for kids
2010-11
EXECUTIVE
BUDGET
ANALYSIS
New York State
School Boards
Association
New York State School Boards Association
2010 – 2011
EXECUTIVE BUDGET
ANALYSIS
2010 State Issues Conference
March 14-15, 2010
The Crowne Plaza, Albany, NY
NYSSBA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
2010
President
FLORENCE D. JOHNSON
Buffalo
1st Vice President
2nd Vice President
THOMAS NESPECA
Webster
LYNNE LENHARDT
Bethlehem/Capital Region BOCES/Tech Valley HS
Treasurer
Immediate Past President
MICHAEL J. MASSE
Fayetteville-Manlius
WAYNE E. SCHLIFKE
Erie 1 BOCES
Directors
Area 1 ..................................................... LINDA R. HOFFMAN, Erie 2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus BOCES
Area 2 ...................................................................................................THOMAS NESPECA, Webster CSD
Area 3 ........................................ DELORES ACKERMAN, Cattaraugus-Allegany-Erie-Wyoming BOCES
Area 4 .................................................................................... DOUGLAS ANN LAND, Trumansburg CSD
Area 5 ................................................... WILLIAM MILLER, Herkimer-Fulton-Hamilton-Otsego BOCES
Area 6 .................................................................................... DANA SMITH, St. Lawrence-Lewis BOCES
Area 7 ............ LYNNE LENHARDT, Bethlehem CSD/Capital Region BOCES/Tech Valley High School
Area 8 .............................................. ANTHA ROBBINS, Delaware-Chenango-Madison-Otsego BOCES
Area 9 ............................................................................................ RICHARD FELLER, Monticello CSD
Area 10 ........................................................ PEGGY ZUGIBE, Haverstraw-Stony Point/Rockland BOCES
Area 11 ......................................................................................... SUSAN BERGTRAUM, Nassau BOCES
Area 12 .............................................................................. FRED LANGSTAFF, Eastern Suffolk BOCES
Conference of Big Five School Districts ........................................... REV. GERALD SUDICK, Yonkers
NSBA Director .................................................................................... ANNE M. BYRNE, Nanuet UFSD
NSBA Director ....... EDWARD McCORMICK, Chair, National Black Caucus of School Board Members
Arlington CSD/Dutchess BOCES
New York State School Boards Association
2010 – 2011
EXECUTIVE BUDGET
ANALYSIS
Table of Contents
NYSSBA Analysis of the 2010-11 Executive Budget Proposal ......................................... 1
NYSSBA Testimony to the Joint Legislative Fiscal Committees
February 2, 2010 ............................................................................................................. 2
NYS Office of the State Comptroller
Report on the State Fiscal Year 2010-11 Executive Budget ............................................ 3
NYS Senate Finance Majority
Analysis of the 2010-11 Executive Budget ...................................................................... 4
NYS Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
Statistical and Narrative Summary of the Executive Budget .......................................... 5
2010 State Issues Conference
March 14-15, 2010
The Crowne Plaza, Albany, NY
NYSSBA Analysis of the 2010-11 Executive Budget Proposal
CUTS: Individual school districts across New York would see a reduction in state aid of
5% under Gov. David Paterson’s proposed 2010-2011 Executive Budget plan. This aid
cut would amount to 2% of all school spending. Reimbursable aids would be fully
funded under their current formulae but universal pre-K funding would be frozen at
current levels. Foundation and other aids would be subject to a $1.1 billion “Gap
Elimination Assessment” (GEA) after all formulas are allowed to run. In other words,
operating aid would be frozen, reimbursable aids would be allowed to increase, then the
governor would apply his GEA to the total to arrive at a cut of $1.1 billion. With
education aid comprising 34% of state operating funds and facing a $7.4 billion deficit,
the governor has found it difficult to hold schools harmless for a third consecutive year of
the state’s recession. The plan would use $726 million in federal stimulus funding to
offset proposed cuts. The governor indicated that school districts should be capable of
absorbing his $1.1 billion aid cut because they have $1.5 billion in undesignated fund
balance collectively. He did not lay out a plan for how districts would cope with any cuts
in subsequent years if they were to completely exhaust their reserves this year. The onetime Gap Elimination Assessment would reduce non-reimbursable school aid by $1.4
billion next year. But some other aid categories, such as transportation and building aid
would be allowed to increase by $367 million for next year, according to Paterson. The
net result would be a $1.1 billion cut in state aid during the state’s fiscal year, which
Paterson said was necessary to deal with the remaining state deficit. State school aid
would be reduced from $21.613 billion to $20.527 billion, down 5 percent from this year
and down several billion from what the state promised when implementing the
foundation formula three years ago.
MANDATE RELIEF: Paterson has proposed some mandate relief for school districts,
including a permanent exclusion from Wicks Law construction contract requirements and
a four year moratorium on new unfunded mandates. (Last year he proposed a permanent
ban on all new unfunded mandates, but this was rejected by the legislature.) He once
again calls for streamlined reporting requirements proposed by NYSSBA and a state
regulatory review process to reduce state regulation affecting schools. However, at the
same time that he calls for these mandate relief proposals, the governor also proposes
new mandates on schools, including requiring local districts to pick up any increase over
2% of pre-school special education costs, funding that is currently provided by the state
and counties. The governor’s plan would close a deficit of $7.4 billion (including $500
million rolled over from last year.) NYSSBA is once again encouraged by Paterson’s
proposals on the Wicks Law, allowing procurement flexibility, and delaying the effective
dates of state mandates. These proposals reflect NYSSBA’s determination to reform
costly state inefficiencies built into our educational delivery system. Under Paterson’s
$134 billion budget plan, overall spending would grow by .6 percent. Excluding federal
funding, the budget would grow just 0.9 percent.
COURT ORDERED AID INCREASES: Paterson is also seeking a much slower effort
to address court rulings that the state hasn’t spent enough on urban school districts. Under
the four-year corrective plan adopted three years ago, schools were supposed to get an
increase of over $1.9 billion in aid this year. Paterson proposed extending the phase-in of
the plan from four years to seven last year. Now, he would extend that commitment out
to ten years, which is nearly the entire length of a child’s public educational experience.
In essence, school districts would now be well over $5 billion short of what the state
initially promised.
This would leave districts with the untenable choice of either
dramatically increasing local taxes and/or severely curtailing non mandated programs and
services to students, such as sports, other extracurricular activities, field trips, art and
music.
LOCAL DISTRICT RESERVE FUNDS: Paterson claims most schools have adequate
reserve funds to cover the proposed loss in state aid. While districts may indeed have
funds currently in reserve, completely depleting these funds in the first year of what the
governor now calls a three year problem would leave districts with the ability to only cut
programs and staff in the future. The governor would allow school districts to use excess
amounts in the EBALR fund (unused sick and vacation time reserve fund) to offset state
aid cuts.
NEW TAXES: The Executive Budget would raise new taxes by over a billion dollars,
including new taxes on syrup of nearly half a billion dollars, over $200 million in new
tobacco taxes, $216 million in new hospital fees, taxes on wine, new speed enforcement
cameras, court filing fees and “sweeps” of fund balances in state agency accounts of
nearly $100 million. Aid to municipal governments would be reduced by $325 million,
and college bound TAP recipients would see awards reduced by $75 each. The
governor’s plan is very similar to the one he proposed last year, with only an adjustment
in amounts in several categories.
FOUNDATION (OPERATING) AID FOR 2010-11
The Executive Budget reduces total education aid in 2010-11 by $1.1 billion or 5 percent
from 2009-10 while claiming to maintain the state’s commitment to quality education.
Funding for School Aid would total $20.5 billion in 2010-11, or $200 million less than he
proposed spending last year. Three years ago, the State adopted a new Foundation Aid
formula, which has attempted to allocate the vast majority of school operational funding
based on more equitable and objective measures of student need and districts’ financial
abilities to meet those needs. The Executive Budget does in fact maintain the Foundation
Aid formula. In 2010-11, a one-time $1.1 billion Gap Elimination Assessment would be
taken against total formula-based aids excluding Building Aid and other reimbursable
aids. The governor claims that the cut is structured progressively so that school districts
with the greatest needs and least ability to pay receive the smallest percentage reductions
in aid. Significant funding increases in Foundation Aid and Universal Prekindergarten
were originally scheduled to be phased-in over a four-year period with a complete phasein occurring in the 2010-11 school year. In an attempt to adapt to state revenues that only
recently began to recover, this phase-in period would be extended to ten years.
CONTRACTS FOR EXCELLENCE: For the 2010-11 school year, all districts
currently in the program can reduce Contract for Excellence program expenditures from
2008-09 levels by the same percentage as their deficit reduction assessment, but must
remain in the program unless all schools in the district have improved their performance
and are found to be in good standing.
UNIVERSAL PRE-K: Funding for Universal Pre-K would be frozen (but not reduced)
at current year levels under the governor’s proposed budget.
HIGH TAX AID: High Tax Aid to the state’s most heavily taxed school districts would
be frozen (but not reduced) at current year level.
BUILDING AID AND EXCEL AID: Building Aid would be increased under the
Executive Budget allowing the existing reimbursements schedule to continue unchanged.
WICKS LAW RELIEF: Responding to a continuing NYSSBA priority, the governor
has proposed permanently exempting school district construction from the Wicks Law.
TRANSPORTATION AID:
according to current law.
Transportation Aid would be allowed to increase
BOCES AID: BOCES Aid reimbursement to school districts would be allowed to
continue unchanged under the governor’s proposal, resulting in a funding increase.
SPECIAL EDUCATION AID: Early Intervention and special education aid would be
cut $139 million, with the amount supplemented by new charges to “clients” based on a
sliding income scale.
STAR: STAR payments would be reduced by $213 million and STAR rebates for homes
valued at more than $1.5 million would be eliminated.
STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FUNDING: Sadly, two thirds of SED
funding is tied directly to federal programs and requirements, leaving precious little staff
to actually be of service to schools. This problem would be compounded under the
governor’s plan, by cutting $4.7 million from SED’s budget in the coming year.
SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARTER SCHOOL PAYMENTS: School district per pupil
payments to charter schools would be frozen at current levels for the second consecutive
year.
CONTINGENCY BUDGET CALCULATION: Recognizing that the current cap on
contingency budgets might well result in a negative calculation this year, the governor
would limit the cap to no less than last year’s spending amount. NYSSBA is working on
legislation that would impose a five year average of 120% of the Consumer Price Index
as the cap figure.
CHARTER SCHOOL TRANSITION AID: Transition aid to school districts hosting
charter schools will increase by $3.7 million to a total of $21.84 million.
Mandate Relief for School Districs
EXEMPTING SCHOOL DISTRICTS FROM THE WICKS LAW: Perhaps
NYSSBA’s longest held legislative priority, school districts would be permanently
exempted from Wicks Law requirements.
ALLOWING DISTRICTS TO ACCESS CERTAIN RESERVE FUNDS: This
proposal, resulting from NYSSBA efforts on behalf of districts, working in cooperation
with the State Comptroller, governor’s staff and the Division of the Budget, would allow
districts to withdraw limited amounts of excess funds in an employee benefits accrued
liability reserve fund (also called the Unused Sick and Vacation Time Reserve Fund)
(with the approval of the State comptroller) to maintain educational programming in the
2010-11 school year.
REFORMING PROCUREMENT: A longtime NYSSBA priority, this would allow
school districts additional contracting flexibility by increasing existing bidding thresholds
and allowing them to piggyback onto other existing municipal contracts.
PAPERWORK REDUCTION (STREAMLINING): This proposal would streamline
existing reporting requirements and eliminate required reports that are outdated or no
longer serve a public policy purpose. This has been a NYSSBA priority for many years
and has passed in the Senate for several years in a row, with no Assembly action.
Hopefully, the governor’s support will spur that needed Assembly action.
DELAYING MANDATES: Responding to NYSSBA’s call for mandate relief, any new
mandate with a cost would not be implemented for a four year “moratorium” period. All
legislation would have to include a local fiscal impact note.
SHARED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION: School districts may join with other
districts or BOCES to provide transportation services and funding is provided to train
transportation employees. Funding is allocated to pay for a pilot program for the State
Education Department to study the cost effectiveness of regional transportation.
Other Executive Budget Proposals
ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR TEACHER CENTERS:
Funding for this
discretionary grant program, which offers both online and classroom-based professional
development activities for school personnel, is eliminated. In addition to program
revenues, Teacher Centers were funded through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Other Government Services in 2009-10. This Federal funding has been redirected to help
finance a portion of the State's costs for preschool special education. (2010-11 School
Year Savings: $35 million; 2011-12 School Year Savings: $35 million; 2010-11 State
Fiscal Year Savings: $25 million; 2011- 12 State Fiscal Year Savings: $35 million)
REDUCE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING TO THE ROOSEVELT UNION FREE
SCHOOL DISTRICT: The Executive Budget reduces this Supplemental Education
Grant from $12 million to $6 million due to the school district’s improved fiscal
circumstances as reported by the Office of State Comptroller.
DELAY
PHASE-IN
OF
FOUNDATION
AID
AND
UNIVERSAL
PREKINDERGARTEN: Funding for a number of individual aid categories that
provide operating support to school districts, including Foundation Aid and Universal
Prekindergarten would be continued at the same level in 2010-11 and 2011-12 as is
currently being provided. Additionally, the full phase-in of Foundation Aid would now
take place over a ten-year period (complete in 2016-17) rather than the seven-year period
assumed in current-law. (2010-11 School Year Savings to the state: $0, 2011-12 School
Year Savings: $1 billion; 2010-11 State Fiscal Year Savings: $0 million; 2011- 12 State
Fiscal Year Savings: $730 million)
CONSIDER WEALTH AS A FACTOR IN REIMBURSING SUMMER SCHOOL
SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS: The 2010-11 Executive Budget proposes to more
closely align State reimbursement to school districts for summer school special education
costs with wealth-based aid ratios used during the regular school year. Additionally, the
priority of payment would be for claims from the 2009-10 school year, with State
reimbursement for costs incurred prior to the 2009-10 school year limited to $50 million
during the upcoming fiscal year. (2010-11 Fiscal Year Savings to the state: $68 million;
2011-12 Fiscal Year Savings: $28 million)
USE FEDERAL FUNDS FOR PRESCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION: The
Executive Budget recommends use of one-time Federal ARRA funding to forestall
reductions in State support for preschool special education. Total ARRA funding for
preschool special education is increased to $194 million to maintain the State
commitment to this critical program. (2010-11 School Year Savings to the state: $61
million; 2011-12 School Year Savings: $0)
REDUCE FUNDING FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE ATTENDANCE PROGRAM
(CAP) FOR NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS: Under the Executive Budget, annual
reimbursement to nonpublic schools for the costs of the CAP program would be reduced
by $1.5 million. Nonpublic schools would continue to receive $109 million in aid for
mandated services, including traditional attendance-taking as well as other mandated
activities.
ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS UNDER REGISTRATION REVIEW
(SURR) GRANTS: The Executive Budget proposes to eliminate separate State funding
for SURR grants. (2010-11 Fiscal Year Savingsto the state: $2 million; 2011-12 Fiscal
Year Savings: $2 million)
REMOVES THE EDUCATION COMMISSIONER’S AUTHORITY to revoke a
teacher’s certification for failure to teach required subject material in some health areas
(specifically alcohol, drugs and cancer detection.)
What’s Not Included?
A SCHOOL PROPERTY TAX CAP: There is no call for a cap on local school
property taxes included in the Executive Budget proposal.
MAYORAL CONTROL: The governor does not include his support for mayoral
control of the Rochester City School District in his budget plan.
Reaction of State Leaders
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY G. KREMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW
YORK STATE SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION: Governor Paterson must feel
like he is caught between a rock and a hard place. While he proposes a painful cut in FY
2010-11 school aid and further delays a permanent fix of the school funding formula, he
accompanies his budget with a recommendation for a much-appreciated moratorium on
an expensive set of unfunded mandates. However, the fiscal implications of the proposed
budget will vary widely from district to district. Those that are highly dependent on state
aid, with limited reserves and little room to cut any further are the most vulnerable. Their
programs will be jeopardized.
The state’s fiscal crisis is a challenge of the highest order. Local school officials will do
their part by protecting as best they can educational programs, improve quality, and
optimize every available resource. For New York to develop economically, create new
jobs and introduce new technologies and other innovations, we will need a highly
educated workforce. Public education is and must forever be the state’s number one
priority.
STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR DAVID PATERSON: Since the day I became
governor, I have warned that New York is facing an inevitable fiscal reckoning. There
are no more easy answers. We cannot keep spending money that we do not have.
Significant spending reductions are necessary if we want to emerge from this crisis and
build a strong fiscal and economic recovery. Together, through shared sacrifice, we will
move forward toward a more hopeful and optimistic future for New York.
STATEMENT OF STATE COMPTROLLER THOMAS DINAPOLI: New York
has repeatedly run away from its fiscal problems and used short-term actions and
gimmicks to buy more time. But time is up. Our state cannot continue to make budget
promises in April that cannot be kept in the cold fiscal reality of December. The
Governor and the Legislature have to find a new, more transparent, more responsible way
to craft a budget that balances revenues and spending and is built on realistic assumptions
and long-term planning. The Executive Budget is a starting point. Where New York ends
up is the real challenge.
FROM SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADER JOHN SAMPSON: Though the
Governor acknowledges our fiscal difficulties, some components of his proposal clearly
need modification. We are reviewing the Governor's proposed tax increases and program
cuts. Senate Democrats believe structural reforms to state operations can reduce the size
and scope of government more than basic across-the-board cuts. We remain committed to
getting spending under control, creating jobs, and providing tax relief to overstretched
homeowners, retirees, and entrepreneurs.
FROM SENATE FINANCE CHAIR CARL KRUGER: I don’t think the system can
stomach the governor’s proposed cuts. Our battle cry is going to be to protect those that
are the most vulnerable parts of our society. There are going to be significant
restorations.
FROM SENATE MAJORITY LEADER DEAN SKELOS: The greatest danger is the
one posed by Assembly and Senate Democrats who no doubt will push to further increase
spending and taxes just like they did last year. That is a recipe for disaster. The
Governor must stand firm and prevent his fellow Democrats from leading him and this
state down a slippery slope.”
FROM ASSEMBLY MINORITY LEADER BRIAN KOLB: In ordinary times, this
would be a good start, but these are extraordinary times. New York needed a budget that
delivers more jobs and lower taxes. With these priorities as the measuring stick, the
Governor's budget did not do enough, or go far enough; to deliver the real change our
state needs and New Yorkers have been demanding."
Governor Amends Executive Budget Proposal
Suggests Cutting MTA Tax in Half
New York State governors have up to 21 days to amend their Executive Budget
proposals. Governor Paterson took advantage of the window yesterday to propose using
an anticipated $1.2 billion in federal aid next year to help close the state budget deficit
and to pad the state’s “rainy day fund.” The irony of Paterson proposing cuts in state
education aid, forcing school districts to deplete any local reserves while using federal
funding to increase his own reserves was not lost on the educational community.
Legislative leaders were quick to point out that the new revenues are simply part of
President Obama’s proposed budget and not yet agreed upon by Congress. Other
amendments included restoring the full $19.6 million in lottery aid to education to the
Yonkers City School District and shifting more of the burden for funding the
Metropolitan Transit Authority to New York City employers. In a move intended to
recognize the inequity of forcing suburban employers to pay for urban system costs, the
plan would result in cutting payments by school districts in surrounding suburban
counties by half.
Testimony of the
New York State School Boards Association
to the
Joint Legislative Fiscal Committees
on the
2010-2011 Executive Budget
February 2, 2010
Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York
Thank you for this opportunity to share the perspective of the nearly 700 member school
districts of the New York State School Boards Association and the over 5000 locally
elected school officials who govern them.
We recognize that the Executive Budget proposal is the first step in the budget process.
And we fully grasp the severity and gravity of the fiscal crisis gripping our state. We
don’t envy you the responsibility of striking the right balance between our state’s many
competing priorities in the face of recovering revenues to fund them. But know this; our
state’s future most assuredly hangs in that balance. In the information age, our state’s
future rests on education.
