
- [26:17]
A
And I think there's also a misunderstanding of what vacancies and accruals mean in the budget.
- [26:24]
B
So yeah, this is one of the, this is one of the big fundamental issues right now between the city council and the mayor's office is you are saying there's more savings related to city personnel and vacancies of budgeted personnel. And they're saying if what you're saying is real on those savings, that means cutting positions and services. Can, you know, clarify.
- [26:45]
A
Yeah, Right. So I just want to be very clear that is not what that means. And this is not what we as a council are saying. We're not saying get rid of those positions. If we could hire up, to be honest, that would be great because from what the budget hearings were like, it seems like they need more staffing, especially for example at DCWP where they have a lot more in their portfolio compared to the last couple of years. And so they are going to need to staff up. Right. So we're not in any way saying to cancel out or get rid of those positions, but what we are saying is, and if you want to simply put it this way, right, like my salary is $12 a year, right. And so I get hired in March after going through months of onboarding with the government because it takes forever to do the background checks. So finally they decide in March, okay, we're going to give you an offer. Your start date is April 1st. Right. So that means that I have three months left out of the fiscal year where my salary is going to be counted in the budget. But there's nine months worth of salary that has not. So what we're saying is, okay, obviously I'm going to get paid 3, $3 right. For April, May, June, but there's $9 left that they the city has not spent on my salary. So all we're simply saying is okay, recognize that $9 as a savings. And I just want to also mention that the numbers we have on the these are not because I know that for example, in some agencies they have state and federally grant funded positions. We're not talking about those. We're strictly talking about city tax levy dollar positions that are in the budget. And you know, IBO also in our first day of the budget hearings said themselves, you know, we, and you know, IBO and the city council, our numbers tend to be a little different, but they actually are more closely aligned with our number, which is they had said during the hear that it's about 681 million that they're sort of projecting in terms of savings in terms of like, you know, positions that have not yet been filled that are in the budget. And our numbers are a bit higher than that. But you know, if you, if you include fringe as well as the salaries, you know, it gets to a pretty high number. And that's just looking at one area of the budget. Right. And so I think that's the point that we as a council are making is that if you continue to look at some of the fees that are not being collected, some of the savings that are not being recognized, all we're simply saying is put it in the budget so that we have a better sense of what that gap is going to be.
- [29:27]
B
So you're talking though about, you know, five to six billion dollars here of these re estimations as you're getting at of city revenues and city expenditures, you know, looking at more efficiencies and savings and reevaluations of contracts and some of your estimates. So now we are getting into the council's, you know, the council's estimates and analysis here that differ from the mayor so what's your insight? What's your sense from conversations with your counterparts in the mayor's OMB Office of Management budget, why they weren't willing to recognize these same billions of dollars that you have now identified? I mean, I know obvious, obviously there's ongoing personnel there over the course of administrations, but then there's also new leadership that just came in from the mayor to the first deputy mayor who's got a budget background to the budget director. You know, they haven't, haven't been there forever or for years. So of course it can take time to sort of really dig in. But the council's finding all this money, is it just a different analysis? Are you being a little too, you know, they would argue you're being a little too liberal with the way you're counting things now, and they don't want to sort of take those chances of recognizing, you know, potentially billions of dollars more in whether it's savings or revenue to get to this number. What's your sense of the real differences here in a lot of this accounting?
- [30:55]
A
Right. So again, I think we're going based off of historical data and information and patterns that we're seeing. We're going based off of what was in the last budget mod, what was included in some of those numbers, and using estimates based on trends that we know are happening. Right. Like, for example, there are some fees that are coming in and I just have to remember which one I'm talking about. But there's, there's a couple fees that the city has already collected, for example. Right. That are coming in higher than what was projected in the budget. So there's examples like that that we put into the preliminary, preliminary budget response on our side where we're just simply saying, okay, typically speaking, we know that certain revenues and incomes are going to be around 2 or $300 million. And so why not just put that into the budget this year when we know that it's going to happen? So there are certain things like that that we know will probably be in the budget for the executive coming out in May. They just haven't recognized it yet. Get so far. And I think, you know, again, unfortunately, we don't have access to the numbers like they have access to the numbers. And so unless there is something drastically different than in the past budget years, I guess we'll see when it comes to the executive budget because at that point they really have to recognize everything that's in there.