The world presses forward. Our high school graduates will apply to colleges and
universities that are becoming more and more selective. They will work in businesses
that demand higher-order critical thinking skills along with proficiency in science, math
and technology. Our schools must prepare them for these challenges, but they need
resources to do so. Our commitment to this effort will define our state’s competitive
position into the next generation.
State School Aid Funding Reform: Kids First
But it is more than a commitment we speak to. It is a constitutional obligation to our
children. We have made great strides together in adopting new state school financing and
accountability approaches. Now that emerging success story is threatened by our dismal
economy. Will you preserve public education as the state’s top priority in difficult fiscal
times? We currently stand at $4.2 billion below the amount promised by the state to
settle the CFE lawsuit. Last year school districts were asked to operate without any
additional operating aid. They were asked to restrain local taxes, improve programs and
services, save jobs and absorb these responsibilities without additional state operating
resources. Now the governor would have them absorb $1.4 billion in operating aid cuts
on top of that already Herculean effort. How is it that some of our state leaders can in
good conscience demand local school property tax relief and yet pull the rug out from
under our school districts as we strive to raise the student achievement that our economy
Testimony of the NYS School Boards Assn. on the 2009-10 Executive Budget
Jt. Legislative Fiscal Committees, January 28, 2009, p. 2
(both state, national and world) demand? Local property tax increases statewide
plummeted the past three years. Test scores have been improving. There is a nexus
between state aid, student achievement, and local property tax relief.
Will you ultimately find the ways and the means this year and next to provide universally
adequate, equitable and predictable resources for all of our school districts? Doing so is
essential to the success of our educational mission and to the property taxpayers whose
support is vital to that mission.
We applaud the governor’s commitment to fully funding reimbursable school expenses
like BOCES, transportation and building aid. But I urge you to moderate the governor’s
$1.4 billion dollar proposed reduction in Foundation Aid and to not bind yourself to yet
another aid freeze. I also urge you to preserve the Foundation Aid formula, but not be so
quick to accept the governor’s proposal to stretch out its full implementation so long as to
functionally jeopardize adequate funding for yet another generation of children. If school
districts are to keep their promise of improved academic achievement of our students and
wise fiscal stewardship of public funds, you must keep your promise of predictable and
adequate funding. And finally, we take strong exception to the unwise premise that
school districts should completely exhaust their financial reserves in the face of an
uncertain future when even the state is not offering to use any of its own reserves to
offset the state’s deficit. We object for the same reason as the governor: Complete
depletion of reserves places school districts at risk in an emergency, it increases the cost
of borrowing and it lowers our bond ratings. More importantly, it misuses funds that are
largely locally generated. Asking school districts to replace state aid with local
emergency funds is confiscatory and certainly defeats at the outset any call for relief from
unfunded mandates. The loss of $1.1 billion magnifies the impact of all state mandates
on local taxpayers.
All of this takes place within the historical context of last year’s freeze and the imminent
future loss of federal aid. Were it not for your heroic intervention, even the present
would have been tainted by the destabilizing influence of mid-year aid cuts. Simply put,
Governor Paterson would force schools to live paycheck to paycheck and then
repeatedly threatens to hold up the checks. In the final analysis, this deliberation must
ultimately determine the allocation of limited state resources. NYSSBA’ certainly
recognizes the importance of many state functions, but few carry with them either a
constitutional imperative or hold the very future of the state within their charge. Last
year combining federal stimulus funds and local resources saved an estimated 28
thousand jobs in a time when (in many locales) the schools are the economic engine of
the community. To do that with flat state aid, schools were forced to withhold new
contributions to the reserve funds that help mitigate local tax increases.
There are natural disasters whose impact is exacerbated by their lack of warning, a
lightning strike. But there are other calamities that provide more than adequate warning,
like a hurricane building several hundred miles away-or the elimination of federal
stimulus funding following two years without a state aid increase. Would you willingly
Testimony of the NYS School Boards Assn. on the 2009-10 Executive Budget
Jt. Legislative Fiscal Committees, January 28, 2009, p. 3
fail to prepare, risking placing children in harm’s way, in the face of such a certain
threat?
In other words:
Last year, in year one-the state failed to contribute, the federal government provided
increased funds and school districts both restrained job loss and local tax increases. To
do this, they were forced to forego contributing to their emergency fund balances.
This year, in year two-the governor proposes not only freezing but cutting aid, the
federal government will provide some additional funding and school districts would be
forced to completely deplete emergency fund balances while attempting to restrain both
job losses and local tax increases. They will not succeed.
Next year, in year three-the state will hopefully provide additional resources, but the
federal funding that has averted disaster in the past years will be exhausted and school
districts will be faced not only with attempting to recover from multiple years of
diminished state funding, but be forced to adjust to the loss of billions in lost federal aid.
They will be devastated. Programs and services will suffer, thousands of jobs will be
lost. Taxes will escalate and education will suffer. As a result, the economic future of
our state will decline. The public, already fatigued by high taxes will no doubt continue
the backlash against its elected officials-both local school and state. The consequences,
for good or ill, will be attributed to state legislators.
The public’s frustration will also be expressed at the one opportunity they have to vote
against higher taxes; the local school district budget vote. While such frustration is
always injurious, the defeat of local school budgets this year or next will be catastrophic.
Current laws determining the school district contingency budget cap will force schools to
actually spend less than the previous year. To ask this in the face of double digit,
uncontrollable costs like health insurance and retirement system contributions is
unconscionable. When the only option available to school districts (to accomplish such
an onerous task) is to eliminate the jobs of those who prepare our state for the
information age, that result is irresponsible. This year the difference between the cost to
provide existing educational programs and what is allowed under a contingency budget is
the highest in history; with the most severe consequences. You must authorize a five
year rolling average of the consumer price index to determine contingency budgets for
school districts. For the same reason that “smoothing” was implemented for retirement
system contribution rates, a degree of rationality must be restored to the dire conditions
imposed by a contingency school budget.
When Will You Make Mandate Relief Real for Schools?
We have long argued that a whole host of cost-saving measures could mitigate the need
for state and local tax revenue to support our operations. We have provided innumerable
studies, recommendations and lists of suggestions for making schools more efficient and
cost effective. We have testified before a myriad of legislative and governor’s
commissions to convey one simple message. There are two sides to the ledger: expenses
Testimony of the NYS School Boards Assn. on the 2009-10 Executive Budget
Jt. Legislative Fiscal Committees, January 28, 2009, p. 4
and revenues. If you can lower your expenses then you can lower the revenues you need.
But this does not magically happen at the wave of a wand. A penny saved is a penny
unappropriated. There must come a time (and we would argue that the nation’s highest
combined taxes and dramatically reduced state revenues dictates that now is that time)
when the political forces that ushered in an era of greater public employee salaries and
benefits than is available to the state residents who must pay them must yield to the
economic reality that presently confronts us. Adherence to the old laws that hamstring
public employers in bargaining more reasoned salary and benefits for public employees
confounds any attempt at stemming rising taxes, or creating an attractive economic
environment. Public education is a labor intensive enterprise, with personnel costs
comprising over 70% of all costs. Any legitimate effort to address school spending with
diminished resources will take political resolve from both state and local officials. Any
other path unerringly leads to a dismantled educational delivery system or economically
injurious local tax rates. Simply put, untie our hands or lose the future. To prepare for a
prosperous future, you must free the schools.
To his credit, Governor Paterson is advancing a handful of cost saving measures for your
consideration. There is much that we can support in the governor’s budget proposal. A
Wicks Law exemption. Removal of legal barriers to health insurance cooperatives.
Help with energy conservation. Paperwork reduction to eliminate redundant reporting
requirements and to streamline planning. Procurement flexibility allowing us to
piggyback on state and municipal contracts. Buffer us from suddenly enacted newly
mandated costs. Surely, there must be some ideas among them that you in the legislature
can embrace, plus others that you can advance. Dollars saved here can be redeployed to
the classroom and to spare our taxpayers.
Extraordinary times call for extraordinary leadership. And such times also provide rich
opportunities for systemic improvement. We cannot think of a better time to finally
allow school districts to operate free of outdated and burdensome state strictures. Our
school boards and property taxpayers need relief from externally imposed mandates that
unnecessarily drive up the cost of providing an education. We urge you in this year of
fiscal crisis to own up to the cost drivers that our state laws and regulations serve to
unnecessarily and wastefully burden our schools and our taxpayers. It is time for you to
ensure that our education dollars are going to education as efficiently and as effectively
as possible.
Schools continue to face dramatic increases in health care premiums. Fuel costs are
totally unpredictable. School districts in fact face a multitude of expenses that are rising
beyond the simple rate of inflation. (School districts are not individual consumers and
comparisons to the CPI or “rate of inflation” are misleading and inappropriate. For
instance, consumers do not pay the employer rate for retirement and health care-both
typically increasing by double digits each year. Nor do consumers run fleets of diesel
powered buses, heat multiple buildings, pay Workers Compensation Insurance, large
scale liability insurance and a multitude of other costs that have nothing to do with the
“rate of inflation.”)
Testimony of the NYS School Boards Assn. on the 2009-10 Executive Budget
Jt. Legislative Fiscal Committees, January 28, 2009, p. 5
If we expect our schools to hold the line on local costs (to restrain property tax increases),
they must be given the means to put a halt to cost increases that are currently beyond
their control. This is more critical than ever under the current fiscal circumstances. We
cannot justify one unnecessarily wasted cent any longer. The dollars we are given must
go further than ever before. If you can’t reduce the mandates and clear the statutory and
regulatory obstacles to efficient management under these fiscal circumstances, then there
is truly little hope for the vitality of our state’s future.
For years we have been asked to name the mandates that inhibit cost effective operation
and we have done so, repeatedly. Then you asked how much could be saved by
eliminating those mandates. We now have a figure for you. According to a sophisticated
study conducted by the school business officials and superintendents of the nine member
school districts of READ in the Lower Hudson Valley, fully 16.3% of their budgets are
spent on mandates. Extrapolated statewide, this equates to nearly $9 billion; a figure that
dramatically eclipses even the governor’s harmful aid cut proposal. Mandate relief
would provide real fiscal relief.
Cost Shifts to Local Taxpayers
In this year’s executive budget, the governor has not only proposed cutting $1.4
billion in state school aid, but he has proposed much more in cost shifts to local property
taxpayers.
Pre-School Special Education – The governor proposes shifting millions upon millions
in costs to school district taxpayers for this program for pre-school age children with
disabilities. Currently this program is funded by the state and counties. Contrary to
misinformation being circulated, this is not a school-based or school-managed program.
It is strictly a federally mandated program. This is a new and undeniably large unfunded
mandate for local taxpayers. The governor’s rhetoric indicates that schools control this
program and so it is only fitting that local school taxpayers pay for any county cost
increases beyond the arbitrary figure of 2%. To shift this cost from one local tax bill to
another does nothing for the taxpayer. This is a singularly inept response to county
officials who naturally want to relieve pressure on their own taxes, but the focus should
be on real relief and not redirecting where the bill goes.
MTA Tax –The fiscal impact of this tax on our school districts is astronomical and
frankly we are mystified that one level of government is imposing such a tax on another,
especially given the questionable nexus between its purpose and our employees. By
definition local school employees in suburban counties do not regularly use the services
of the MTA. They live and work outside of the City. Why would the state tax its schools
to support commuter operations unless it is to shift the cost of those operations away
from the state and onto the backs of the local property taxpayer? BOCES and special act
school districts pay this tax in full and pass on that cost to local school districts. All
schools must be permanently exempted from this tax.
Testimony of the NYS School Boards Assn. on the 2009-10 Executive Budget
Jt. Legislative Fiscal Committees, January 28, 2009, p. 6
Other Issues of Importance
Allowing Districts Access to Certain Reserve Funds – We strongly support the
governor’s proposal to allow districts to withdraw funds certified by the State
Comptroller to be in excess of the amounts required to fund employee benefits accrued
liabilities in order to maintain educational programming in the 2010-11 school year.
Given the severity of this fiscal crisis, making use of these funds to offset program cuts
and higher local taxes is of paramount importance.
State Education Department (SED) – Sadly, two thirds of SED funding is tied directly to
federal programs and requirements, leaving precious little staff to actually be of service in
supporting schools. This problem would be compounded under the governor’s plan by
cutting several million dollars from SED’s budget in the coming year. Innovation,
consolidation of services, efficiencies in operation and implementation of best practices
would all be fostered by sufficient resources for SED. We request that you restore SED
funding.
School Resource Officers-These state troopers provide an invaluable service to our
schools, our children and our communities by mentoring, modeling proper behavior,
buffering and protecting our children. To allow the governor to remove these officers
from the schools is to put those students and communities at greater risk. The stories of
crime and catastrophe prevented by their presence are legend. They must be allowed to
remain in force in our schools.
Retirement Incentive-While early retirement of teaching staff assists school districts in
controlling costs and managing their budgets, that process must be completed in a timely
fashion. Schools are presently preparing their budgets for community consideration.
They must provide 45 days notice to their communities of the amount to be requested.
Potential retirees must inform their school of that decision in a time period that allows
schools to avoid unnecessarily elevating budget figures, needlessly raising taxes or laying
off staff and cutting programs. Any early retirement incentive legislation must include a
window of notification that coincides with the school budget calendar for it to be of use
to schools and taxpayers.
Combined Instructional Materials Aid-In an era of diminished resources, schools must
be given the flexibility to utilize remaining funds in the manner that most efficiently
addresses their most pressing needs. Combining existing aid categories like textbooks,
computer hardware and software allow school districts to allocate funds to those most
immediate needs. This re-designation costs the state nothing and affords tremendous
flexibility for schools. It is the type of efficiency that difficult fiscal times demand.
Special Education Summer School- For those districts offering a summer special
education program, current state aid is 80%, with district picking up 20%. Governor
Testimony of the NYS School Boards Assn. on the 2009-10 Executive Budget
Jt. Legislative Fiscal Committees, January 28, 2009, p. 7
Paterson would base the state's payment on the Foundation Aid State Sharing Ratio. This
presents a severe disincentive for districts to provide this vital service to our most
disadvantaged children. It also represents the very kind of cost shift the governor
pledged to eliminate. We respectfully request that you reject this unwise proposal.
Finally, we would ask that you examine what our schools have accomplished in the midst
of such adversity. Last year school districts collectively imposed the lowest tax rate in
seven years. They did it with the lowest amount of state aid in six years. They are daily
finding new ways to become more efficient and more effective. They are attempting to
adjust to a new era of a stagnant tax base and fluctuating resources. They must succeed
and they can succeed with your continued support. While it is true that the future of our
children is up to us, it is also true that our state’s future is up to them. If only in our own
self interest, we must equip them to compete, to attract opportunity and to build anew.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment at this crucial juncture in the future of public
education and indeed, our state.
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID A. LITTLE, Esq.
Director
Governmental Relations
Report on the
State Fiscal Year 2010-11
Executive Budget
February 2010
Thomas P. DiNapoli
New York State Comptroller
Please notify the Office of Budget and Policy Analysis at (518) 473-4333 if you
would like your name to be deleted from the mailing list.
Additional copies of this report may be obtained from:
Office of the State Comptroller
Public Information Office
110 State Street
Albany, New York 12236
(518) 474-4015
Or through the Comptroller’s website at: www.osc.state.ny.us
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1
FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................... 5
State Fiscal Year 2009-10 ..................................................................................................... 5
State Fiscal Year 2010-11 ..................................................................................................... 8
Structural Imbalance ............................................................................................................ 10
Risks to the Financial Plan................................................................................................... 12
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK .......................................................................................................... 15
REVENUE................................................................................................................................ 17
PROGRAM AREA HIGHLIGHTS ............................................................................................ 19
Education ............................................................................................................................. 19
Higher Education ................................................................................................................. 20
Health................................................................................................................................... 21
Mental Hygiene .................................................................................................................... 22
Human Services................................................................................................................... 22
Economic Development ....................................................................................................... 23
Transportation ...................................................................................................................... 24
Housing................................................................................................................................ 25
Environment ......................................................................................................................... 25
Public Protection .................................................................................................................. 26
Local Governments .............................................................................................................. 27
New York City ...................................................................................................................... 29
State Workforce ................................................................................................................... 30
Retirement ........................................................................................................................... 30
Public Authorities ................................................................................................................. 31
DEBT AND CAPITAL.............................................................................................................. 32
Executive Summary
The Executive has proposed a spending plan for State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2010-11 that
relies heavily on recurring spending cuts and revenue actions to produce a cash
balanced budget, including provisions to roll a projected current year deficit forward. To
close the estimated $7.4 billion State Budget deficit, the SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget
recommends $4.9 billion in spending reductions, $1.07 billion in new or increased fees
and taxes, $692 million in recurring Deficit Reduction Plan savings and revenue,
$565 million in new non-recurring or “one-shot” resources and $221 million in tax audit
recoveries.
Despite the magnitude of these proposed actions, the State’s long-term Financial Plan
remains structurally unbalanced, for two primary reasons. First, recurring State
expenses are rising at a faster rate than recurring revenues, which continues a
long-term trend. Second, this structural imbalance is worsened by the fact that the
proposed budget relies on approximately $11.3 billion in temporary funds with no plan to
replace those resources. Approximately 20 percent of permanent General Fund
spending is supported by revenue that disappears over the next three years. Federal
stimulus funds of $4.7 billion, a temporary Personal Income Tax surcharge projected to
yield $5.5 billion and a temporary utility assessment projected at $557 million make up
the largest portion of these disappearing resources.
General Fund Receipts and Disbursements – Executive Proposed Budget
SFY 2010-11 through SFY 2013-14
(in millions of dollars)
80,000
Last year for the temporary Personal
Income Tax surcharge.
Last year for the temporary
utility assessment.
72,324
70,000
67,904
Last year for most federal stimulus
funding.
63,312
60,097
60,000
57,345
56,978
54,570 54,522
50,000
40,000
SFY 2010-11 Proposed
SFY 2011-12 Projected
General Fund Receipts
SFY 2012-13 Projected
SFY 2013-14 Projected
General Fund Disbursements
1
These two factors produce significant budget imbalances for the foreseeable future.
The current services out-year gap (reflecting estimates prior to factoring in Executive
Budget proposals) is projected to exceed $20 billion in SFY 2013-14, with a projected
cumulative four-year gap of $61 billion. Even if all proposals advanced by the Executive
are enacted, General Fund revenue over the next four years is still projected to increase
at a much slower rate than is spending. Revenue is expected to increase by
approximately 12.2 percent, while spending is anticipated to increase by 33.6 percent.
The result is a projected four-year cumulative gap totaling $29 billion through SFY 201314.
Additionally, projections for both the current and the next State fiscal years rely on
revenue and savings assumptions that appear optimistic and may fail to materialize,
significantly increasing the size of the projected gaps. For example, revenue collections
through January indicate that tax receipts, especially in the Personal Income Tax
category, are likely to end SFY 2009-10 below projections. This could result in a current
fiscal year deficit appreciably larger than the $500 million projected by the Executive.
Because the Executive plans to roll the current year deficit into next year, this would
translate into an even larger gap for SFY 2010-11. The following summarizes some of
the risks to the SFY 2010-11 Financial Plan:
•
•
•
•
•
The Executive’s anticipated growth in revenue from the Personal Income Tax
and other sources is based on an economic recovery, the timing of which
remains uncertain.
The lingering recession adds to fiscal stress by increasing the demand for
programs and services such as Medicaid.1
Several revenue producing measures (sugared beverage tax, wine sales in
grocery stores, Video Lottery Terminal and Quick Draw expansions) have
similarly been proposed in the past, but not enacted.
Numerous programmatic cuts have been proposed previously, but either were
not enacted or were not fully realized. School aid, higher education and health
care reductions are notable examples.
Tax audit recoveries, new Medicaid audit recoveries and abandoned property
transfers are budgeted aggressively at $1.1 billion.
State debt levels remain among the highest in the nation, and debt service remains the
fastest growing major category of State spending, limiting available funds for other
critical programs such as health and education. Although the Executive proposes to
slow the pace of capital spending, by nearly $1.8 billion over the next five years,
outstanding State-Supported debt is projected to increase by $3.1 billion, or 6.1 percent,
in SFY 2010-11.
1
Enrollment growth, utilization increases, the local spending cap and the expiration of federal stimulus monies drive
additional State costs of $1.3 billion in Medicaid in the Department of Health, prior to cost-containment measures.
2
General Fund revenue for SFY 2010-11 is projected to increase by $1.0 billion
(1.9 percent) to $54.6 billion, and General Fund spending to increase by $393 million
(0.7 percent) to $54.5 billion. Spending on an All Funds basis, which includes the
General Fund as well as special revenue, debt service and capital projects funds, is
projected at $133.96 billion in SFY 2010-11, an increase of 0.6 percent over the current
year estimate.
As the Legislature proceeds with its review of the SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget and
specific proposals to address the State’s budget deficit are enacted, rejected or
substituted for alternative proposals, the focus must be on creating a final budget that
improves underlying structural budget balance. While all prudent fiscal measures must
be considered to avoid devastating reductions in services and maintain critical support
for New York’s infrastructure, the choices made must improve the State’s future
financial condition.
3
Financial Overview
State Fiscal Year 2009-10
The Enacted Budget for State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2009-10 overestimated revenue and
made extensive use of non-recurring or temporary budget resources to achieve
balance. As proposed by the Executive, the SFY 2009-10 Budget projected a
$13.8 billion General Fund current services deficit, 89 percent of which would be closed
with recurring spending reductions and revenue increases and the remaining 11 percent
with non-recurring resources. During the following months, revenue projections were
revised downward, causing the deficit to balloon to $17.9 billion at the time the final
budget agreement was enacted.
The SFY 2009-10 Enacted Budget was closed primarily using temporary actions,
including nearly $4.9 billion in federal stimulus funding and a Personal Income Tax (PIT)
surcharge. The Enacted Budget included significant amounts of risky resources that the
Division of the Budget (DOB) eventually removed from the Financial Plan because they
were unattainable. The Office of the State Comptroller described the final product as a
“buy time” budget that merely postponed difficult, but necessary, decisions.
Throughout the fiscal year, revenue collections, as reported in the Comptroller’s monthly
cash reports, were below DOB’s projections. In July, just three months into the fiscal
year, the Executive projected a deficit of $2.1 billion and stated that a Deficit Reduction
Plan (DRP) would be proposed to close the gap. In October 2009, DOB increased the
year-end deficit projection to $3.2 billion ($4.1 billion was projected by the Comptroller)
while also projecting a potential cash shortfall for the month of December. In
November, the Comptroller warned that absent corrective action, the General Fund
faced a $1.4 billion deficit in December.
The DRP enacted in December 2009 contained $2.7 billion in actions (two-thirds of
which were non-recurring). However, it did little to address the December cash flow
issue, which the Executive managed by delaying $750 million in payments to local
governments, school districts and insurance carriers. The Executive also delayed until
March 2010 the State’s $960 million contribution payment to the State Retirement
System, originally planned for September. Despite these delays, the State ended the
month of December with a negative balance of $205 million. DOB projects the State
faces a year-end deficit of $500 million because the December DRP did not fully close
the projected current year deficit.
To address this SFY 2009-10 cash deficit, the Executive Budget proposes to delay
income tax refunds into SFY 2010-11, thereby increasing the SFY 2010-11 deficit by
$500 million. Actions such as these exacerbate the structural imbalance that continues
to plague the State.
5
Nearly $13.5 billion in non-recurring or temporary resources have been used or are
planned to be used to balance the SFY 2009-10 State Budget, equaling 25 percent of
General Fund spending. The Enacted Budget included $11 billion in such actions and
the DRP enacted in December added another $1.8 billion. In March, the Executive
plans to delay $500 million in income tax refunds in an effort to close the year in
balance. Current estimates of the value of these gap-closing resources differ from
original estimates due to updated revenue projections.
Use of Recurring and Temporary or Non-Recurring Resources to
Maintain General Fund Balance in SFY 2009-10
(in millions of dollars)
Recurring
37%
$7.7 billion
$13.5 billion
Non-Recurring
63%
There remains significant uncertainty associated with the economy and revenue
collections in the current fiscal year. Given that revenue collections for most of
SFY 2009-10 were consistently below Financial Plan projections, DOB’s increased
revenue estimates for the last quarter of SFY 2009-10 appear too optimistic. In
addition, revenue included in the DRP may not materialize as anticipated. This could
result in a cash shortfall in March and a significantly larger than anticipated deficit for
the current fiscal year, creating the risk that DOB may have to delay more refunds or
other payments to maintain budget balance.
General Fund
General Fund receipts projected for SFY 2009-10 (including transfers from other funds)
of $53.6 billion are $784 million below Financial Plan projections made when the Budget
was enacted in April. However, they are $1.8 billion above Mid-Year Financial Plan
projections, primarily due to fund sweeps and transfers included in the December DRP,
as well as increased projections in PIT and Business Taxes.
6
General Fund Financial Plan including Reserves
SFY 2008-09 and SFY 2009-10
(in millions of dollars)
SFY 2008-09
Actual
SFY 2009-10
Enacted
Projections
SFY 2009-10
1st Quarter
Update
Projections
SFY 2009-10
Mid-Year
Update
Projections
SFY 2009-10
3rd Quarter
Update
Projections
General Fund Receipts
General Fund Disbursements
53,801
54,607
54,338
54,908
52,366
55,059
51,708
54,610
53,554
54,129
Reserves
Tax Stabilization Reserve
Rainy Day Fund
Contingency Reserve
Community Projects
Refund Reserve
1,031
175
21
145
576
1,031
175
21
78
73
1,031
175
21
78
73
1,031
175
21
72
73
1,031
175
21
73
73
Projected General Fund spending of $54.1 billion is $779 million below April Financial
Plan projections, $481 million below Mid-Year Financial Plan projections, and
$478 million below actual spending in SFY 2008-09. Planned spending reductions
enacted in the December DRP include $629 million in local assistance payments and
$803 million in administrative actions taken by the Executive to lower operational
spending.
All Funds
Projected All Funds revenue of $131.1 billion is expected to be $509 million more than
in the Enacted Budget Financial Plan projections released in April. However, they are
$2.2 billion higher than Mid-Year projections, primarily due to federal aid and
miscellaneous receipts from the December DRP.2 By the end of the fiscal year,
revenue is expected to total $11.8 billion, or 9.9 percent, more than SFY 2008-09.
All Funds spending for SFY 2009-10 of $133.2 billion is projected to be $1.2 billion
above Enacted Budget Financial Plan projections (due to the addition of MTA-related
tax collections and spending passed after budget enactment) and $13 million below
Mid-Year projections. However, total spending is projected to be $11.6 billion, or
9.5 percent, more than SFY 2008-09.
All Governmental Funds Financial Plan
SFY 2008-09 and SFY 2009-10
(in millions of dollars)
SFY 2008-09
Actual
SFY 2009-10
Enacted
Projections
SFY 2009-10
1st Quarter
Update
Projections
SFY 2009-10
Mid-Year
Update
Projections
SFY 2009-10
3rd Quarter
Update
Projections
All Funds Receipts
119,235
130,550
129,790
128,855
131,059
All Funds Disbursements
121,571
131,935
133,469
133,185
133,172
2
Subsequent to budget enactment in April 2009, legislation was enacted creating new revenue sources totaling
nearly $1.4 billion in aid to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). These new revenues do not benefit the
State since all revenue generated from the various fees and taxes are sent to the MTA.
7
State Fiscal Year 2010-11
General Fund
The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget projects a current services gap of $6.9 billion plus
the $500 million budget deficit from SFY 2009-10. The gap results primarily from
relatively flat revenues, built-in spending growth for items such as Medicaid, school aid,
collectively bargained salaries and fringe benefits, and a reduction in available federal
stimulus aid. A total of $7.4 billion in actions is recommended to close this projected
General Fund gap.
The proposed Financial Plan projects General Fund receipts (including transfers) will
grow nearly $1.0 billion, or 1.9 percent, in SFY 2010-11 with two revenue sources
showing material changes. PIT receipts are expected to grow $1.6 billion, or
7.2 percent, primarily because of significant growth in collections in both withholding
and estimated taxes. Miscellaneous Receipts are projected to decline $605 million, or
17.2 percent, primarily due to the loss of certain non-recurring resources received in
SFY 2009-10.
General Fund spending is projected to stay nearly flat, as a result of proposed spending
reductions and actions to increase revenue in other funds and thereby offset General
Fund support. Gap-closing actions affect all program areas but most significantly
Medicaid, school aid and agency operations. The largest year-to-year decline is
$506 million in local assistance payments (1.4 percent), including $463 million in school
aid and $316 million in local government assistance (primarily New York City). These
reductions are offset by a $581 million increase in Department of Health (DOH)
Medicaid spending.
State Operations costs are projected to decline $244 million, or 2.9 percent, to
$8.3 billion, reflecting reductions taken by the Executive in SFY 2009-10 as well as
additional reductions that are proposed in SFY 2010-11.
Proposed General Fund Gap-Closing Plan
The State faces a projected current services General Fund shortfall of $7.4 billion in
SFY 2010-11, growing to over $20 billion in SFY 2013-14 before reflecting actions
proposed in the Executive Budget. To address the SFY 2010-11 shortfall, the Executive
proposes approximately $4.9 billion in spending reductions, $1.07 billion in new or
increased fees and taxes, $692 million in recurring Deficit Reduction Plan savings and
revenue, $565 million in new non-recurring or “one-shot” resources and $221 million in
tax audit recoveries.
While the Executive’s proposal closes the projected $7.4 billion current services gap in
SFY 2010-11, it does little to address the fact that more than half of the $13.5 billion in
temporary resources used to balance the budget in SFY 2009-10 will be unavailable in
SFY 2011-12. The loss of these temporary resources, including federal stimulus funds
8
and the first year of the temporary PIT surcharge, is reflected in projected out-year
gaps.
General Fund and HCRA Gap-Closing Plan SFY 2009-10 through SFY 2013-14
(in millions of dollars)
SFY
SFY
SFY
SFY
SFY
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
(3,159)
(6,796)
(14,775)
(19,520)
NA
(86)
(122)
464
1,189
NA
(3,245)
(6,918)
(14,311)
(18,331)
(20,713)
2,745
692
811
876
854
926
692
811
876
854
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Current Services Gap From Mid-Year Update October 2009
Forecast Revisions
Revised Current Services Gap - Pre-December DRP (1)
Deficit Reduction Plan - December 2009
Recurring Actions
1,819
Non-Recurring Actions
Deficit roll to SFY 2010-11
500
New Projected Current Services Deficit
-
New Recurring Revenue
Syrup Excise Tax (HCRA)
(500)
(6,726)
(13,500)
(17,455)
(19,859)
-
1,291
1,874
1,609
1,448
-
465
1,000
1,000
1,000
197
Cigarette Tax (HCRA)
-
210
205
201
Wine in Grocery Stores
-
92
51
6
5
Informational Returns on Credit/Debit Cards
-
-
35
83
-
Film Credit
-
-
-
(168)
(292)
Empire Zone Replacement
-
-
-
(50)
(100)
Other Tax Actions
-
32
49
49
49
Medicaid Provider Assessment (HCRA)
-
216
235
235
235
Work-Zone Cameras for Speed Enforcement
-
25
71
38
23
Civil Court Filing Fees
-
31
44
44
44
Tax Audit and Recoveries
-
221
221
221
221
All Other
-
Non-Recurring Actions as Reported
(1)
(2)
(2)
(17)
-
565
-
-
-
Federal TANF Resources
-
261
-
-
-
Medicaid Malpractice Payment Timing
-
127
-
-
Fund Balances
-
95
-
-
-
Lottery Investment
-
50
-
-
-
School Aid Recoveries
-
32
-
-
-
New Recurring Spending Reductions
-
4,870
5,340
5,358
6,184
School/Lottery Aid and other Education
-
1,764
1,587
1,495
2,100
1,206
Health Care/Mental Hygiene
-
869
1,247
1,215
STAR
-
213
250
267
288
Human Services/Labor/Housing
-
201
201
193
223
Higher Education
-
208
210
213
214
Local Government Assistance
-
325
329
330
322
734
Agency Reductions
-
709
743
704
Workforce Savings
-
250
125
-
-
Pension Amortization/Fringe Benefits
-
262
536
792
917
Bonded Capital Reductions
-
10
37
78
100
All other
-
59
75
71
80
(6,286)
(10,488)
(12,227)
New Executive Budget Proposal Gap Projection
-
-
Note: Negative numbers increase the gap whereas positive numbers decrease the gap.
(1) The Proposed Financial Plan includes the $500 million remaining from SFY 2009-10 in the SFY 2010-11 current services gap.
9
All Funds
All Funds receipts are projected to increase $1.9 billion, or 1.5 percent, to $133 billion,
primarily reflecting growth in tax collections.
Taxes are expected to increase
$3.4 billion, or 5.6 percent, primarily driven by PIT withholding and estimated
collections. Total PIT collections are projected to increase $1.9 billion, or 5.4 percent.
User Taxes are projected to increase by approximately $1.4 billion, or 10.1 percent,
including $450 million from the Executive’s proposed tax on syrup and other beverage
mixes and another $15 million in related sales tax revenue. Business taxes are
projected to decline by $65 million, or 0.8 percent. Bank tax collections are projected to
drop sharply (21.1 percent), while Corporate Franchise tax collections are expected to
increase by $314 million, or 10.6 percent. Federal grants are projected to decline
slightly, reflecting the phase-out of stimulus funding.
All Funds spending is projected to increase $786 million, or 0.6 percent, to nearly
$134 billion. Local assistance is projected to decline by $1.2 billion, or 1.3 percent, with
reductions similar to those in the General Fund with the exception of DOH Medicaid,
where related All Funds spending is projected to decline $154 million. State Operations
is projected to decline $270 million, or 1.4 percent. Debt service on State-Supported
debt is projected to be the fastest growing major category of spending in the Budget,
growing by $844 million, or 17.1 percent, along with growth in Capital Projects
spending, growing by $934 million, or 13.1 percent.
The Executive Budget does not rely on federal stimulus funds beyond the time when
they are scheduled to expire. In the event these federal funds are extended, such as the
Obama Administration’s recent proposal to extend the enhanced Federal Medical
Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for an additional six months, the State will benefit from
these actions.
Structural Imbalance
The State’s chronic General Fund budget gaps are the result of a long trend in New
York State budgets of spending growing faster than revenue. Thus, even though
General Fund revenue in SFY 2010-11 is expected to grow by more than twice the rate
of spending, the structural imbalance in the State Budget persists.
This is because of the $21.2 billion in deficit reduction actions taken in SFY 2009-10
(including gap closing plans in the SFY 2009-10 Enacted Budget), only 36.5 percent
were permanent. Furthermore, while more than 80 percent of the revenue and
spending actions proposed in the Executive Budget are recurring, they do little to
address the $11.3 billion in resources that will disappear over the next three years.
As a result, the long-term disparity between recurring growth rates of revenue versus
spending continues. General Fund spending is projected to grow an average of
10
7.7 percent annually through SFY 2013-14, more than double the 2.9 percent revenue
growth rate.
Using percentage growth rates, the following table illustrates the structural imbalance
between spending and receipts in both the General Fund and All Funds.
Projected Growth in General Fund Receipts and Disbursements
SFY 2009-10 through SFY 2013-14
Percentage Growth
General Fund Receipts
General Fund Disbursements
All Funds Receipts
All Funds Disbursements
Total Growth
2010-11
through
SFY 2013-14
2013-14
Projected
Average
Annual
Growth
2010-11
through
2013-14
SFY 2009-10
Projected
SFY 2010-11
Proposed
SFY 2011-12
Projected
SFY 2012-13
Projected
-0.5%
-0.9%
1.9%
0.7%
4.4%
16.1%
0.6%
7.3%
4.8%
6.5%
12.2%
33.6%
2.9%
7.7%
9.9%
9.5%
1.5%
0.6%
-1.3%
3.4%
1.3%
4.2%
3.7%
4.4%
5.3%
13.1%
1.3%
3.1%
Non-Recurring Resources and Structural Imbalance
The SFY 2009-10 Financial Plan is only the most recent example of New York State’s
long tendency to close a persistent revenue-spending disparity with non-recurring
budget actions. The Enacted Budget utilized $11 billion in temporary or non-recurring
actions to achieve balance, including the use of $4.9 billion in federal stimulus funding
and another $4.5 billion in tax increases that will sunset within the next five years.
Because the SFY 2009-10 Enacted Budget relied on risky revenue sources and overly
optimistic projections, three months into the fiscal year the General Fund was already
projected to be out of balance. This necessitated additional deficit closing actions.
When $2.7 billion in additional deficit reduction measures were approved in December
2009, the State again relied on non-recurring resources to provide two-thirds of the total
estimated value of this mid-year DRP. Moreover, the approved actions did not close the
entire gap estimated by the Executive.
The State’s reliance on non-recurring and temporary measures to balance the
SFY 2009-10 Financial Plan culminated with the Executive’s proposal to close the
remaining budget gap by rolling an estimated $500 million deficit into SFY 2010-11. By
the end of the fiscal year, the SFY 2009-10 Budget will have used an estimated
$13.5 billion in non-recurring or temporary revenue for balance, comprising over
25 percent of projected General Fund spending.
Most of these temporary resources are still in use in the Executive’s proposed budget
for SFY 2010-11. General Fund balance is achieved using $11.3 billion in resources
that will eventually disappear. As the following table illustrates, the Budget will begin
seeing the largest declines in these temporary resources in SFY 2011-12 when
11
significant sums of stimulus monies are no longer available and in SFY 2012-13 when
the temporary PIT surcharge ends.
Temporary Resources Supporting the General Fund
(in millions of dollars)
SFY 2009-10
Stimulus FMAP Increase
Stimulus Fiscal Stabilization
Temporary Personal Income Tax
Temporary Utility Assessment
Non-Specific Fund Sweeps
Pension Amortization (1)
Workforce Concessions
Abandoned Property
Sale of Wine in Grocery Stores
Workers' Compensation Recapture
DRP/Year End Actions (including reserves) (2)
Reported Non-Recurring Actions
Total Temporary Resources
SFY 2010-11
SFY 2011-12
SFY 2012-13
SFY 2013-14
3,702
1,523
3,643
602
287
100
1,928
1,681
3,387
1,275
5,488
557
367
217
250
100
92
24
(1,031)
565
220
3,335
557
368
475
125
100
51
-
557
369
738
100
6
-
557
350
859
100
6
-
13,466
11,291
5,231
1,770
1,872
(1) Out-year values estimated based on historic growth.
(2) Includes costs associated with prior non-recurring actions such as $500 million from delaying income tax refunds in SFY 2009-10 and $391 million from
spin-up of federal education stimulus dollars, as well as other costs/benefits from the December DRP.
All budgets make use of some temporary resources. For example, a carefully
constructed pension amortization can dampen the impact of volatile pension rates.
However, over-reliance on temporary measures without a plan to replace those
resources, worsens the State’s long-term fiscal outlook.
Risks to the Financial Plan
In addition to the over-reliance on temporary resources, the SFY 2009-10 and
SFY 2010-11 Financial Plans include several proposals that may not ultimately provide
the level of revenue or savings anticipated. This could worsen the projected deficits for
SFY 2010-11 and significantly increase out-year gap projections. These proposals
include billions of dollars in new or increased revenue actions and spending reductions
that may be difficult to enact as well as savings targets that lack detailed plans. The
following provides an overview of the larger risks that could impact the Financial Plan.
•
Unrealized DRP Revenue—With less than three months remaining in
SFY 2009-10, certain revenue included in the DRP may not materialize as
anticipated, including $250 million from the Tax Amnesty Program, $200 million
from a franchise fee for Video Lottery Terminals at the Aqueduct Racetrack, and
$200 million from the Battery Park City Authority. The State does not have a
plan to close the projected deficit in the current year and instead plans to roll it
into SFY 2010-11, exacerbating the challenge for that year.