- [32:20]
B
But now the mayor's out there saying, you're double counting, like they've found a lot of these savings and you're now double counting them.
- [32:27]
A
But we did our own numbers and even if there is some double counting, it still doesn't add up in terms of them. Like in other words, it's the, the,
- [32:38]
B
they're not recognizing the savings.
- [32:40]
A
Right. We're, I still don't think they're recognizing enough of the savings. Right. And so there, there is that double counting that may be happening, but it's not as high as I think what they're insinuating.
- [32:53]
B
And again, there's just a different, there's different accounting on, on a lot of this, like the vacancy accruals and savings from, from unfilled vacancies. And they, and they say, I believe some of that is, well, the agencies do wind up spending some of that money on, you know, part time people or contracting or different things. That's not the actual, you know, onboarding of personnel, is that right?
- [33:19]
A
Which is what we, we heard the same thing. But again, again, we're just going off of OMB's numbers of full time positions. We're not counting the seasonal workers like in Parks Department, we're not counting part time workers. These are what is in the budget for the city agencies that are for full time employees. So
- [33:42]
B
your commitment here is to say we don't want to reduce the 15,000 vacant, you know, budgeted vacancies, but we just want to account for when they're not filled or they're only filled for part of a fiscal year, as you were giving that example. And you know, we're sort of happy to reevaluate the budget if for some reason the city can go on a bigger hiring spree. Is it fair to say that, you know, what you're saying is we just want to recognize the savings on people who haven't been hired, but we're not looking to permanently slash these budget positions.
- [34:17]
A
Yes, that is absolutely what we're trying to say is like we're not even. And that's, that's, that's why I think it's interesting because, you know, in my nonprofit too, whenever we had budgeting, you know, the budget is sort of a guideline of how you think you're going to spend the money. But then throughout the year you adjust as the actual real world expenses come in. Right. And you just kind of have to readjust every couple months or so. And so the last budget mod that we had, the big one, was obviously in November. But you know, the numbers, for example, on the unfilled positions that are in the budget that was from both the January and February numbers. And so, you know, these are things that are somewhat recent in data as a data point. And so, you know, and I will emphasize that we are still early on. I know some people who maybe aren't familiar with the budget process may say, oh, it's April and you guys have to pass this in June. But it actually, I feel like we're at like the 50 yard line maybe at this point. You know, there's still a lot that is going.
- [35:21]
B
I don't even know if I put you there.
- [35:23]
A
Yeah, yeah, I was going to say maybe 25. Yeah, maybe up to 25.
- [35:27]
B
Yeah. The state, I mean the state budget is going to say a lot. And I want to get to that in a minute. Yeah, yeah. No, again, it's, it is, it is relatively early days, but again, staking out, you know, staking out. Some of the different positions that the two sides of City hall are staking out here are important because they do set a lot of the framework for negotiations. And at the same time some of these things have the. Have a way of sort of going by the wayside as, as new things develop. So you put out your budget response. Now obviously Mayor Mamdani wants the city council and the city council speaker especially to be supportive of his call for new revenue raisers at the state level, higher income taxes on, on high earners and corporations. And she hasn't done that. And so you put out this plan and it's again, not asking for those revenue raises at the state level. And again, maybe there's some very, just, very valid, very real differences of opinion and accounting and analysis from the two sides of City hall on some of the things we were just talking about that are pretty in the weeds of the budgeting. Right. So there's those two things going on. There's like the big picture and part of the mayor's whole platform is these tax increases to, you know what he says, create a more progressive, fair, you know, tax system and have the rich pay their fair share, etc. And also the. Then have more money to spend on city services and fix the gaps and all that. And then also maybe some of these differences of opinion and analysis. But so you have those two big pillars there, let's just say. But were you surprised with how he responded to the council response, his response to your response? He, he. I mean, that was, that was a pretty aggressive response. You know, he obviously was very much directing his. It really just at the speaker, but broadly at the council and Saying again, as we've been talking about here, it would slash, you know, billions from agencies and force cuts to services, which, again, you're disputing, etc. Etc. But it got pretty, it got, it got pretty. Escalated pretty quickly. Were you surprised by that? And what do you, what do you think is at the root of that?
- [37:30]
A
Yeah, I mean, I was surprised, I'm not going to lie, because again, going back to the partnership aspect of how we as a council are looking to, we need to partner, obviously, with the other side of City hall as well as with Albany. Right. And so it, it felt, it was a little surprising that it went so hard and, and by the way, so quickly right after our response. And so part of me was like, I wonder if they read the report first, because that's not what we're saying. And, and I just, I, I, you know, and I think, I think it's a bit of a distraction, I'm not gonna lie, because I think that they're talking about, you know, the Speaker's wealth and this and that. Like, if we want to really go there, like, you know, there's wealth on both sides. Like, like, meaning, like, across.
- [38:15]
B
I don't think the mayor has brought up. I don't think. I haven't heard the mayor.
- [38:18]
A
Yeah, I know some of the narrative, Right. The narrative out there. And when I say both sides, meaning, like, across the spectrum of the parties. Right. Like, if whether you're talking about, you know, folks, you know, on the Republican side, the Democrat side, like, it's, it's everywhere. Right. So I don't think that's a real thing that we should be focusing on. Right. I think it's a distraction. And I think, you know, what we need to focus on really, is what we can control. Right. And obviously there are areas of the state budget I think we are calling for to maybe get some more aid on some of the funding. But one thing, you know, going, going back to my original point, like, we, we as a council, we need to have a budget that protects New Yorkers, that is smart and responsible. And at a time when so are facing financial struggles, I don't think that calling on taxes, tax increases on personal income taxes, as well as the property tax makes sense at this point. And so, you know, I think there are other ways that we can perhaps partner with Albany. For example, Ames funding is something that stopped under Cuomo and every municipality in, you know, the city gets it and we don't. Right. I mean, in the state, I'm sorry, and New York City Doesn't.
- [39:36]
B
And so AIM aid, aid and incentives to municipalities from the state. And yes, New York City was, was carved out right around, I'm not sure where exactly when it started, but around 15 years ago.
- [39:49]
A
Yeah, right. And I think it was originally under, when Cuomo was governor and de Blasio was the mayor. And I have to look back.
- [39:57]
B
I mean, the state was dealing with huge budget issues around that, around that, that when Cuomo first came to office. But Bloomberg was mayor then. Anyway, we'd have to look back. Exactly.
- [40:05]
A
But yes, so there's examples like that as well as, for example, the foundation aid, which weights higher for ELL students, English language learners, as well as those that are in shelters. And so there are ways that we can, I think, partner with the state to see if we can receive additional funding to the city without having to rate raise property taxes and without having to raise income taxes. And one thing I will say is that to something that you had mentioned before is that if we really are looking at the inequalities and looking at helping out poor New Yorkers, then one thing that we should be doing is let's talk about the broken property tax system and reform that first before we propose on raising property taxes. I think that's an important point that's getting lost is that that, you know, the property tax system in New York City is broken. And so you have folks in southeast Queens that are paying $10,000 on their homes that are not worth half as much as some folks in other parts. And I think the example that has been used is, you know, the brownstone apartments that are in, you know, parts of downtown Brooklyn that are worth a lot more, but only paying a fraction of what the southeast Queens residents are paying. So that is something that, that, you know, if we were, if we were really like, let's, if we're really being honest about how to look at ways to make our budget more equitable, like that is something that we need to, to look at for sure.