12
•
The Economy—The current economic slowdown is already worse and longer
than anticipated and a further decline or slower recovery could continue to drive
up social services costs, while reducing revenues. For example, revenue
collections through January indicate that tax receipts, especially in the Personal
Income Tax (PIT) category, are likely to end SFY 2009-10 below current DOB
projections. If this shortfall occurs and is significant, a reduction in the PIT
projection for SFY 2010-11 may be warranted. While DOB and many
economists believe the nation has emerged from the recession, the lagging
effects could persist and cause revenue shortfalls and increased pressure on
Medicaid and various social services costs.
•
Previously Rejected Proposals—Many of the Executive’s proposals may be
very difficult to achieve in whole or in part due to the fact that they are similar to
actions that have been proposed in prior years and rejected. This includes
significant spending reductions in school aid and Medicaid, as well as major
revenue initiatives, such as the proposed tax on sugared beverages and the
expansion of certain gambling-related programs.
•
Non-specific Fund Sweeps—Recent State budgets have included language
authorizing DOB to transfer or “sweep,” at its discretion, available,
unencumbered resources from other State funds to the General Fund. These
are generally programs that have dedicated revenue streams, typically with a
substantive link to such revenue. In prior budgets, such transfers were
individually identified by fund, providing transparency with regard to what funds
were to be swept. The Executive Budget includes non-specific transfer language
and increases the maximum amount to be swept to $500 million. According to
the Financial Plan, DOB expects to sweep $367 million in SFY 2010-11 and
similar amounts in the out-years, but does not identify what funds will be swept,
how the estimate was derived or the impact the sweeps will have on the
operations of affected programs.
•
Workforce Savings “Targets”—The SFY 2010-11 Financial Plan includes a
$250 million target in savings from workforce actions to reduce State employee
salary costs. Such actions may include salary deferrals or delays or reductions
in contractually determined wage increases. Such savings can only be achieved
through contract renegotiations.
•
Medicaid Fraud and Tax Audit Recoveries—The proposed Budget includes
$300 million in increased Medicaid fraud recoveries and another $221 million in
tax audit recoveries for SFY 2010-11 and in each out-year, reflecting significant
increases over previous projections. This is in addition to projections for
$250 million in non-recurring revenue from the tax amnesty program and
$15 million in non-recurring Medicaid fraud resources included in the
December 2009 DRP.
13
•
Abandoned Property Transfer—Pursuant to the State Finance Law, all monies
in the Abandoned Property Fund in excess of $750,000 are transferred to the
General Fund by the end of each fiscal year. For SFY 2010-11, the Executive
proposes a transfer of $550 million, approximately $100 million more than levels
historically available. The levels projected in the SFY 2010-11 Financial Plan are
likely unsustainable. While receipts to the Fund have modestly increased in the
current year, claims paid are also rising significantly.
Each of these risks poses a significant threat to the Financial Plan for the current year
and subsequent fiscal years. Any additional deterioration in revenue collections in the
fourth quarter of SFY 2009-10 or delays in completing the transactions described above
could materially increase the size of the projected deficit considerably.
The Legislature must enact a budget that mitigates these risks through responsible
measures that set the State on a fiscally prudent path. Gimmicks and other
irresponsible solutions, such as the use of borrowing to resolve the deficit, only
postpone the problem and demonstrate that the State is unwilling to address its financial
difficulties. The State’s taxpayers cannot afford a budget that gives the illusion of being
balanced, but relies on unrealistic revenue sources and savings projections to continue
spending beyond available means.
14
Economic Outlook
National Economy
The national economy continues to show signs of improvement. After declining for four
quarters, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at an annualized rate of 2.2 percent
in the third quarter of calendar year 2009 and a surprisingly robust 5.7 percent
annualized rate in the fourth quarter. The pace of expansion is expected to ease until
job growth begins to boost consumer confidence and spending over a sustained period.
The Blue Chip consensus forecast expects the GDP, after declining by 2.5 percent in
2009, will grow by 2.8 percent in 2010 and 3.1 percent in 2011.
Weak employment numbers, however, continue to be a source of economic concern.
Through December 2009, the nation lost 7.2 million jobs since the recession began two
years earlier. The rate of job loss has slowed since the spring, and in November 2009
there was a small increase of 4,000 jobs; a more sustained increase in job growth is
expected to begin in the first quarter of 2010. The national unemployment rate was
10 percent in December 2009—twice the level of two years earlier—and is expected to
peak in the first quarter of 2010.
Real consumer spending declined by an annual rate of 0.9 percent in the second
quarter of 2009, but increased by 2.8 percent in the third quarter as the “Cash for
Clunkers” program boosted auto sales. In the fourth quarter, spending eased back
down to 2.0 percent. The Blue Chip consensus forecast is for a subdued recovery in
real consumer expenditures, with growth rates around 2.0 percent through the second
quarter of 2010.
New York State Economy
After four quarters of contraction, New York State’s economy also began to expand
during the third quarter of 2009. However, most forecasters still expect the State’s
recovery will be weaker than the nation’s. Although Wall Street is strengthening, the
industry’s recovery will not solve the State’s fiscal problems.
New York has lost 291,900 jobs thus far in the current recession, and job losses are
expected to continue into 2010. The unemployment rate in New York was 9.0 percent
in December 2009, matching a 26 year high. This unemployment rate is lower than the
national rate, but still more than four percentage points higher than it was two years
ago.
While a number of New York’s economic indicators have shown some improvement
since the lows reached last winter, these gains have been relatively small. For
example, initial unemployment insurance claims were 30,290 in the four-week period
ending December 26, 2009, and while this was below the levels at the beginning of
2009, initial claims have risen somewhat in recent weeks. Also, although consumer
15
confidence in New York State was at 65.8 in December 2009, this is 6.7 points below
the national level, according to the Siena Research Institute.
Wall Street has recovered dramatically in the past year and has posted record profits.
Year-end bonuses are also expected to be higher than last year. However, in response
to calls for compensation reform, the portion paid in stock and other forms of deferred
compensation, which will not generate tax revenue in the near term, is expected to be
greater than last year.
The Division of the Budget is forecasting that cash bonuses will decline by 5.0 percent,
which is a reasonable estimate for financial planning purposes. The Office of the State
Comptroller traditionally issues its estimate of cash bonuses paid to securities industry
workers employed in New York City in February.
According to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price indices, through April 2009 housing
prices in the New York City metropolitan area had declined by 20.6 percent from the
peak reached in May 2006. In 2009 there were 50,369 foreclosures in New York State,
an increase of 0.7 percent from 2008 and 30.2 percent from 2007.
16
Revenue
The Executive estimates that total General Fund receipts will increase $1.0 billion, or
1.9 percent, over SFY 2009-10 to $54.6 billion. General Fund tax receipts are estimated
to increase $2.1 billion, or 5.4 percent, to $39.9 billion. Base General Fund tax receipts
growth, which nets out the impact of law changes, is projected to increase (for the first
time since SFY 2007-08) by 3.1 percent due to a rebound in economic activity.
The Executive estimates that in SFY 2010-11 total All Funds receipts will increase
$1.9 billion, or 1.5 percent, over SFY 2009-10 to $133 billion. All Funds tax receipts are
estimated to increase $3.4 billion, or 5.6 percent, to $62.2 billion. This increase is
attributable to the full year impact of the SFY 2009-10 temporary PIT surcharge, federal
tax changes and proposed new taxes. The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget includes
new revenue actions of $1.4 billion in All Funds receipts ($1.9 billion fully implemented).
All Funds miscellaneous receipts and federal grants are projected to decline more than
$1.4 billion due to the loss of non-recurring revenue.
New or Increased Taxes and Assessments
The Executive projects the receipt of $923.2 million in All Funds revenue ($1.5 billion
fully effective) from new tax and assessment actions proposed for SFY 2010-11. The
majority of these new tax and assessment actions are dedicated to health care. There
are seven proposals in this category, including:
•
•
•
$450 million and another $15 million in related sales tax revenue ($1.0 billion fully
implemented) from a new excise tax imposed on beverage syrups and soft drinks
at a rate of $7.68 per gallon for syrups and $1.28 per gallon for bottled soft drinks
and powders. The Executive projects this will increase the cost of soft drinks by
one penny per ounce.
$218 million (including $200 million for health care, $10 million to the General
Fund and an $8.0 million additional transfer to New York City) from an increase
in the cigarette excise tax from $2.75 to $3.75 (the highest in the nation).
$240.2 million ($333.7 million fully implemented) from four health care
assessments and surcharges.
Loophole Closures
The Executive projects the receipt of All Funds revenue from tax law changes intended
to close loopholes including:
•
•
$30 million in SFY 2010-11 from treating S-Corporation gains on stock and
installment income as taxable for non-residents. This closes a loophole that
allows a non-resident to receive income without paying New York taxes.
$25 million in SFY 2011-12 from taxing income received by a resident trust if a
non-resident is appointed as a trustee.
17
New or Increased Fees
The Executive projects the receipt of $42 million ($71.1 million fully effective) in All
Funds revenue from two fee proposals, including:
•
•
$41 million ($54 million fully implemented) from increasing certain Supreme,
City/District and Appellate courts’ filing fees.
$1.0 million ($17.1 million fully implemented) from new early intervention parental
fees established on a sliding scale based on income, ranging from $45 to
$540 per child per quarter.
Tax Enforcement Actions
The Executive projects the receipt of $229 million ($233 million fully effective) in All
Funds revenue from tax enforcement actions including:
•
$221 million from improving Department of Taxation and Finance audit and
compliance results by adding significant new staff.
Other Revenue Actions
The Executive projects the receipt of $224.6 million ($236.9 million fully effective) in All
Funds revenue from six other revenue proposals including:
•
•
•
$93 million ($54 million fully effective) from the sale of wine in grocery stores.
$78 million ($99 million fully effective) from the expansion of Quick Draw and
extension of Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) hours of operation.
$32.9 million ($86.8 million fully effective) from automated speed enforcement
cameras.
18
Program Area Highlights
Education
The Executive proposes a school aid cut of $1.1 billion on a school year basis, reflecting
a 5.0 percent year-to-year reduction. School aid for the 2010-11 school year is reduced
to $20.5 billion. In SFY 2010-11, All Funds spending for school aid totals $24.3 billion, a
decrease of $324 million, or 1.3 percent; this includes support from Lottery revenues
and $4.4 billion in federal funds, including ARRA funds.
The proposed net reduction of $1.1 billion results from several changes, the most
significant being a proposed aid reduction formula, called the Gap Elimination
Adjustment (GEA). The GEA would be applied in the 2010-11 school year to major
formula-based aid categories, including Foundation Aid, reducing aid by $1.4 billion.
The Executive Budget proposes a continuing freeze in Foundation Aid, prior to
application of the GEA. Foundation Aid is the largest general aid formula within school
aid (representing roughly 70 percent) and is intended to support most classroom
programs and provide resources in an equalized manner to support a sound basic
education.
Various “expense-based” aid formulas are proposed to increase by $367 million overall,
before application of the GEA reduction. This includes reimbursements based on
expenditures for transportation, building, special education and BOCES. Other
proposed reductions include elimination of funding for Teacher Centers ($35 million)
and reduced special supplemental funding for the Roosevelt School District
($6.0 million).
The GEA would provide a smaller percentage cut to low-wealth school districts, and
would be adjusted for student need, administrative efficiency and residential tax burden.
Under the GEA, with adjustments, school districts would receive a formulaic reduction in
aid ranging from 3.5 to 15 percent of the combined total for major formula aid
categories, with an average reduction of 9.6 percent. This would equate to a $1.1 billion
reduction in Foundation Aid, and a $300 million reduction in other aid categories to
which it applies. The aid reduction of $1.4 billion produced by the GEA is described in
budget documents as a $2.1 billion adjustment offset by $726 million in remaining
federal ARRA funds.
Mandate Relief
The Executive proposes a package of mandate relief measures for schools including a
complete Wicks Law exemption, streamlined reporting and a four-year moratorium on
new statutory mandates, with the State Education Department (SED) required to
implement a regulatory review process. School districts would be allowed to utilize
excess funds in their Employee Benefit Accrued Liability Reserve (EBALR) funds as
needed.
19
New York State School Tax Relief (STAR) Program
The Executive Budget proposes STAR property tax relief of $3.2 billion in SFY 2010-11,
an increase of $47 million, or 1.5 percent, over SFY 2009-10. Natural growth occurs in
STAR due to rising tax rates and other factors such as homeowner demographics and
save-harmless provisions such as the “floor” (maximum annual reduction in STAR
benefits) described below. The Executive proposes over $200 million in STAR savings
including:
•
•
•
$143 million from eliminating the New York City Personal Income Tax STAR
benefit on income over $250,000.
$40 million from modifying the “floor” or the maximum annual reduction in STAR
benefits that individuals may receive.
$30 million from eliminating the STAR exemption benefit for residences valued at
$1.5 million or more.
Higher Education
The Executive proposes to reduce State support for SUNY and CUNY senior colleges
by $142.7 million in SFY 2010-11, which has a $181.5 million impact on an academic
year basis. Additional proposed appropriation reductions of $52 million reflect the public
universities’ share of the Executive’s proposed $250 million in workforce savings yet to
be negotiated, such as delaying or reducing payment of scheduled salary increases and
implementing a salary deferral. After these reductions, $946 million would be provided
to SUNY and $577 million to CUNY.
Legislation accompanying the Executive Budget would provide both public university
systems with new tuition, budgetary and State oversight flexibility. The Public Higher
Education Empowerment and Innovation Act would allow for annual tuition increases up
to two and one-half times general higher education inflation and differential tuition
among campuses, with tuition and other self-supporting program revenue moved off the
State’s budget. Flexibility would also be provided for procurement, capital construction
and leasing of campus property. Major elements of SUNY revenue (e.g., tuition and
hospital revenues) would be moved to a sole custody account; this and other changes
would substantially reduce oversight by the Office of the State Comptroller.
A variety of other reductions are proposed, including:
•
•
Reduced aid to Community Colleges by $285 per full-time equivalent student
(from $2,545 to $2,260). The SFY 2010-11 cut is $56.7 million, increasing to
$75.6 million in SFY 2011-12. An additional $50 million in ARRA funds would be
used to support community college aid payments.
Reduced Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) awards by $75 per award
($16.5 million savings), with maximum grants for two-year degree programs
20
reduced by $1,000 ($19.6 million savings), and other changes for a net reduction
of $71 million on an academic year basis.
Health
The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget increases State funded Medicaid spending
$1.1 billion, or 8.3 percent, to $14.6 billion in SFY 2010-11. All Funds Medicaid
spending increases $281 million, or 0.6 percent, to $44.3 billion. Overall Medicaid
spending, including $7.2 billion in local government spending, is projected to total
$51.5 billion in SFY 2010-11, an increase of $899 million, or 1.8 percent, over
SFY 2009-10.
Much of the increase in State funded Medicaid spending results from program growth
related to rising enrollment and utilization, higher costs of the cap on local Medicaid
spending and the scheduled expiration of the enhanced federal Medicaid matching rate
(FMAP) at the end of December 2010. The Executive proposes over $1.7 billion in
Medicaid and health care savings and new revenue, including $857 million in cost
containment measures, $240 million in additional provider taxes and assessments,
$450 million from a new syrup tax aimed at discouraging consumption of soft drinks and
$200 million from a $1.00 per pack increase in cigarette taxes. The proposed syrup tax
is projected to provide a significantly greater fiscal benefit in SFY 2011-12 with receipts
estimated at $970 million.
The proposed reductions in provider reimbursement and new assessments would affect
hospitals ($114 million in reductions and $130 million in assessments), nursing homes
($72 million in reductions and $68 million in assessments), home care and personal
care ($56 million in reductions and $18 million in assessments), and the health
insurance industry ($197 million in reductions and $25 million in assessments). The
Executive also proposes a target of an additional $300 million in Medicaid fraud and
abuse recoveries as well as $116 million in other Medicaid reductions.
The Executive justifies the increases in hospital, nursing home and home care provider
assessments by describing their impact as similar to direct funding cuts, but without a
loss of federal matching funds. Proposed provider reductions and additional fraud and
abuse recoveries are projected to result in the loss of approximately $800 million in
federal funds.
The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget balances Health Care Reform Act (HCRA) receipts
and expenditures largely through the additional revenue generated by the higher
cigarette tax and the new syrup tax. These new revenues are used, in part, to support a
significant increase in the portion of General Fund Medicaid spending financed by
HCRA. In SFY 2010-11, HCRA would finance nearly $2.9 billion in General Fund
Medicaid expenditures, an increase of $343 million, or 13.4 percent, over SFY 2009-10.
Nearly 63.6 percent of HCRA revenue would be used to support State-Funded Medicaid
spending in SFY 2012-14, up from 53.4 percent in SFY 2009-10. The Executive delays
21
for one year anticipated receipt of $242 million from the conversion of not-for-profit
health insurers HIP and GHI.
Mental Hygiene
The Executive Budget proposes nearly $200 million in savings actions to limit growth in
All Funds Mental Hygiene spending to $429 million, or 5.3 percent, in SFY 2010-11.
Expenditures recommended for the offices of Mental Health (OMH), Mental Retardation
and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD) and Alcoholism and Substance Abuse
Services, as well as the Developmental Disabilities Planning Council and the
Commission on Quality Care and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities total
$8.5 billion.
Much of the year-to-year growth in Mental Hygiene spending results from salary
increases and fringe benefits, as well as higher community bed development costs and
service utilization. The Executive proposes a variety of savings actions to offset a
portion of this growth, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Eliminating 128 positions at OMH by reconfiguring inpatient services to close six
wards at State psychiatric centers.
Eliminating 20 research positions at OMRDD’s Institute for Basic Research on
Staten Island.
Reducing Medicaid rates for certain OMRDD community residential services.
Delaying OMRDD community bed development projects.
Negotiating workforce savings with State employee unions.
Eliminating various other non-health and safety positions at OMH and OMRDD.
The Executive proposes to use a portion of the savings from the delay of community
bed development projects to begin funding a multi-year remedial plan for adult home
residents with mental illness. In September 2009, a Federal District Court judge
ordered the State to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act by creating
community housing and support for thousands of adult home residents with mental
illness living in New York City. The Executive’s proposed remedial plan provides
$1.0 million in SFY 2010-11 to begin assessments of current residents. The Executive
Budget indicates support for providing 200 additional housing units per year for five
years, starting in SFY 2011-12 at a full annual cost of $20 million.
Human Services
The Executive proposes to use Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
emergency contingency funds (one-time ARRA stimulus funds) in response to rising
public assistance caseloads, saving $261 million in the General Fund. The Executive
reduces the SFY 2010-11 public assistance grant increase from 10 percent to
22
5.0 percent. Full implementation of the scheduled overall 30 percent public assistance
grant increase is delayed from July 2011 to July 2013, saving $14 million in
SFY 2010-11.
The Executive proposes to save $69 million in SFY 2010-11 by discontinuing TANF
funding for certain programs, including the Summer Youth Employment Program,
Supportive Housing for Families, Emergency Homeless Program, Non-residential
Domestic Violence, CUNY/SUNY Child Care, Community Solutions to Transportation
and the Wage Subsidy Program.
Article VII legislation, expected to save $27 million, is advanced to allow the Office of
Children and Family Services to intercept payments to local social services districts for
programs including child welfare, foster care, adoption and detention when districts are
deficient in paying their share of the costs of operating youth facilities.
Juvenile Justice
The Executive proposes to add $9.0 million to increase staff-to-youth ratios at juvenile
justice facilities, resulting in an additional 169 staff for the youth facility program. The
Annville and Taberg (Oneida) youth residential facilities are proposed to be
consolidated; the Tryon Boys (Fulton) and Lansing Girls (Tompkins) facilities are
proposed to be downsized. This is expected to save $3.0 million in 2010-11 ($15 million
in 2011-12), with an expected staff reduction of 251.
Economic Development
The Executive Budget proposes replacing the Empire Zone Program with a new jobs
program, adding two new small business and technology funds. Firms receiving Empire
Zone benefits would continue to receive them, but would not be eligible for the Excelsior
program.
The proposed Excelsior program would be available to firms in any geographic area of
the State, but only within targeted industries including biotechnology, pharmaceutical,
high-tech, clean-tech, green-tech, financial services and manufacturing; and other
industries with significant potential for private-sector economic growth and development,
to be determined pursuant to regulation.
Excelsior would be a State-controlled tax credit program, rather than an entitlement, and
firms would be eligible for benefits only after demonstrating job and/or other
development commitments are met. Tax incentives would include a new jobs credit, an
investment tax credit, and a research and development tax credit. Excelsior benefits
would be capped at $50 million per year for new entrants, ultimately rising to a
$250 million annual cap upon full implementation over five years. Commitments under
the new program in SFY 2010-11 would be applicable to the tax year beginning in
January 2011.
23
The Budget would also create a $25 million Small Business Revolving Loan Fund and a
$25 million New Technology Seed Fund to support the economic growth of New York’s
small businesses and university-based entrepreneurs.
The Executive proposes the consolidation of the State’s economic development
agencies: the Department of Economic Development (DED), a State agency, and the
New York State Urban Development Corporation (UDC) doing business as Empire
State Development Corporation (ESDC), a public authority. Both entities would be
combined within a new public authority, the New York Job Development Corporation
(JDC), which would be created by reconstituting the existing New York Job
Development Authority (JDA).
The new JDC would assume all of the powers, duties and functions of the DED and
UDC, with annual savings of $4.7 million expected, due to elimination of duplicative
functions. Another major economic development authority, the Foundation for Science,
Technology and Innovation, which administers programs to expand university-based
research and technology, would not be involved in the consolidation.
A similar consolidation was proposed in the SFY 2009-10 Executive Budget but was not
enacted. Because functions of a State department (DED) were proposed to be
transferred to a public authority (ESDC), oversight and accountability for programs
would have been substantially reduced. The Office of the State Comptroller’s contract
review and approval process and expenditure review functions would have been
eliminated. Although this year’s proposed merger would be accomplished through
different technical means, similar concerns remain.
Transportation
In October 2009, the Department of Transportation (DOT) proposed a new five-year
capital needs program totaling $25.8 billion for the period covering SFY 2010-11
through 2014-15 to replace the $18 billion five-year program that concludes in
SFY 2009-10. The Executive indicated that the current fiscal crisis made this DOT
proposal unaffordable and instead proposes a two-year $7.0 billion capital program,
split evenly between the two years.
The Executive proposes to eliminate $133 million in multi-modal and industrial access
reappropriations, to free a similar amount of bonded funding for current capital
construction programs. According to DOB, this represents approximately 50 percent of
unused multi-modal appropriations and about 75 percent of unused industrial access
appropriations.
24
Dedicated Highway and Bridge Trust Fund
The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget increases disbursements from the Dedicated
Highway and Bridge Trust Fund (DHBTF), the State’s principal fund for highway
construction, by $92.9 million, or 4.3 percent, over SFY 2009-10 disbursement levels,
excluding transfers. Disbursements from the DHBTF are expected to total $2.3 billion in
SFY 2010-11.
The General Fund subsidy for the DHBTF increases to $695 million in SFY 2010-11, a
$334.9 million increase over SFY 2009-10. This General Fund subsidy is expected to
total $4.7 billion for the period from SFY 2009-10 through SFY 2014-15, demonstrating
the significant structural imbalance facing the DHBTF that remains unaddressed. (See
the Office of the State Comptroller’s October 2009 report, The Dedicated Highway and
Bridge Trust Fund: Where Did the Money Go?)
Housing
The Executive Budget proposes to consolidate the administrative and program
operations of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) with those of
the “nyhomes” public authorities which include the Housing Finance Agency (HFA), the
State of New York Mortgage Agency (SONYMA), the Municipal Bond Bank Agency, the
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corporation (TSFC) and the Affordable Housing
Corporation (AHC).
The Executive expects $3.5 million savings in administration, asset management and
grant making through a single management structure, yet DHCR and “nyhomes” will
remain separate entities. The proposed management structure is unclear (i.e., agency
or authority) making reporting and accountability requirements ambiguous.
The Executive proposes cuts to neighborhood preservation and rural preservation
corporations totaling $3.7 million.
Environment
Department of Environmental Conservation
The Executive Budget proposes $2.95 million in SFY 2010-11 for additional staff at the
departments of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Health, and Public Service to
provide oversight of natural gas extraction activities in the Marcellus Shale. This
includes inspecting drilling sites, protecting water supplies, reviewing permit applications
and other related functions. The Executive Budget proposes a 3.0 percent severance
tax on gas produced through lateral drilling in the Marcellus and Utica Shale formations.
25
The Executive Budget includes General Fund savings of $10 million from shifting DEC
staff costs to special revenue funds of the New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority and the Environmental Facilities Corporation, and extending the
waste tire fee.
Environmental Protection Fund
The Executive Budget for SFY 2010-11 proposes Environmental Protection Fund (EPF)
appropriations of $143 million, a reduction of $79 million from the SFY 2009-10 Enacted
Budget. Real Estate Transfer Tax transfers to the EPF are proposed to be permanently
reduced by $67 million annually.
The Executive recommends a moratorium on the purchase of open space and does not
provide new appropriations for this EPF category. The Executive proposes using
$40 million from the EPF to maintain DEC and Parks properties and to pay local
property taxes on forest preserve lands.
Adirondack Park Agency
The Executive proposes closing the Adirondack Visitor Interpretive Centers in Newcomb
and Paul Smith’s to save $129,000 in SFY 2010-11 ($583,000 fully annualized).
Public Protection
Department of Correctional Services
The Executive proposes closing four prisons: Lyon Mountain (Clinton), Butler (Wayne),
Moriah (Essex), and Ogdensburg (St. Lawrence). These closures, along with proposed
dormitory consolidations, are associated with $7.0 million in SFY 2010-11 savings
($52 million in SFY 2011-12), and once completed would reduce staff levels by 637.
Division of Criminal Justice Services
The Executive proposes to consolidate the operations of the Crime Victims Board, the
Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, and the Division of Probation and
Correctional Alternatives within the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) for
savings of $2.0 million in SFY 2010-11.
The Executive proposes to reduce grants to communities for crime prevention,
alternatives to incarceration and legal services programs by 10 percent to save
$7.2 million. Aid to local probation departments would also be reduced by 10 percent to
save $5.2 million.
26
Office of Homeland Security
The Executive proposes to merge the Office of Homeland Security, the State
Emergency Management Office, the State 911 Board, the Office of Cyber Security and
Critical Infrastructure Coordination, and the Office of Fire Prevention and Control into a
newly created Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services for savings of
$1.5 million in SFY 2010-11. Additional savings of $15.5 million is proposed from
shifting some of the new agency’s operational costs from the General Fund to revenue
from the enhanced wireless 911 emergency services (E911) surcharge.
The Executive proposes grants of up to $50 million next year to help counties develop
communication networks and consolidate dispatch centers using E911 surcharge
revenue previously intended for the Statewide Wireless Network, and recommends
$42 million in new debt to expand the State Preparedness Training Center at Oriskany
into a first responders training center.
Division of State Police
The Executive Budget proposes to delay a State Police Training class in SFY 2010-11,
for a savings of $17 million. The Executive projects the State Police force will be
reduced by 269 positions by the end of SFY 2010-11 and proposes a redeployment
plan to reassign 90 school resource and other officers to highest priority assignments.
Local Governments
The Executive estimates that the proposed budget would have a net negative impact of
$1.3 billion for local fiscal years ending in 2011. This includes program reductions of
$1.6 billion that fall almost entirely on school districts and New York City, offset by a
positive benefit of nearly $337 million in additional local revenues generated through
revenue raising proposals ($175 million), savings generated through mandate relief
proposals ($33 million) and other programmatic increases and reform proposals
($128 million).
Major Executive Budget program actions that impact local governments in fiscal years
ending in 2011 include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reducing school aid by 5.0 percent ($1.1 billion).
Eliminating Aid and Incentives for Municipalities (AIM) for New York City and Erie
County ($302.4 million).
Reducing AIM funding to municipalities outside New York City ($15.1 million).
Reducing Transit Aid to New York City and downstate counties ($8.9 million).
Reducing VLT Impact Aid by 10 percent ($2.7 million).
Reducing the amount available for new Local Government Efficiency Grant
(LGEG) awards from what was originally available in 2009-10 ($1.5 million).
27
Aid and Incentives for Municipalities for Cities, Towns and Villages
AIM for New York City and Erie County is eliminated, representing reductions of
$302 million and $668,332, respectively. Recognizing that AIM has been a stabilizing
factor for many cities, towns and villages since 2005-06 when State revenue sharing aid
was restructured to tie increases in aid to measures of need, the Executive has tied
proposed reductions in AIM in the 2009-10 DRP and the SFY 2010-11 Executive
Budget to a municipality’s reliance on this revenue—the greater the municipal reliance
on AIM, the smaller the reduction in aid.
The $15 million reduction proposed in the Executive Budget is achieved by reducing
AIM by 2.0 percent from SFY 2009-10 levels if AIM revenues account for more than
10 percent of a municipality’s total revenues and 5.0 percent if AIM accounts for 10
percent or less of a municipality’s total revenues. For cities which had their AIM
reduced in the SFY 2009-10 DRP, including Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers,
the SFY 2010-11 AIM would be reduced by only 1.0 percent. In total, for municipalities
outside New York City, $735 million in AIM would be distributed in SFY 2010-11
compared to $750 million in SFY 2009-10—a reduction of 2.0 percent.
Revenue Options
The Executive proposes a number of new revenue raising authorizations that would
benefit local governments. These proposals include:
•
•
•
Providing cities and villages with the option of increasing the local gross receipts
tax rate on utilities from 1.0 percent to 3.0 percent. If all cities and villages
increased the rate to 3.0 percent (with the exception of New York City,
Rochester, Buffalo and Yonkers which already charge 3.0 percent), DOB
estimates cities and villages could generate an additional $53 million and
$57 million, respectively.
Extending the State mortgage recording tax to cooperatives to generate an
additional $76 million, primarily benefiting New York City ($71 million).
Authorizing municipalities to charge or increase various fees for public safety
services, including increased fees for accident reports, fees for ambulance and
emergency medical services provided by fire departments and charging for the
provision of police services at paid-admission events.
Mandate Relief
To help localities manage reductions in aid, the Executive Budget includes a mandate
relief package with more than 100 proposals (including actions already enacted). This
package includes: a four-year moratorium on new unfunded legislative mandates on
local governments and school districts; a full repeal of Wicks law requirements for
school districts; increased procurement flexibility; reductions in paperwork requirements
for school districts; and a requirement that the State Education Department and the
28
Office of Court Administration implement a mandate review process for school districts
and courts respectively. The Executive also proposes legislation that would allow local
governments to amortize a portion of their increased required pension cost.
The Executive proposes a number of mandate reforms aimed at providing specific relief
for counties, including capping the growth in preschool special education costs at
2.0 percent annually, with school districts responsible for spending over this level, and
instituting reforms aimed to make early intervention more affordable.
New York City
According to DOB, the Executive Budget would reduce aid to New York City by
$749 million in City Fiscal Year 2011. Most of the impact would come from reducing
education aid and from eliminating AIM funding to New York City. According to DOB,
the reduction in education aid would have been even greater if not partly offset with
funding from the federal ARRA funds.
The Office of the State Comptroller estimates that the Executive Budget would reduce
aid to New York City by nearly $1.2 billion (see following table). This estimate is higher
largely because the Executive’s proposal to eliminate funding to New York City under
the AIM program in SFY 2010-11 would take effect in the current City fiscal year as a
result of the accounting treatment of these funds. The City also has not yet reflected in
its budget the impact of a previous cut in AIM funding ($26 million) that was included in
the DRP enacted in December 2009.
Impact of the Executive’s Executive Budget
on New York City
(in millions of dollars)
Aid and Incentives to Municipalities
City FY 2010
City FY 2011
(353)
(327)
State Education Aid
-
Health and Social Services
(12)
(493)
Revenue Initiatives
-
(43)
60
Other
(1)
(5)
Total
(366)
(808)
In addition, the State used ARRA discretionary funds ($129 million), which were
targeted for use in City Fiscal Year 2011, to help the State maintain budget balance in
the current State fiscal year as part of the December 2009 DRP.
29
The impact of the loss in funding on educational services remains to be determined, as
does whether the City would reallocate resources from other programs to mitigate any
adverse impact.
State Workforce
The Executive Budget recommends a reduction of 674 full time equivalent (FTE)
Executive agency workforce positions in SFY 2010-11, to a total of 195,701.3 This
represents a 0.34 percent reduction year-over-year from the closeout estimate of
196,375 for SFY 2009-10.
The Executive’s workforce proposals include 16,605 attritions and 134 job eliminations,
offset by 16,065 new fills. The number of attritions is four times the number projected in
last year’s Executive Budget proposal. DOB indicates that the new presentation of
attrition and new fill numbers include all personnel actions, such as filling existing
positions that have been vacated.
The Executive Budget includes a number of proposals to achieve cost savings through
workforce actions in the coming year. These measures are substantially the same as
proposals that were advanced last year but not enacted. The Executive identifies
options to achieve a savings target of $250 million, including the implementation of a
five-day salary deferral for all State employees or the delay or elimination of the
scheduled 4.0 percent negotiated salary increase currently scheduled for April 1, 2010.
The $28 million savings associated with the elimination of scheduled salary increases
for Management/Confidential employees is included in the target figure.
The Executive proposes to require State employees and retirees to contribute to
Medicare Part B premiums: a 10 percent contribution for individuals and 25 percent for
dependent coverage. Currently, the State reimburses the entire Part B premium. This
change would produce $30 million in savings in both SFY 2010-11 and SFY 2011-12.
Legislation is proposed to permit the State to self-insure the New York State Health
Insurance Program (NYSHIP), which provides health insurance for State and many
local employees. DOB expects this option would allow the State to save on tax and risk
charges it currently pays to private insurance providers, with associated savings of
$15 million in SFY 2010-11 and $30 million in SFY 2011-12.
Retirement
The Executive proposes Article VII legislation to permit State and local governments to
amortize certain employer contributions. Pension costs exceeding 9.5 percent of payroll
for employees who are members of the Employees’ Retirement System (ERS), and
costs exceeding 17.5 percent of payroll for members of the Police and Fire Retirement
3
This total does not include employees of the legislative and judicial branches of the New York State government.
30
System (PFRS), could be amortized over a ten-year period at an interest rate
determined by the State Comptroller.
This proposal allows the amortizations in each of the next six years. However, the
percentage of payroll above which costs could be amortized would increase by
1.0 percent of payroll annually. The estimated reduction in contribution in SFY 2010-11
would be $217 million while in SFY 2011-12 it would be $475 million. The impact on the
Common Retirement Fund would be neutral over time, because employers would
eventually pay the full value of deferred contributions including interest.
Legislation proposed by Comptroller DiNapoli would allow amortization of pension
payments similar to the measure proposed in the Executive Budget. However, the
Comptroller’s proposal provides a permanent method to reduce the volatility of rates by
ensuring rates do not increase or decrease by more than one percentage point of
payroll in any year. The Comptroller’s proposal also provides a mechanism to
accelerate the payoff of amortizations during periods when rates are decreasing.
The Executive proposes replacing the Comptroller as sole trustee of the New York State
Common Retirement System with a five-person board. The board would be selected by
a ten-person committee appointed by the Governor (four members), the Comptroller
(one member), the Attorney General (one member) and each of the four legislative
leaders (one member each). However, the Board would have regulatory authority over
the entire retirement system, not just investments. This measure could subject the
Common Retirement Fund to manipulation by changes in funding levels and the
actuarial method.
Public Authorities
The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget estimates that $5.3 billion in capital projects would
be financed using public authority bond proceeds. The Executive Budget increases
bonding caps for ten programs and decreases the bonding caps for seven others. The
net increase in bonding authorizations for public authorities is $1.1 billion. Although
significant, this is considerably smaller than the SFY 2009-10 Enacted Budget increase
of $3.4 billion.
As described previously, the Executive Budget proposes consolidating the State’s
economic development agencies into the New York Job Development Corporation
(JDC), and consolidating the administrative and program operations of the Division of
Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) with those of the State’s housing public
authorities. Both proposed mergers raise important questions regarding accountability
and transparency, since agency functions are proposed to be transferred to public
authorities, which are not subject to the same accountability and transparency
requirements that apply to agencies.
31
Debt and Capital
The Executive’s proposed SFY 2010-11 Five-Year Capital Program and Financing Plan
includes $48.8 billion in projected spending, of which $7.9 billion is spent off-budget and
outside the State’s Financial Plan. The Executive’s Plan includes a Capital Reduction
Program that lowers capital spending from the previous Capital Program and Financing
Plan (updated October 30, 2009) by nearly $1.8 billion over the next five years. This
reduction is proposed, in part, to address the potential of the State exceeding the
statutory cap on State-Supported debt outstanding. However, despite this proposed
reduction, capital spending is projected to increase by $765 million, or 7.7 percent, in
SFY 2010-11 over SFY 2009-10 levels.
As a result of the State’s reliance on debt as well as the recent downturn in the State’s
economy, the State is approaching the cap on State-Supported debt outstanding as
established in the Debt Reform Act of 2000.
Under existing law, outstanding State-Supported debt is capped at 4.0 percent of
personal income.4 In October 2009, the Mid-Year Update to the SFY 2009-10 Enacted
Budget Financial Plan projected that the State had approximately $9.2 billion of
available State-Supported debt capacity at the end of SFY 2008-09. That debt capacity
was projected to decrease, however, to only $52 million in SFY 2012-13 due to the
combination of declining economic conditions that lowered projections for personal
income and significantly increased annual debt issuances.
State of New York Projected State-Funded Debt
Outstanding SFY 2010-11 through SFY 2014-15
(in thousands of dollars)
Proposed Capital Plan
2009-10 Capital Plan
(State-Supported)
Total Other
Projected Outstanding
(State-Funded)
Total Percent
Change Cap
Plan
Total Dollar
Change Cap
Plan
SFY 2009-10
SFY 2010-11
SFY 2011-12
SFY 2012-13
SFY 2013-14
SFY 2014-15
2010 end 2015 end
2010 end 2015 end
50,451,384
53,514,750
55,217,847
55,834,173
55,979,793
56,059,934
11.12%
5,608,550
9,972,935
10,323,150
10,537,070
10,756,382
10,180,604
9,569,402
-4.05%
(403,533)
60,424,319
63,837,900
65,754,917
66,590,555
66,160,397
65,629,336
8.61%
5,205,017
A reduction in planned annual debt issuance is associated with the proposed Capital
Reduction Plan compared to the SFY 2009-10 Plan. The Executive’s proposed
4
See Article 5-B of the State Finance Law. The statutory cap on State-Supported debt outstanding issued after
April 1, 2000 is 4.0 percent of personal income. The cap was phased in over ten years and becomes fully
implemented in SFY 2010-11.
32
Five-Year Capital Program and Financing Plan projects a total of $22.9 billion in StateSupported debt to be issued over the next five years. The annual average issuance is
projected to be $4.6 billion as compared to $4.4 billion in the previous five years.
Projections for State-Supported debt outstanding are also lowered. DOB projects that
State-Supported debt outstanding will reach $56.1 billion in SFY 2014-15, based on
$22.9 billion in new State-Supported debt and $17.3 billion in State-Supported debt
retirements.
Although personal income projections were again lowered for the next five years, the
State’s planned reduction in annual issuances is expected to keep the State within the
statutory cap on State-Supported debt outstanding. This would result in approximately
$2.0 billion in available State-Supported debt capacity in SFY 2014-15.
While the proposed SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget Five-Year Capital Program and
Financing Plan would reduce the State’s reliance on debt to meet existing and new
commitments and increase the use of existing State resources (pay-as-you-go—
PAYGO) in the out-years, new debt issuances are still projected to be higher than in
previous years. Beginning in SFY 2010-11, the proposed Capital Plan increases the
use of PAYGO and reduces planned debt issuance compared to the current Capital
Plan primarily in the areas of transportation, economic development and housing.