- [41:40]
B
And, and obviously you have agreement from the mayor on that. He's, they're, they're promising a property tax reform bill. And so we'll see if that comes again. I mean, I know, listen, you know, he has to answer for this because he put the threat out there. But, you know, so it was pretty clear that that was not going to go anywhere right from the start, which again, was probably an unforced error from the new administration. But nobody thinks, you know, the property tax increase is going to happen at this point, especially since you and the Council have said no way, no how. So let me, let me just run down a few other things with you here because I don't want to keep you too, too long on sort of budget, you know, asks and the state budget and how it could impact the city. But, but before I do that, just again, why do you think the mayor took such an aggressive stance back to the council, do you think, you know, he's just sort of frustrated by the lack of collaboration on calling for those revenue raisers at the state level that you, you know, the City Council and Speaker Menon have sort of said I could all be on the table and I favor broader, you know, progressive taxation more nationally, but not really calling for, you know, even what the state legislatures called for, which is increases on people, you know, making $5 million or more a year. There's really no sort of backing his support there. Is it, is it, is it, is that the root of it or is he just sort of looking, looking for a, you know, a fight, Any, any sense of sort of why he came back at you all so hard on this?
- [43:10]
A
I mean, that's something I think that I'd be curious if you were to ask him that question, what he would say because I, you know, because I think, think it's, you know, to the point of the timeline. I think it's just too early in the budget process to, you know, raise alarms and get into any sort of negative discourse because, you know, again, we still need to wait on what's going to happen in Albany with their budget and how that's going to impact our city's budget. So there's still a long way.
- [43:38]
B
I mean, I think that's at the root of it though, right? He sees it as a lack of help with the leverage on the state, state to do what he wants, you know, to happen. Okay. Anyway, we don't need to do more projection about what he's thinking. But back to his. So his, I mean, one glaring error in his response, I mean, this is just sort of pretty clearly factual, is that the City Council is asking a lot more from the state than just what he said, which was relief on the class size reduction mandates, which again, the city is asking for the state to either or ease up on those requirements to reduce class sizes or provide a lot more money from the state to fund all those teachers that need to be hired and a lot of the moves that need to be made. And it looks like there's likely to be some agreement in the state budget on easing up on those class size reduction requirements. Everybody's sort of in agreement that the goals are pretty good, but, you know, it's very expensive and very tricky to do. So there's some relief that's needed there. But he said that was the only thing you all were asking for from Albany. And, and that's, that's not true. Will you just, I know you just mentioned a couple others. Are there anything any other sort of big categories where you and the city council are looking for more help from the state in the state budget? So you're not, you're not asking for these tax increases. You've got some stuff in your budget, your preliminary budget response that are sort of some adjustments at the state level on tax policy to bring more revenue to the city. But there's other, other things that you're asking for from the state, too. Anything else you would highlight in terms. Because I, that's, you know, probably in the next three weeks we're going to get a state budget here. So what are there any other big asks from the state that you want to put out there that are council priorities right now?
- [45:18]
A
Right. So as I mentioned before, I mean, yes, you're absolutely right that we are trying to and that's something we advocated for when we went up on Tin Cup Day, which is to get increased funding when it comes to the class size because, you know, that is sort of, you know, an unfunded mandate in the sense that, you know, we're being forced to comply as a city, which it's not that anyone is arguing the merits of it because we all agree that folks and students can learn more with smaller class sizes. But, you know, we need the funding to be able to do that. And so that's something that we pushed for the aid and incentives to.
- [45:55]
B
I can't even say municipality.
- [45:56]
A
Yeah, municipalities. Yes.
- [45:57]
B
Yeah.
- [45:58]
A
And as well as the. Yes. Ells. Those are right.
- [46:01]
B
The foundation aid changes are big. Yeah.
- [46:03]
A
And those are, those could actually be potentially big. And so I think we're, we're looking at sort of looking to see where we can get our sort of fair share of the funding that we typically as a city have not been getting. I would say Raise the Age is another one.