The Office of the State Comptroller provides a more comprehensive accounting of the
State’s debt burden. The measure developed by the Office of the State Comptroller,
State-Funded debt, includes obligations that are not counted under the cap on
State-Supported debt outstanding, such as bonds issued by the Sales Tax Asset
Receivable Corporation or the Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp.5
Currently, more than 94 percent of State-Funded debt outstanding was issued by public
authorities and, therefore, was not subject to voter approval. Over the life of the
proposed Capital Plan, public authorities are projected to issue nearly $23.1 billion in
debt as compared to projected issuances of $2.1 billion in General Obligation bonds.
The proposed Capital Plan does not include any new initiatives to be financed with voter
approved General Obligation bonds.
Under the proposed SFY 2009-10 Five-Year Capital Plan:
•
•
•
State-Funded debt outstanding is projected to reach $65.6 billion by
SFY 2014-15.
State-Funded debt service is expected to reach $7.6 billion by SFY 2014-15.
State-Funded debt service is anticipated to grow approximately 30.8 percent
between SFY 2009-10 and SFY 2014-15, making it the fastest growing major
category of spending in the State budget.
5
State-Funded debt was defined by the Office of the State Comptroller in the February 2005 report, New York State’s
Debt Policy, a Need for Change. It represents a more comprehensive accounting of the State’s debt burden. Not all
State-Funded debt appears in the Capital Program and Financing Plan and is, therefore, illustrated separately in the
tables of this section.
33
State of New York Projected State-Funded Debt Service
SFY 2010-11 through SFY 2014-15
(in thousands of dollars)
Total Percent Total Dollar
Change Cap Change Cap
Plan
Plan
Proposed Capital Plan
2009-10 Capital Plan
(State-Supported)
Total Other
Projected Debt
Service (StateFunded)
SFY 2009-10
Projected
SFY 2010-11
SFY 2011-12
SFY 2012-13
SFY 2013-14
SFY 2014-15
2010 end 2015 end
2010 end 2015 end
4,942,050
5,766,457
6,087,696
6,362,830
6,494,889
6,495,180
31.43%
1,553,130
899,411
949,033
1,005,726
1,062,551
1,118,968
1,142,486
27.03%
243,074
5,841,461
6,715,490
7,093,422
7,425,381
7,613,857
7,637,666
30.75%
1,796,204
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding
By either measure, State-Supported or State-Funded debt, the level of debt—and the
associated debt service burden—continues to grow at a rate that cannot be sustained.
34
Senate Finance Majority
Staff Analysis of the 2010-11
Executive Budget
Senator Carl Kruger
Chair, Senate Finance Committee
Senator John L. Sampson
Conference Leader
Senator Liz Krueger
Vice-Chair, Senate Finance
Committee
Senator Malcolm M. Smith
President Pro Tem
Joseph F. Pennisi
Secretary, Senate Finance
Committee
Senator Pedro Espada, Jr.
Majority Leader
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
Senator Carl Kruger – Chairperson
Senator Liz Krueger – Vice-Chairperson
Majority Members
Senator William Stachowski
Senator Suzi Oppenheimer
Senator Velmanette Montgomery
Senator Thomas Duane
Senator Kevin Parker
Senator Toby Stavisky
Senator Martin Dilan
Senator John Sampson
Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins
Senator Antoine Thompson
Senator Eric Adams
Senator Neil Breslin
Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr.
Senator Pedro Espada, Jr.
Senator Jeffrey Klein
Senator Bill Perkins
Senator David Valesky
January 2010
Dear Colleagues;
On Tuesday, January 19th, Governor Paterson proposed his Executive Budget. As a conference, our priorities for the
budget are clear: it must create jobs, control spending, and protect already overburdened taxpayers. While everyone
is in agreement regarding the seriousness and scope of this economic crisis, it’s also clear that in order to meet our
objectives, the Executive Budget will need significant modification to meet the standard of fiscal prudence.
Changing Course
In less than 20 years, the State Budget grew nearly 100-percent—an unsustainable pattern that well outpaced the
race of inflation. Instead of capitalizing on the economic largesse of the 1990’s and early 2000’s, prior leadership
employed a borrow-and-spend tradition. Poor fiscal choices then are hurting us now. For instance, New York’s debt
service load will increase by 17% this year, a clear indicator of the lack of fiscal stewardship of the past.
Structural reforms to the budget are more than a step in the right direction, they are the only path to long-term fiscal
health. It is disappointing that the Executive Budget just barely explores structural changes to state and budgetary
operations. We must be thinking creatively; it is time for innovative budget reforms.
Modifications are Necessary
Nowhere in the Governor’s plan is there a short- or long-term guarantee to provide property tax relief. The Senate
Majority is committed to developing a long-term plan for homeowners, and one of the many ways we can free up
funds for such a plan is through reducing the scope of government.
The Governor’s across-the-board cuts for government are typical – and not nearly enough.
The Legislature has an obligation to the public to enact a budget that creates jobs, controls spending, and provides
relief. The data prepared by Finance Committee staff will provide greater insight into specific programmatic
proposals within the Governor’s budget which must be discussed in depth, opposed when necessary, and made
stronger when appropriate to maintain New York’s status as the Empire State.
Sincerely,
Senator Carl Kruger
Chair, Senate Finance Committee
STAFF ANALYSIS OF THE
SFY 2010-11 EXECUTIVE BUDGET
As prepared by the Senate Finance Committee Staff
Joseph F. Pennisi
Secretary to the Senate Finance Committee
Felix O. Muñiz
Director of Budget Studies
Michael J. Laccetti
Director of Fiscal Studies
Mary C. Arzoumanian
Jacqueline Y. Donaldson
Janet G. Ho
Maria A. LoGiudice
Paul Alexander
Lillian Kelly
Megan Baldwin
David King
Gopa Barua
Lei Liao
Rosa Maria Castillo Kesper
Matthew Peter
Kathleen Childs
Carrie Schneider
Gideon Grande
Ade Somide
Tracy Hennige
Marcie Sorrentino
James Hugger
Angela Stempky
Schedule Of Joint Legislative Public Hearings On
2010-2011 Executive Budget Proposal
Date
Location
Time
Topic
January 25
Hearing Room B
10:00 AM
Local Government
January 26
Hearing Room B
9:30 AM
Environmental Conservation
January 27
Hearing Room B
9:30 AM
Higher Education
February 1
Hearing Room B
9:30 AM
Economic Development
February 1
Hearing Room B
1:00 PM
Taxes
February 2
Hearing Room B
10:00 AM
Education
February 3
Hearing Room B
9:30 AM
Mental Health
February 3
Hearing Room B
1:00 PM
Housing
February 8
Hearing Room B
9:30 AM
Public Protection
February 8
Hearing Room B
1:00 PM
Transportation
February 9
Hearing Room B
10:00 AM
Health/Medicaid
February 10
Hearing Room B
9:30 AM
Workforce
February 10
Hearing Room B
12:00 PM
Human Services
Table of Contents
HIGHLIGHTS OF SFY 2010-11 EXECUTIVE BUDGET ........................................... 1
FINANCIAL PLAN OVERVIEW........................................................................................ 1
EDUCATION........................................................................................................................ 6
HIGHER EDUCATION ..................................................................................................... 10
HEALTH AND MEDICAID .............................................................................................. 18
MEDICAID COST CONTAINMENT ............................................................................... 20
HUMAN SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 53
AGENCY CONSOLIDATIONS AND MERGERS ........................................................... 55
PRISON CLOSURES ......................................................................................................... 58
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 60
CRIMINAL JUSTICE MERGERS .................................................................................... 62
LABOR ............................................................................................................................... 64
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009................................ 68
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE ......................................................................... 70
MANDATE REFORM ....................................................................................................... 79
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF ................................................................................................. 86
TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................... 89
ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................................ 92
ECONOMICS, REVENUE AND CAPITAL ................................................................ 94
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK ................................................................................................... 94
GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS ........................................................................................... 98
ALL FUNDS RECEIPTS.................................................................................................... 99
PERSONAL INCOME TAX ............................................................................................ 100
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE FEES .............................................. 103
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TAXES................................................................................ 105
AUTO RENTAL TAX ...................................................................................................... 106
CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO TAXES ......................................................................... 107
HIGHWAY USE TAX...................................................................................................... 109
MOTOR FUEL TAX ........................................................................................................ 110
MOTOR VEHICLE FEES ................................................................................................ 111
SALES AND USE TAX ................................................................................................... 112
BEVERAGE AND SYRUPS TAX................................................................................... 114
BANK TAX ...................................................................................................................... 115
CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX .............................................................................. 117
CORPORATION AND UTILITIES TAXES ................................................................... 119
INSURANCE TAXES ...................................................................................................... 121
PETROLEUM BUSINESS TAXES ................................................................................. 123
SEVERANCE TAX .......................................................................................................... 125
ESTATE TAX ................................................................................................................... 126
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX .................................................................................. 128
PARI-MUTUEL TAX....................................................................................................... 129
RACING ADMISSION/BOXING AND WRESTLING EXHIBITIONS TAX .............. 130
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RECEIPTS ........................... 131
MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS ...................................................................................... 133
REVENUE ACTIONS ...................................................................................................... 138
ARTICLE VII REVENUE BILL ...................................................................................... 141
CAPITAL SPENDING AND FINANCING..................................................................... 151
PUBLIC PROTECTION AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT ................................. 155
DIVISON OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL .................................................. 155
AUDIT AND CONTROL (OFFICE OF STATE COMPTROLLER).............................. 156
AUTHORITY BUDGET OFFICE.................................................................................... 157
DIVISION OF THE BUDGET ......................................................................................... 158
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE............................................................................. 159
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS ............................................................ 160
CONSUMER PROTECTION BOARD ............................................................................ 161
STATE COMMISSION OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES .......................................... 162
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ...................................................... 163
CRIME VICTIMS BOARD .............................................................................................. 168
DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES .......................................................... 169
DEFERRED COMPENSATION BOARD ....................................................................... 178
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS................................................................................... 179
OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS (OER) .............................................................. 180
EXECUTIVE CHAMBER ................................................................................................ 181
OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ............................................................. 182
GENERAL STATE CHARGES (WORKFORCE) .......................................................... 183
OFFICE OF GENERAL SERVICES (OGS) .................................................................... 185
OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY........................................................................... 186
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .................................................................... 189
INTEREST ON LAWYERS ACCOUNT......................................................................... 190
JUDICIAL COMMISSIONS ............................................................................................ 191
DEPARTMENT OF LAW ................................................................................................ 192
DIVISION OF MILITARY AND NAVAL AFFAIRS .................................................... 193
DIVISION OF PAROLE .................................................................................................. 194
OFFICE FOR THE PREVENTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ................................. 196
DIVISION OF PROBATION AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES................... 197
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD (PERB) ............................................ 198
COMMISSION ON PUBLIC INTEGRITY ..................................................................... 199
DIVISION OF STATE POLICE....................................................................................... 200
OFFICE FOR TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 203
DIVISION OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS .......................................................................... 205
WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD ........................................................................ 206
EDUCATION, LABOR AND FAMILY ASSISTANCE............................................ 208
NEW YORK STATE COUNCIL ON THE ARTS .......................................................... 208
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK ............................................................................ 210
STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT .......................................................................... 214
OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES .................................................... 222
OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE ................................... 228
HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES CORPORATION .................................................. 233
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL ........................................ 237
STATE OF NEW YORK MORTGAGE AGENCY......................................................... 240
DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ................................................................................... 241
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ........................................................................................... 242
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK ......................................................................... 244
STATE UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION FUND .......................................................... 250
OFFICE OF THE WELFARE INSPECTOR GENERAL ................................................ 251
HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE ........................................................................ 252
OFFICE FOR THE AGING .............................................................................................. 252
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES PLANNING COUNCIL ..................................... 254
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ......................................................................................... 255
OFFICE OF THE MEDICAID INSPECTOR GENERAL ............................................... 267
DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HYGIENE ..................................................................... 268
OFFICE OF ALCOHOLISM AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES ........................ 269
OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH .................................................................................... 271
OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 274
COMMISSION ON THE QUALITY OF CARE AND ADVOCACY FOR PERSONS
WITH DISABILITIES ...................................................................................................... 277
TRANSPORTATION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ................................................................... 278
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ................................................................................... 278
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS ............................................... 279
BANKING DEPARTMENT............................................................................................. 283
ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NYSERDA) .............. 284
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ...................................... 286
ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES CORPORATION..................................................... 292
HUDSON RIVER PARK TRUST .................................................................................... 293
INSURANCE DEPARTMENT ........................................................................................ 294
JOB DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ........................................................................ 296
DIVISION OF LOTTERY ................................................................................................ 300
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ............................................... 301
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES ...................................................................... 305
OLYMPIC REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ORDA).............................. 308
OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION & HISTORIC PRESERVATION ....................... 309
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, ........................................................................ 312
STATE RACING AND WAGERING BOARD ............................................................... 314
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION, FOUNDATION OF..................... 315
DEPARTMENT OF STATE ............................................................................................ 317
DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE ........................................................ 319
DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS ....................................................................................... 321
NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY .......................................................... 322
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ..................................................................... 323
TRIBAL STATE COMPACT ........................................................................................... 329
HUDSON RIVER VALLEY GREENWAY COMMUNITIES COUNCIL .................... 330
HUDSON RIVER VALLEY GREENWAY HERITAGE CONSERVANCY (HERITAGE
CONSERVANCY)............................................................................................................ 331
GREEN THUMB PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 332
LEGISLATURE AND JUDICIARY ........................................................................... 333
JUDICIARY ...................................................................................................................... 333
LEGISLATURE ................................................................................................................ 336
FINANCIAL PLAN
HIGHLIGHTS
HIGHLIGHTS OF SFY 2010-11 EXECUTIVE BUDGET
FINANCIAL PLAN OVERVIEW
STATE RECEIPTS
(billions of dollars)
General Fund
State Funds
All Funds
SFY 2009-10
53.554
81.811
131.059
SFY 2010-11
54.570
84.627
133.001
Annual Change
Amount
Percent
1.016
1.9
2.816
3.4
1.942
1.5
•
Total All Funds receipts are projected to reach $133 billion, an increase of $1.9 billion, or 1.5
percent from SFY 2009-10 estimates. All Funds tax receipts are projected to grow by nearly
$3.4 billion or 5.6 percent. This increase is attributable to the full year impact of the
temporary personal income tax rate increase, expiring Federal tax laws, and positive revenue
actions proposed with this Budget. All Funds miscellaneous receipts are projected to
decrease by $592 million, or 2.7 percent. All Funds Federal grants are projected to decrease
by $840 million, or 1.7 percent.
•
Total State Funds receipts are projected to be nearly $85 billion, an increase of $2.8 billion,
or 3.4 percent from the SFY 2009-10 estimate.
•
Total General Fund receipts are projected to be nearly $55 billion, an increase of $1.0 billion,
or 1.9 percent from SFY 2009-10 estimates. General Fund tax receipts are projected to grow
by 5.4 percent, while General Fund miscellaneous receipts are projected to decline by 17.2
percent, reflecting the loss of several onetime payments. Federal grant revenues are
projected to decline by 11.8 percent due to a shift in the timing of payments.
•
After controlling for the impact of policy changes, base tax revenue growth is projected to
increase by 3.1 percent for SFY 2010-11. The projected rebound in economic activity would
increase base growth in tax receipts for the first time since SFY 2007-08.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 1
FINANCIAL PLAN
HIGHLIGHTS
DISBURSEMENTS
DISBURSEMENTS
(billions of dollars)
All Funds
State Funds*
State Operating
Funds
General Fund**
SFY 2009-10
135.190
84.639
79.182
SFY 2010-11
135.858
86.149
79.927
Annual Change
Amount
Percentage
0.786
0.5
1.510
1.8
0.745
0.9
54.129
54.522
* Includes Capital Funds
** Includes transfers
0.393
0.7
All growth rates in the proposed budget are below the level of inflation and below the three year
average growth in inflation embodied in the Governor’s spending cap proposal.
GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL PLAN GAPS
As shown in the following table, the projected General Fund budget gaps, absent any changes,
would total approximately $60.8 billion over the next four years. The proposed Executive
Budget would eliminate the projected $7.4 billion budget gap in SFY 2010-11 and reduce the
projected out-year budget gaps by an additional $24.4 billion. Over the four year period, the
budget gaps would be reduced by a total of approximately $31.8 billion, or 52.3 percent.
GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL PLAN GAPS
(billions of dollars)
Before Budget
After Budget
Actions
Actions
SFY 2010-11
7.418
0.0
SFY 2011-12
14.311
6.286
SFY 2012-13
18.331
10.488
SFY 2013-14
20.713
12.227
Four Year Total
60.773
29.001
Percentage
Decrease
100.0
56.1
42.8
41.0
52.3
All of these gap estimates assume that Federal Stimulus funds (FMAP, ARRA) and the Personal
Income Tax Surcharge imposed in the current year budget expire as currently scheduled.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 2
FINANCIAL PLAN
HIGHLIGHTS
GAP CLOSING PLAN
The Executive Budget would close an estimated General Fund gap of $7.42 billion including the
$500 million rolled over from SFY 2009-10. The table below summarizes the budget gaps
estimated prior to any actions proposed in the SFY 2010-11 budget and the gaps remaining after
those actions.
GAP CLOSING PLAN
(billions of dollars)
Amount
Percentage
Recurring Spending Actions
5.562*
75.0
Recurring Revenue Actions
1.070
14.4
Tax and Audit Recoveries
0.221
3.0
Non-Recurring Actions
0.565
7.6
Total
7.418
100.0
*Includes December 2009 DRP actions of $692 million.
Of the actions taken to close the gap in the SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget proposal, 92 percent
of those actions are recurring. Only eight percent of the gap closing actions could be classified
as “one shots.” The chart below summarizes the shares of the gap-closing plan by broad
category.
Shares of SFY 2010-11 Gap-Closing Plan
Non-Recurring
Actions
8%
Tax Audits and
Recoveries
3%
Recurring Revenue
Actions
14%
Recurring Spending
Control
75%
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 3
FINANCIAL PLAN
HIGHLIGHTS
Combined General Fund and HCRA Gap-Closing Plan for 2010-11
(millions of dollars)
Current-Services Gap Estimates*
Approved Deficit Reduction Plan Actions**
Total Executive Budget Gap-Closing Actions
Spending Control
Local Assistance
School Aid/Lottery Aid
Health Care
School Tax Relief Program
Human Services/Labor/Housing
Higher Education
Mental Hygiene
Education/Special Education
Local Government Aid
All Other
Bonded Capital Spending Reductions***
State Agency Operations/Fringe Benefits
State Agency Operational Reductions
Workforce Savings
Fringe Benefits/Pension Amortization
Revenue Actions
Tax Actions
Syrup Excise Tax
Cigarette Tax
Sale of Wine in Grocery Stores
Informational Returns for Credit/Debit Cards
Film Credit
Empire Zone Replacement Program
Other Tax Actions
Medicaid Provider Assessment
Work-Zone Cameras for Speed Enforcement
Civil Court Filing Fees
All Other Revenue Actions
Tax Audit and Recoveries
Non-Recurring Resources
Federal TANF Resources
Physician Excess Medical Malpractice Payment Timing
Available Fund Balances/Resources
Lottery Investment Flexibility
School Aid Overpayment Recoveries
Executive Budget Surplus/(Gap) Estimate
2010-11
(7,418)
692
6,726
4,870
3,639
1,625
823
213
201
208
46
139
325
59
10
1,221
709
250
262
1,070
799
465
201
92
0
0
0
32
216
25
31
(1)
221
565
261
127
95
50
32
0
*Includes the carry-forward of the 2009-10 deficit into 2010-11.
**Recurring value of administrative and legislative actions approved in December 2009
***Estimated debt service savings from reducing planned capital spending financed with debt.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 4
FINANCIAL PLAN
HIGHLIGHTS
NON-RECURRING RESOURCES
(millions of dollars)
Federal TANF Resources
Physician Excess Medical Malpractice Payment (Timing)
Lottery Investment Flexibility
School Aid Overpayment Recoveries
New York Power Authority Transfer
Workers’ Comp Board – Assessment Surplus Recapture
Rescind Management/Confidential Vacation Exchange Program
Total
SFY 2010-11
261
127
50
32
65
24
6
565
The Emergency TANF Contingency Fund is a onetime ARRA authorization. Other nonrecurring resources include altering the timing of a planned payment under the Physician’s
Excess Medical Malpractice program; investing a portion of lottery prize fund receipts in AAArated municipal bonds instead of U.S. Treasury bonds, subject to market conditions, to realize a
onetime benefit due to differences in market rates; and recovering excess aid payments made to
school districts in prior years.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 5
EDUCATION
HIGHLIGHTS
EDUCATION
The State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2010-2011 Executive Budget provides for a $2.138 billion
school year reduction. This reduction is based on a Gap Elimination Adjustment (GEA)
formula that recognizes school districts’ pupil need, wealth, tax effort and administrative
efficiency. The Executive Budget recommendation provides for a partial restoration of
the $2.138 billion GEA formula. This is achieved through the use of Federal American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds in the amount of $726 million, bringing
the total amount of the GEA reduction to $1.4 billion. Increases in Expense-Based-aids of
$378.8 million provide for a net School Year reduction of $1.1 billion.
Gap Elimination Adjustment: The Executive Budget recommendation for State Aid to
schools includes a $2.138 billion Gap Elimination Adjustment (GEA) for School Year
2010-2011. The GEA is applied to Formula Based Aids excluding Building Aid,
Building Reorganization Aid and Universal Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-K). Contrary to the
Deficit Reduction Assessment or other Gap Elimination Adjustments proposed by the
Governor in the past, the Executive Budget recommendation includes an Administrative
Efficiency Aid in the amount of $35 million which offsets part of the GEA reduction for
136 school districts other than the Big Five.
The minimum GEA reduction is 8 percent while the maximum reduction is 21 percent.
However, a high need school district will not be reduced more than 5 percent of estimated
Total General Fund Expense (TGFE).
The Executive Budget recommendation for a State aid to schools reduction of $2.138
billion is offset by a restoration of 33.95 percent of the GEA reduction through the use of
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds. This restoration in the amount
of $725.9 million reduces the GEA amount to $1.42 billion.
Foundation Aid: Foundation Aid was enacted in SFY 2007-2008 and was intended to be
phased-in over a four year period. Unfortunately, the economic downturn has kept
Foundation Aid frozen at the School Year (SY) 2008-2009 level of $14.892 billion in SY
2009-2010 and SY 2010-2011.
In the Executive Budget proposal, the Governor recommends freezing Foundation Aid
for one more year through State Fiscal Year 2011-2012. In addition, the Executive would
extend the phase-in process for Foundation Aid from seven to 10 years until SFY 20162017. Article VII legislation proposed by the Governor would amend the current phase-in
foundation increase factor for Foundation Aid (see below):
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 6
EDUCATION
HIGHLIGHTS
School
Year
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
Current
Law
37.5%
53.1%
75.0%
100.0%
N/A
N/A
Governor's New Proposal
37.5%
37.5%
43.5%
53.5%
66.5%
81.5%
Building Aid and Building Reorganization Aid: Building Aid allows school districts to
receive aid for approved building projects. The Executive fully funds the $218.5 million
present law increase for Building Aid for 2010-2011. This is an increase of 9.7 percent
over SY 2009-2010. For Building Reorganization Aid, the Executive provides for a
present law amount increase of $3.37 million.
Transportation Aid: Transportation Aid reimburses school districts for approved
transportation expenses including equipment, salary, and benefits. The Executive fully
funds the $99.6 million present law increase for Transportation Aid. This is an increase of
6.4 percent over SY 2009-2010.
Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES): BOCES services are created
when two or more school districts decide they have similar needs that can be met by a
shared program. BOCES helps school districts save money by providing opportunities to
pool resources and share costs. Sharing is an economical way for districts to provide
programs and services that they might not be able to afford otherwise. It is often more
efficient and less costly to operate one central service than it is to have separate programs
in each school district. BOCES services are often customized offering districts the
flexibility to meet their individual needs. The Governor’s Budget fully funds the $33
million increase in present law for BOCES Aid. This is an increase of 4.7 percent from
SY 2009-2010.
Excess Cost Aids:
•
The Executive recommends Article VII legislation that would rename three
Excess Cost Aid categories (Public High Cost- Excess Cost, Private Excess Cost
and Supplemental Excess Cost) to conform these school aid categories to a more
modern terminology.
•
Private Excess Cost Aid provides reimbursement for public school children with
more severe disabilities who are placed in private school settings or in the Stateoperated schools in Rome and Batavia. The Executive recommendation for SY
2010-2011 provides present law funding in the amount of $328.9 million, an
increase of $14 million or 4.46 percent more than in SY 2009-2010.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 7
EDUCATION
HIGHLIGHTS
•
Public High Cost - Excess Cost reimbursement for the additional costs associated
with providing resource-intensive special education program for students with
disabilities. The Executive Budget proposal includes present law funding in the
amount of $454.1 million, an increase of $10.2 million or 2.3 percent more than in
SY 2009-2010.
•
Supplemental Excess Cost Aid is funded at $4.3 million, the same amount as in
SFY 2009-2010.
Universal Pre-K: According to the National Institute for Early Education Research
(NIEER), approximately 1.13 million children participate in State-funded
Prekindergarten programs, about 24 percent of all 3 and 4-year-olds in the nation. State
spending on Prekindergarten programs totals $4.6 billion.1 More than half of the states in
the nation established Prekindergarten programs during the last two decades. As Statecreated entities, these programs vary in design, eligibility requirements, hours of
operation, and other standards.
The New York State Universal Prekindergarten (UPK) program was established under
Chapter 436 of the Laws of 1997. During the 2004-05 school year, 192 districts (224
eligible) served approximately 57,000 students. In School Year 2009-2010, this number
has increased considerably from 192 to 450 school districts and the number of 4-year old
has increased from 57,000 to almost 107,700.
$450,000
UPK Funding
$400,000
$375,691
$399,725
$399,725
2009-2010
2010-2011
$348,644
$350,000
Thousands
$300,000
$250,000
$241,710
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
1
W. Steven Barnett, (et.al.). The State of Preschool 2008, State Preschool Yearbook (New Brunswick: The National
Institute for Early Education Research, 2008).
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 8
EDUCATION
HIGHLIGHTS
Preschool Special Education: The Governor is proposing to limit the growth in
Preschool costs borne by counties and shift certain costs to school districts. The
Executive proposal would limit the growth in the county share of costs for preschool
special education to two percent per year beginning in the 2010-2011 school year and to
assign any growth above two percent to the school district of residence. State funding is
provided in the amount of $619.9 million, an increase of $29.9 million or 4.8 percent
from last year. In addition, the Executive proposal would include $194 million in
discretionary ARRA funds to supplement the program and increase funding to $813.9
million.
Summer School Special Education: The Executive recommends changing State
reimbursement for summer school special education costs from a flat rate of 70 percent
for all districts to the Foundation Aid State Sharing Ratio for each district starting in SY
2010-2011. This would result in a reduction of $35 million or 16.4 percent, decreasing
the $247.2 million in SFY 2009-2010 to $212.2 million in SFY 2010-2011. In addition,
the Executive would limit the portion of the current year appropriation that is available to
pay prior year claims. The Executive proposal would limit claims for services prior to the
2009-2010 school year to $50 million.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 9
HIGHER EDUCATION
HIGHLIGHTS
HIGHER EDUCATION
The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget recommends an All Funds appropriation of $7.9 billion for
New York State public and private higher education programs, a decrease of $5.4 billion or 40
percent from the current appropriation level. The funding decrease is mainly attributable to one
of the Executive’s key proposals – The New York State Public Higher Education
Empowerment and Innovation Act. Among other things, the proposed legislation would
remove campus-generated revenues from the State budget process, thus eliminating the need for
legislative appropriation and oversight. In total, approximately $4.4 billion in various revenue
accounts currently appropriated at SUNY would be eliminated from the budget process,
including $2.3 billion in revenues from tuition and fees and other self-supporting programs.
In addition, approximately $2.1 billion of revenues generated by the three SUNY Hospitals
would be removed from the budget process. The Executive proposal also discontinues the
appropriation of approximately $800 million in tuition and fee revenues at CUNY. According to
the Executive, the provisions contained in this proposal would grant the State’s two public
university systems greater operational flexibility and allow them to compete more effectively
with other public higher education systems in the United States that set their own tuition levels
and make disbursements without state appropriation authority. As shown in Table A, SUNY and
CUNY resident tuition rates in 2009-10 are far below the national average. In addition, while the
average national surcharge on nonresident students is 153 percent, SUNY’s surcharge rate is 128
percent and CUNY’s is approximately 109 percent. The data illustrates that SUNY and CUNY
resident and nonresident tuition and fee rates have been artificially suppressed for a long time.
Included in the Executive proposals are a series of provisions intended to enhance SUNY and
CUNY’s regulatory and operational flexibility in the areas of procurement, land lease, and
capital construction. Much of the Executive’s recommendations related to regulatory and
operational flexibility were proposed in 2008 by the Commission on Higher Education (CHE),
which was established by former Governor Spitzer. Also, a report by the Governor’s Task Force
on Diversifying The New York Economy Through Industry-Higher Education Partnerships
released in December 2009 recommended enhancing operational flexibility of New York
universities to remove impediments to public-private partnerships. Both CUNY Chancellor
Matthew Goldstein and SUNY Chancellor Nancy Zimpher have advocated for these operational
flexibility provisions.
THE PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION EMPOWERMENT AND INNOVATION ACT
The Executive Budget proposal includes a series of Article VII provisions intended to provide
SUNY and CUNY greater flexibility in the areas of tuition setting, self-supporting programs,
procurement and property management. The deregulation provisions would amend the education,
public authorities and the State finance law to:
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 10
HIGHER EDUCATION
HIGHLIGHTS
•
Authorize SUNY and CUNY Trustees to institute a rational tuition policy that will ensure
a fair, equitable and responsible tuition policy that would provide the universities with the
discretion to raise tuition incrementally up to an annual cap of two and one half times the
five-year rolling average of the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI), making it easier
for students and families to anticipate and plan for the true cost of attendance over the
course of a degree program.
•
Authorize the SUNY and CUNY trustees to implement differential tuition rates for
programs and campuses within their systems to enhance academic quality, based on the
recommendation of the college president and in accordance with specific guidelines
promulgated by the trustees.
•
Provide SUNY and CUNY with greater operational flexibility regarding the procurement
of goods and contractual services; the procurement and financing of construction
services; and the lease of campus property.
•
Authorize the lease of real property under the jurisdiction of SUNY to other entities in
support of its educational purpose, and participation in public/private partnerships that
would benefit SUNY's mission and diversify its revenue streams, subject to approval by a
newly created State University Asset Maximization Review Board. This would help
encourage greater business opportunities and innovative research partnerships, since
many potential private companies are unwilling or unable to wait the months or years it
takes for a project to make its way through the legislative and political process.
•
Remove provisions of law subjecting SUNY and CUNY to pre-approval of contracts by
the Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) in order to streamline the procurement of
goods and services, while maintaining provisions requiring the post-audit of such
contracts by OSC.
•
Allow post-audit in lieu of pre-audit requirements for Attorney General approval of
leases between SUNY and its alumni associations in support of dormitory projects.
•
Prescribe specific semi-annual reporting requirements on revenues and expenditures at a
campus-specific level to ensure continued transparency and accountability.
•
Allow not-for-profit organizations affiliated with SUNY to participate in Office of
General Services-maintained centralized contracts.
•
Indemnify SUNY/CUNY students who are enrolled in required academic residency and
internship programs.
•
Authorize the State University Construction Fund (SUCF) to adopt its own procurement
guidelines, pursuant to Article IX of Public Authorities Law.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 11
HIGHER EDUCATION
HIGHLIGHTS
•
Permit SUNY Healthcare Centers to enter into contracts and participate in joint ventures,
subject to annual reporting.
•
Increase the threshold from $50,000 to $250,000 for projects that require performance
bonds.
•
Permit SUNY-affiliated nonprofit entities to utilize the Dormitory Authority financing
services, and authorize SUNY’s community colleges to use the Dormitory Authority
financing services for building of student dormitories.
•
Permit the State University Construction Fund (SUCF) to establish standards and
guidelines for procurement consistent with that of public authorities and to use alternative
construction methods.
RATIONAL TUITION POLICY
Currently, SUNY and CUNY retain operating control over all campus-generated revenues once
appropriation authority has been enacted. Although the SUNY and CUNY boards are authorized
by law to set tuition, they are forbidden from imposing differential tuition rates by campus or
between like degree programs, or to adopt tuition rates prior to the enactment of the State budget.
The result is that the boards of trustees tend to hold the line on tuition if State aid can be counted
on for their financial health. In reality, over the past three decades, SUNY and CUNY tuition
rates have been determined by the State budget process and tuition increases have been instituted
almost exclusively to close State budget gaps.
Moreover, both systems are essentially treated as a unitary system, as the same tuition schedules
have applied to the university centers, comprehensive universities, and technical colleges. In
order to end the cycle of tuition-General Fund substitution, the Executive Budget recommends
divorcing the setting of tuition rates and the spending of tuition revenues from the State
appropriation requirement. In SFY 2009-10, SUNY tuition appropriations totaled $1.28 billion
and CUNY’s totaled $610 million. The Executive eliminates these appropriation lines from the
SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 12
HIGHLIGHTS
HIGHER EDUCATION
Table A
2008-09/2009-10 TUITION AND FEE RATES AT SUNY, CUNY AND
SELECTED PUBLIC FLAGSHIPS
2008-09
2009-10
Resident
Nonresident
Resident
2009-10
Nonresident
Nonresident
Surcharge
14,070
10,260
25,118
26,020
22,278
22,796
23,990
23,229
23,186
31,628
30,935
34,937
24,037
128%
109%
191%
80%
157%
92%
198%
98%
144%
229%
247%
200%
153%
Undergraduate Tuition and fees 4-Year Public
Institutions
SUNY
CUNY
Purdue
Penn State (University Park)
Ohio State
Rutgers
University of Maryland
University of Massachusetts
University of Delaware
University of Virginia
University of California (UCLA)
University of Michigan (Ann Arbor)
Average
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,860
4,300
7,750
13,014
8,406
10,263
8,005
11,946
8,646
9,490
8,309
11,037
8,919
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
12,940
8,940
23,224
24,248
21,818
20,477
21,345
20,169
21,126
29,790
28,917
33,069
22,172
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6,170
4,900
8,638
14,426
8,679
11,886
8,053
11,732
9,486
9,628
8,914
11,659
9,514
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
The Executive recommendation provides authorization for the SUNY and CUNY Trustees to
implement modest predictable annual tuition increases not to exceed two and one-half percent
the five year average rate of the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI). This rate is currently 3.9
percent. Therefore, if SUNY and CUNY Trustees raise tuition rates to the maximum allowed by
the Governor’s proposal, their tuition rates could increase by 9.7 percent in Academic Year
2010-11, corresponding to an increase of $482 at SUNY, from $4,970 to $5,455; and $446 at
CUNY, from $4,600 to $5,046. Although these rates exceed the maximum TAP award, which is
currently $5,000, the Executive Budget does not propose to raise the maximum TAP award to
protect the students who currently receive full TAP awards based on their family income.
The 2010-11 budget request adopted by the SUNY Trustees called for a 2 percent or $100
increase, generating approximately $21 million. CUNY’s 2010-11 budget request also contained
a proposal to raise senior college annual tuition by 2 percent or $90 (see the tuition history chart
below). The Executive proposal would reduce operating support for SUNY by $136.4 million
and CUNY by $63.6 million. According to the Executive, these reductions are necessary to
close the State’s budget gap, and are not a continuation of the long-standing practice of offsetting
the General Fund with new student tuition. It is plausible that if the Executive’s tuition plan is
approved, SUNY and CUNY Trustees may revise their respective tuition proposals.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 13
HIGHLIGHTS
HIGHER EDUCATION
History of Tuition Increases at SUNY and CUNY
Change From Prior Year
Tuition
($)
$ Change
% Change
SUNY
1982-83
1983-84
1991
1991-92
1992-93
1995-96
2003-04
2009-10
2010-11*
2010-11**
CUNY
1,050
1,350
1,650
2,150
2,650
3,400
4,350
4,970
5,070
5,452
--300
300
500
500
750
950
620
100
482
--28.6%
22.2%
30.3%
23.3%
28.3%
27.9%
14.3%
2.0%
9.7%
1982-83
1,225
----1983-84
1,250
25
2.0%
1991
1,450
200
16.0%
1991-92
1,850
400
27.6%
1992-93
2,450
600
32.4%
1995-96
3,200
750
30.6%
2003-04
4,000
800
25.0%
2009-10
4,600
600
15.0%
2010-11*
4,690
90
2.0%
2010-11**
5,046
446
9.7%
*Based on 2010-11 SUNY and CUNY Budget Requests
adopted by their boards of trustees.
**Assumes maximum increase recommended by the Executive
Budget.
COMMUNITY COLLEGES’ BASE OPERATING AID
The Executive recommendation reduces base aid for CUNY and SUNY community colleges by
$285 per Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) student, from $2,545 to $2,260. The proposal would
reduce base aid funding for SUNY community colleges by $53.8 million in the 2010-11
academic year. The proposed SFY 2010-11 State operating support for CUNY Community
Colleges would be reduced by $21.9 million. Base aid was reduced by $130 per FTE student,
from the 2009-10 enacted level of $2,675 to $2,545 as part of the DRP in December 2009 (see
SUNY and CUNY in agency detail section for other community college programs).
HIGHER EDUCATION CAPITAL PLANS
The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget recommends $550 million in capital appropriations for
SUNY State-operated and statutory colleges to continue addressing accumulated backlog of
critical maintenance projects. In addition, the Executive recommends $22.4 million to support
projects at SUNY community colleges. CUNY Senior colleges receive $284 million for critical
maintenance, and $34.5 million for community colleges’ capital projects. In SFY 2008-09, the
Legislature enacted a new $6.2 billion five-year capital plan for SUNY and CUNY. The plans
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 14
HIGHER EDUCATION
HIGHLIGHTS
provided $4.1 billion for strategic initiative and critical maintenance projects at SUNY
campuses, SUNY Hospitals, SUNY Dormitories, and SUNY Community Colleges. The CUNY
system was provided $2.79 billion. While the SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget continues funding
for the multi-year plans, a capital reduction plan (CRP) recommendation would reduce funding
for projects at SUNY 2010-11 by $39 million and $467 million over five years, reducing
SUNY’s multi-year plan to $5.78 billion from $6.2 billion. The CUNY plan would be reduced
by $24 million in 2010-11 and $256 million over five years, reducing CUNY’s multi-year plan to
$2.53 billion from $2.79 billion.
HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES CORPORATION (HESC)
The rising costs of college education, student indebtedness and access to higher education remain
a major concern to New York State citizens. While the Executive recommendations continue
funding for the New York Higher Education Loan Program (NYHELPs), which was enacted last
year, spending for the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) and many of the scholarship programs
administered by the Higher Education Services Corporation (HESC) are being reduced by a total
of $93 million from the 2009-10 levels. The reduction is primarily attributable to the
Executive’s proposal to change eligibility criteria for TAP and reduce awards by $75 across the
board as well as other reforms listed below. Approximately 300,000 students are projected to
receive an average TAP award of $2,588 this year. Last year, 312,000 students received an
average of $2,582 in awards.
Changes to the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP)
The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget recommends the following changes to TAP:
•
Reduce TAP Award across the Board by $75, for a savings of $23.6 million in SFY
2010-11.