- [46:22]
B
And if we funding to implement raise
- [46:24]
A
the age and also to get funding for that program because for whatever reason, we just have not been applying for those vouchers at the state level. And so I think there's a way for us to be able to, to potentially get funding for that program as well, which is a good, you know, amount of dollars as well. That could come to the city budget.
- [46:47]
B
And I know you had a whole list in your state budget testimony that is then repeated in the preliminary budget response, maybe in some different ways. Also, just in case, I want to mention, I don't want John Lew yelling at either of us that, you know, he has argued, State Senator Lu has argued that that foundation aid is, you know, there were increases in foundation aid that were partly negotiated at the state level for city school aid to help implement the class size reduction. So his argument is that it's a funded mandate, but he's been willing again to. To take another look at both the foundation aid formulas that we're talking about with regard to maybe increased support for English language learners and other student categories, plus perhaps some relief on the, on the class size front.
- [47:32]
A
Right, Exactly.
- [47:33]
B
All right. Last. Last couple of things. And I, and I know, you know, there's health care funding, there's a whole bunch of things where the state could do more. It'll be interesting to see where they land without doing some of these tax increases that the government is obviously very opposed to. Just back to the city for a second. You in the council want the mayor to agree to spend even more on housing vouchers on the city feps. You want the mayor to drop the lawsuit, you know, that's been appealing the ruling that the city has to implement the expanded program. Are you ready in the council to figure out funding even more, you know, getting up towards multiple billions of dollars a year for that program? Again, this is something where there's a lot of agreement that more housing vouchers are good to help people either stay in their housing or get out of homeless shelters to find housing. But the question is whether the city can afford it. So is that an area where you're ready to, again, find more ways to fund expanded programs?
- [48:38]
A
So I think, I think that's why we've been trying to, you know, talk to the mayor's office and ultimately drop the city's lawsuit, because I think settling will actually save the city funding and also keep families out of the cycle of homelessness. Because, you know, as we've seen, the longer people are in the shelter system, the more money that it actually costs the city. And so if we can get them into housing faster. So I think the process is one aspect of it. Right. And I think that if we've been asking, give us a number, help us settle, and we just haven't gotten a number. And so I think there was a little bit of a surprise when the lawsuit was refiled Again, last week, I think it was, you know, because that is something where we're saying, no, we're absolutely willing to come to the table and settle on an amount. We just, you know, so that, that is something that we realize and recognize that, you know, we're willing to do in terms of finding that sort of sweet spot, so to speak.
- [49:44]
B
Gotcha. And two other things on the biggest area of the city's expense that I just wanted to run by you and then I'll let you go very shortly, is on the education budget. Comptroller Levine, when I've talked to him and in other places, has said, you know, it's probably time for the city to really look at combining some smaller schools. A lot of schools have lost enrollment. That would streamline some expenses. You know, if you take a couple schools that are under, you know, 100 or 200 kids and combine them, you know, that's still not that big a school. And you're, you know, potentially saving some money now, again, some of that might mean allowing some attrition of personnel or actually let, you know, moving people or letting people go in some ways potentially. So you have some hard conversations there, obviously. Is that on the council's radar at all in terms of a way? That's something Comptroller Levine has repeatedly raised. And then the other one that ties in with that, I'll just throw it out there too, is this idea of the hold harmless policy that schools have been getting funding for students that aren't going to those schools that, that, you know, schools have been getting. And again, I'm a former teacher, it, it hurts me to ever suggest schools should get less money. So, but, you know, it's like, you know, these are just real questions about dollars and cents and what's in the budget and how, you know, funding allocations go. So those, those are two big education ones, I think that are also sort of in the offing here is, you know, and I know the Mamdani administration has not actually given their position on hold harmless, you know, yet. So I'm wondering if the council has a position on either of those two. Education.
- [51:21]
A
No, not, not on the hold harmless. We don't have a position formally that, that I can speak to right now. But one thing I will say is that I know that in theory, I see what the comptroller is saying because yes, it might make sense in terms of numbers on a paper. But one thing I will say, based on some of the conversations I know that are actually happening on the ground with a few of These, these schools being asked to combine is that it is. You gotta have the community input because parents, family members, children, if they're not at the table, it's not going to be successful. And I just, I'm not commenting whether it's something we should do or shouldn't do, but I guess what I am commenting on is how important the community input needs to be on that process because, you know, I know a few areas in the city are going through that right now. And it is very, you know, because parents are very, have, have a lot of teachers, you know, principals, parents, and the school communities in general have very strong thoughts about, you know, if you're going to combine a school, what does that look like? And, you know, how are we going to share space or, you know, how does that, what does that look like in terms of, of how far now certain children have to travel to get to their schools versus oh, it was right across the street or in their neighborhood or down the block. So there are so many things that go into a decision like that. And so, yeah, it's not an easy conversation to have. I know that the chancellor's also talked about this as well and that it is going to be difficult conversations that need to be had. And so, you know, the council doesn't have a formal viewpoint on that particular aspect. But, but just based on what I've seen in the community so far, it's going to require a fine tooth comb, definitely, for sure.
- [53:14]
B
Those are hard. Those are always hard. I mean, not to, again, go back to. You could go back, of course, to the Bloomberg years and lots of strategy around closing schools and opening smaller schools. Again with the big goal, you can argue with the tactics and whether it was right, but the big goal of improving schools and improving instruction and, you know, you get into all sorts of questions, very tricky territory. Okay, lastly, let me just get you out of here on this. If you can just explain a little bit more. You know, there's a lot of questions about why it is the council's position not to support the Mamdani, you know, push for more like slightly increased tax rates on high earners and corporations to bring the city more revenue. You have a lot of members of the council who do support that, but maybe it's not a majority. How do the sort. How do the, you know, the council leadership land on this notion that you're not saying it's a terrible idea, don't do it, but you're also not lending your support to it. You're all Democrats in the leadership it polls well among Democrats. I know the governor is very opposed to it. But what's that council discussion at the leadership level around not lending support to those calls for the increased tax rates?
- [54:31]
A
I mean, I think that's, you know, again, as you mentioned earlier, the speaker has talked about progressive taxes and things like that, and meaning we do have to look at all those things and put everything on the table. However, you know, again, I think if we are trying to deliver a smart and responsible budget, we're trying to, as a council, focus on the things that we actually have control over and that we are trying to sort of, that's why we're doing these sort of deep dives in the budget in terms of savings and everything else. And so we, you know, we're, we're trying to focus on that as well as not trying to, you know, again, in affordability crisis time right now for New Yorkers, you know, strain their pockets, so to speak, more. So, and so I think that's something. And you know, what it may, you know, for example, with the property taxes, just as an example to mention is, you know, I think a lot of folks say, well, the majority of the city are renters, but it will have a trickle down effect. And I don't think people really understand that. I mean, I think they do understand, but it may not be hit the same way perhaps, because I think again,
- [55:42]
B
there's, there's virtually no support out there for the property tax increases. I think. Yeah, I mean, that's a different conversation than the, you know, raise, raise income taxes. Yeah, right.
- [55:51]
A
Yeah. So I think, you know, I think that's what we're trying to do is, you know, look at what we have, use every single tool that we can and sort of dig a little deeper and look at the budget in a way where, you know, we don't have to raise any of those or drain any of the rainy day funds. And so, yeah, we're gonna again, it's early, so there's a long way to go. So there's still a lot of room to negotiate in this year's budget for FY27.
- [56:20]
B
Yeah, well, I really appreciate all the time and thoughts, Council Member Linda Lee. I know I kept too long, I apologize, but I really appreciate the conversation. It is April 2nd now, as you say, it's a long way to a city budget deal that will happen sometime in June. We will await the state budget and then the mayor's executive budget and then the council's hearings on that. So I hope we can touch base again in this city budget cycle a little later in the cycle. And I appreciate all the time here today. Today. Thank you.
- [56:49]
A
Of course. Thank you.
- [56:50]
B
All right. Be well.
- [56:51]
A
You too,
- [57:14]
B
Sam.