•
Strengthen academic standards by requiring that non-remedial students achieve a
minimum of 15 credits and 1.8 Grade Point Average (GPA) after two semesters of
study, instead of the current 15 credits and 1.5 GPA. This proposal would produce a
savings of $8.4 million in SFY 2010-11.
•
Eliminate TAP awards for graduate study. This proposal is expected to generate a
savings of $3 million in SFY 2010-11.
•
Establish default parity such that students in default on federal and other educational
loans would no longer be eligible for TAP. Currently, only those in default of HESC
loans are disqualified from receiving TAP. This reform proposal is expected to generate
$4.1 million in savings to the General Fund in the first year of implementation.
•
Reduce Maximum TAP Award for two-year degree programs from $5,000 to $4,000.
Students enrolled in a two year-degree program would now be eligible for $4,000 per
year. This proposal would save the State $28 million in SFY 2010-11.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 15
HIGHER EDUCATION
HIGHLIGHTS
•
Create new TAP Award Schedules for Financially Independent Students. This plan
would increase the award from $3,025 to $5,000 for orphans and wards of the court and
other students under 22 years of age who are financially independent. A second
schedule would decrease maximum awards for married independent students without
children from $5,000 to $3,025. A net savings of $1.9 million is expected in SFY
2010-11.
•
Expand TAP eligibility to students attending faith-based institutions not under the State
Education Department’s direct supervision and offering religious instructions or
training members of the clergy. This TAP expansion would cost the State $18.3
million annually.
•
Eliminate Private Pension and Annuity Exclusion which provides that the first $20,000
of private pension and annuity income be excluded from determining TAP income
eligibility. This would save the State $2 million in SFY 2010-11.
FINANCIAL AID AND OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS
The Executive Budget maintains funding for most higher education scholarship and grant
programs for the SFY 2010-11 (see chart below). There are a few exceptions where funding is
reduced or eliminated altogether. The Direct Institutional Aid for the Independent colleges and
universities (BUNDY Aid) is being reduced by $748,000 or 1.9 percent, from $39.78 million to
$39.02 million. The Regents Health Care Opportunity and Regents Professional Opportunity
Scholarship Programs were allowed to sunset at the end of the current year. The Executive
provides funding for existing recipients of the Volunteer Recruitment Scholarship program and
the Maritime Cadet Appointment Program at SUNY Maritime College, both of which were
discontinued last year.
The Executive Budget advances Article VII legislation related to financial aid programs as
follows:
• Makes technical corrections to the New York Higher Education Loan Program
(NYHELPs);
•
Extends the McGee Nursing Faculty and Nursing Loan Forgiveness Programs;
•
Extends the Regents Physician Loan Forgiveness Program;
•
Makes technical correction to the District Attorney and Indigent Loan Forgiveness
Program; and
•
Extends the Social Worker and Mental Health Licensing Exemptions.
(See Summary of Proposed Spending chart for appropriations for other programs at the end of
this section).
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 16
HIGHLIGHTS
HIGHER EDUCATION
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SPENDING IN HIGHER EDUCATION - SFY 2010-11
EXECUTIVE BUDGET
($)
PROGRAMS
2009-10
2010-11
CHANGE
ADJUSTED
PROPOSED
Direct Institutional (BUNDY AID)
39,780,000
39,032,000
(748,000)
Tuition Assistance Program (TAP)
864,125,000
825,048,000
(39,077,000)
Aid For Part-time Study (APTS)
14,357,000
14,357,000
0
Higher Education Opportunity Programs (HEOP)
20,783,000
20,783,000
0
Independent Colleges Nursing Programs
941,000
941,000
0
Educational Opportunity Program (EOP)
19,180,000
19,180,000
0
Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC)
49,847,200
49,847,200
0
Search for Education, Elevation and Knowledge
17,100,000
17,191,300
91,300
(SEEK)
College Discovery (CD)
813,100
813,100
0
STEP
9,774,000
9,774,000
0
C-STEP
7,406,000
7,406,000
0
Liberty Partnerships
10,842,000
10,842,000
0
Native American Postsecondary Aid
598,000
598,000
0
Vietnam/Persian Gulf/Afghan Veterans Tuition
8,000,000
12,113,000
4,113,000
Award
American Airlines Flight 587 Scholarship Program
355,000
454,000
99,000
World Trade Center Memorial Scholarship Program
7,000,000
9,000,000
2,000,000
American Airlines Flight 3407 Scholarship Program
324,000
191,000
133,000
Volunteer Recruitment Service Scholarship
1,400,000
1,365,000
(35,000)
Program
Teacher Opportunity Corps
671,000
671,000
0
Senator McGee Nursing Faculty Scholarship/Loan
3,933,000
3,933,000
0
Forgiveness Program
Math, Science and Engineering Teaching Incentive
2,500,000
2,150,000
(350,000)
Program
Social Worker Loan Forgiveness Program
978,000
978,000
0
%
CHANGE
-1.9%
-4.5%
0.0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0.53%
0%
0.0%
0%
0%
0.0%
51.4%
27.8%
28.5%
-41%
-2.50%
0%
0%
-14%
0%
Operating Budget
SUNY
SUNY State-operated Campuses
SUNY Tuition/Fees Revenues
SUNY Empire Innovation
SUNY Community College Base Aid
SUNY Community College Contract Courses
SUNY Rental Aid
SUNY Capital Plan
CUNY
CUNY Senior Colleges
CUNY Tuition/Fees Revenues
CUNY Community College Base Aid
CUNY Community College Workforce
Development
CUNY Capital Plan
CUNY Rental Aid
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
2,292,848,000
1,281,784,000
9,412,000
451,501,226
1,880,000
7,858,000
595,700,000
2,297,110,000
0
9,412,000
437,760,386
1,880,000
11,173,000
572,426,000
4,262,000
(1,281,784,000)
0
(13,740,840)
0
3,315,000
(23,274,000)
0.19%
-100%
0%
-3.04%
0%
+42%
-3.915%
1,048,822,000
610,191,000
173,280,230
1,880,000
1,066,866,000
175,522,500
1,880,000
18,044,000
(610,191,000)
2,242,270
0
1.7%
-100%
+1.29%
0%
284,222,000
6,308,280
318,785,000
8,132,120
34,563,000)
1,823,840
+12.16%
28.9%
Page 17
HEALTH AND MEDICAID
HIGHLIGHTS
HEALTH AND MEDICAID
NEW YORK STATE’S HEALTHCARE REFORM
The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget for Health and Medicaid includes several proposals that
when implemented should improve the delivery of Healthcare in New York State. Building on
the momentous reforms enacted by the Legislature as part of the SFY 2009-10 Budget, the
Executive proposes to reform the way New York State pays for Healthcare.
The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget includes initiatives that would continue rate reforms,
simplify the eligibility process to ensure that are eligible individuals have access to health care,
and maintain the integrity of the Medicaid program. The Executive proposals were developed to
create Medicaid rates that are transparent, straightforward and ensure that high quality services
are delivered to patients. Highlights of the SFY 2010-11 Healthcare Reform proposals are:
•
Hospital Reform: The SFY 2009-10 Enacted Budget offered major changes to the way
New York State pays for healthcare in an effort to shift the focus of healthcare towards
primary care and preventive medicine. The SFY 2009-10 Enacted Budget shifted the
focus from hospital inpatient services to primary care and hospital outpatient and clinic
services. The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget attempts to build on that reform by
proposing several initiatives that would improve patient care. These initiatives include:
o the Potentially Preventable Readmissions (PPR) proposal, which would develop
benchmarks to measure the performance of hospitals and assist in reducing the
number of times that patients are readmitted to a hospital for a clinically related
illness;
o the Obstetrical Access and Quality Pool, which would improve access and quality
of care delivered for OB/GYN services offered at New York hospitals. The
Executive proposes to redirect funds from Indirect Medical Education (IME)
payment to pay for this new pool;
o establishes a more transparent standard for allocating indigent care funds to
hospitals. Under this proposal, Hospitals would receive funds from the indigent
care pool based on the amount of charity care provided. Hospitals would no
longer receive funds for instances of bad debt;
•
Nursing Home Reform:
The SFY 2009-10 Enacted Budget maintained a
reimbursement system that would establish Medicaid rates that used more recent cost
reporting data (rebasing). In addition, the SFY 2009-10 Enacted Budget authorized the
implementation of value based purchasing also known as regional pricing. The
Executive now proposes to maintain the rebasing reimbursement system until February
28, 2011 and then transition to the regional pricing system on March 1, 2011.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 18
HEALTH AND MEDICAID
•
HIGHLIGHTS
Home Care Reform: The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget includes proposals to
transition to refined episodic pricing that encourages quality of care. In addition the
Executive proposes increased utilization review and case management services for long
term care clients to ensure that they are being directed to the most appropriate type of
care.
Finally, in addition to these reform measures, the Executive also proposed initiatives that would
streamline Medicaid eligibility. While ensuring that New York State has access to allow wage
and income reporting and employment data, the Executive proposes to streamline the overburdensome enrollment processes that only serve to reduce individuals’ access to healthcare.
Allowing self attestation of interest income, options for easy transfer of child from Medicaid to
the Child Health Plus Program (CHP), as well as participating in the federal Transitional
Medical Assistance (TMA) Expansion Option, would reduce the number of eligible individuals
that are not insured under Medicaid.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 19
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
HIGHLIGHTS
MEDICAID COST CONTAINMENT
The State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2010-11 Executive Budget proposes $1.8 billion in cost savings and
revenue actions for Healthcare and Medicaid spending. Of this amount, approximately $800
million represent reductions to various Medicaid programs and services. These proposed
reductions to the Medicaid program would result in loss of revenue to various providers
including, hospitals, nursing homes and home care services. The following charts detail the
proposed fiscal implications of the SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget on each of the healthcare
providers throughout New York State.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 20
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
HIGHLIGHTS
2010/11 Executive Budget Proposals-Public Hospitals
Gross Impacts--Effective 4/1/10
Provider Name
Eliminate balance of
2010 Trend Factor
(1.7%)
Increase Inpatient
Cash Assessment
(0.35% to 0.75%)
Reduction of IME
payments from 4.2%
to 3.2%
Align Misallocated
IME funds to Base
Price
Reinvest IME funds
for Obstetrical
Access and Quality
Indigent Care
Reform /
Uninsured
Services
Total Hospital
Impacts
STATEWIDE TOTALS:
($22,414,540)
($23,201,478)
($26,914,899)
$12,179,925
$7,797,971
($1,748,590)
($54,301,610)
HHC
JACOBI MEDICAL CENTER
($1,744,939)
($1,307,736)
($2,649,390)
$1,088,307
$886,869
$0
($3,726,889)
LINCOLN MEDICAL
NORTH CENTRAL BRONX
HOSPITAL
($1,533,746)
($1,199,633)
($2,240,218)
$1,041,537
$553,365
$0
($3,378,695)
($506,883)
($361,701)
($354,683)
$284,291
$399,781
$0
($539,194)
CONEY ISLAND HOSPITAL
($824,188)
($847,730)
($647,969)
$422,483
$179,440
$0
($1,717,963)
($2,373,409)
($1,498,390)
($3,741,651)
$1,310,251
$925,346
$0
($5,377,854)
WOODHULL MEDICAL
($1,294,212)
($1,097,377)
($1,105,144)
$575,171
$420,675
$0
($2,500,887)
BELLEVUE HOSPITAL CENTER
($2,521,201)
($1,721,501)
($3,128,664)
$1,346,893
$386,275
$0
($5,638,198)
($994,852)
($770,989)
($1,448,821)
$535,510
$399,682
$0
($2,279,470)
KINGS COUNTY HOSPITAL CENTER
HARLEM HOSPITAL CENTER
METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL
CENTER
($1,067,939)
($875,897)
($1,024,190)
$412,295
$266,574
$0
($2,289,157)
GOLDWATER MEM HOSP
($1,240,518)
($1,552,843)
$0
$0
$0
$0
($2,793,361)
COLER MEMORIAL HOSP
($584,803)
($1,068,665)
$0
$0
$0
$0
($1,653,468)
($1,696,362)
$0
($1,906,791)
$921,002
$579,458
$0
($2,102,694)
ELMHURST HOSP CTR
QUEENS HOSPITAL CENTER
SUBTOTAL [HHC]
($903,066)
($688,029)
($991,851)
$602,998
$521,598
$0
($1,458,350)
($17,286,118)
($12,990,491)
($19,239,372)
$8,540,738
$5,519,063
$0
($35,456,180)
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 21
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
HIGHLIGHTS
PUBLICS
CLIFTON-FINE HOSP
($850)
($14,131)
$0
$0
$0
($71,183)
($86,164)
($511,380)
($971,831)
($761,766)
$379,357
$0
$0
($1,865,620)
HELEN HAYES HOSPITAL
($37,159)
($174,333)
$0
$0
$0
$0
($211,491)
LEWIS COUNTY GENERAL HOSP
($15,359)
($80,257)
$0
$17,461
$21,275
($182,459)
($239,339)
MASSENA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
($35,460)
($64,427)
$0
$39,701
$35,489
($35,818)
($60,514)
($868,583)
($1,064,034)
($1,325,485)
$654,336
$430,345
$0
($2,173,422)
($89,371)
($468,454)
$0
$0
$0
$0
($557,825)
STATE UNIV HOSP / DOWNSTATE
($838,479)
($1,231,121)
($1,403,904)
$607,859
$652,064
$0
($2,213,582)
SUMMIT PARK HOSPITAL
($110,154)
($155,113)
$0
$0
$0
($1,467,350)
($1,732,616)
UNIV HOSP AT STONY BROOK
($751,338)
($2,106,501)
($1,475,573)
$578,187
$540,880
$0
($3,214,344)
UNIV HOSP SUNY HLTH SCIENCE
($536,711)
($995,884)
($1,161,538)
$447,127
$2,448
$0
($2,244,559)
WESTCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER
($1,315,246)
($2,816,146)
($1,547,260)
$899,339
$573,078
$0
($4,206,235)
($18,332)
($68,754)
$0
$15,820
$23,329
$8,220
($39,717)
($5,128,422)
($10,210,986)
($7,675,526)
$3,639,187
$2,278,908
($1,748,590)
($18,845,430)
ERIE COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER
NASSAU UNIV MED CTR
ROSWELL PARK
WYOMING CO COMMUNITY HOSP
SUBTOTAL [PUBLICS]
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 22
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
HIGHLIGHTS
Gross Impacts - Effective 4/1/10
NURSING HOME
NYPHRM REGION
TOTALS:
ELIMINATE
BALANCE OF
2010 TREND 1.7% (2)
$
(9,827,861)
INCREASE NH
ASSESSMENT
FROM 6% TO 7%
(non-reimbursable)
$
(5,653,172)
TOTAL
IMPACT
$
(15,481,034)
(1) Does not include Other Actions: Carve out NH Drugs, Rate appeal settlement, Reduce Bed Hold Days. Does not include UPL/IGT payments for public facilities
(2) Does not include impact of trend reduction on ALPs
(3) Does not include quality incentive pool, effective April 1, 2010 and Regional Pricing, effective March 1, 2011
CAYUGA COUNTY NURSING
HOM
CHEMUNG COUNTY HEALTH
CEN
CENTRAL
CENTRAL
STEUBEN COUNTY INFIRMARY
CENTRAL
VAN DUYN HOME AND HOSPITA
CENTRAL
WILLOW POINT NURSING HOME
CENTRAL
Subtotal (Central)
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(58,116)
$
(203,828)
$
(99,611)
$
(505,925)
$
(326,328)
$
(1,193,808)
Page 23
$
(34,594)
$
(68,109)
$
(54,356)
$
(254,128)
$
(152,447)
$
(563,634)
$
(92,710)
$
(271,938)
$
(153,967)
$
(760,053)
$
(478,775)
$
(1,757,442)
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
A HOLLY PATTERSON EXTENDE
LONG ISLAND
A HOLLY PATTERSON EXTENDE
LONG ISLAND
A HOLLY PATTERSON EXTENDE
LONG ISLAND
JOHN J FOLEY SKILLED NURS
LONG ISLAND
JOHN J FOLEY SKILLED NURS
LONG ISLAND
LONG ISLAND STATE VETERAN
LONG ISLAND
Subtotal (Long Island)
NEW YORK STATE VETERANS H
NEW YORK CITY
ALBANY COUNTY NURSING HOM
NORTHEASTERN
CLINTON COUNTY NURSING HO
NORTHEASTERN
FULTON COUNTY RESIDENTIAL
NORTHEASTERN
GLENDALE HOME-SCHDY CNTY
NORTHEASTERN
HORACE NYE HOME
NORTHEASTERN
PLEASANT VALLEY
SARATOGA COUNTY
MAPLEWOOD
NORTHEASTERN
VAN RENSSELAER MANOR
NORTHEASTERN
WESTMOUNT HEALTH FACILITY
NORTHEASTERN
Subtotal (Northeastern)
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
NORTHEASTERN
HIGHLIGHTS
$
(59,072)
$
(740,464)
$
(61,724)
$
(25,459)
$
(338,448)
$
(444,712)
$
(1,669,879)
$
(298,847)
$
(314,932)
$
(82,956)
$
(150,343)
$
(171,286)
$
(100,847)
$
(102,152)
$
(245,808)
$
(398,036)
$
(68,989)
$
(1,635,349)
Page 24
$
(31,537)
$
(414,871)
$
(33,250)
$
(19,957)
$
(199,353)
$
(236,586)
$
(935,554)
$
(153,152)
$
(144,711)
$
(45,974)
$
(89,460)
$
(108,740)
$
(40,914)
$
(69,914)
$
(126,202)
$
(234,293)
$
(45,687)
$
(905,894)
$
(90,610)
$
(1,155,335)
$
(94,974)
$
(45,416)
$
(537,800)
$
(681,298)
$
(2,605,433)
$
(451,999)
$
(459,643)
$
(128,930)
$
(239,803)
$
(280,025)
$
(141,761)
$
(172,066)
$
(372,010)
$
(632,329)
$
(114,676)
$
(2,541,243)
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
GOLDEN HILL HEALTH CARE C
HELEN HAYES HOSPITAL RHCF
NYS VETERANS HOME AT MONT
PINE HAVEN HOME
SULLIVAN COUNTY ADULT CAR
SUMMIT PARK NURSING CARE
THE VALLEY VIEW CENTER FO
NORTHERN
METROPOLITAN
NORTHERN
METROPOLITAN
NORTHERN
METROPOLITAN
NORTHERN
METROPOLITAN
NORTHERN
METROPOLITAN
NORTHERN
METROPOLITAN
NORTHERN
METROPOLITAN
Subtotal (Northern Metropolitan
LIVINGSTON COUNTY CENTER
MONROE COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL
ROCHESTER
ONTARIO COUNTY HEALTH FAC
WAYNE COUNTY NURSING
HOME
ROCHESTER
ROCHESTER
ROCHESTER
Subtotal Rochester
FRANKLIN COUNTY NURSING H
UTICA
LEWIS COUNTY GENERAL HOSP
UTICA
NYS VETERANS HOME
UTICA
OTSEGO MANOR
UTICA
Subtotal Utica
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
HIGHLIGHTS
$
(261,821)
$
(2,916)
$
(175,526)
$
(98,952)
$
(164,677)
$
(443,123)
$
(409,873)
$
(1,556,888)
$
(261,089)
$
(729,364)
$
(83,927)
$
(164,367)
$
(1,238,747)
$
(66,816)
$
(145,727)
$
(275,270)
$
(138,065)
$
(625,879)
Page 25
$
(133,696)
$
(4,057)
$
(90,556)
$
(51,420)
$
(82,096)
$
(237,297)
$
(245,255)
$
(844,377)
$
(187,143)
$
(424,910)
$
(51,599)
$
(103,119)
$
(766,771)
$
(37,773)
$
(70,065)
$
(138,210)
$
(72,825)
$
(318,873)
$
(395,517)
$
(6,974)
$
(266,082)
$
(150,372)
$
(246,773)
$
(680,419)
$
(655,128)
$
(2,401,265)
$
(448,232)
$
(1,154,274)
$
(135,526)
$
(267,486)
$
(2,005,518)
$
(104,589)
$
(215,791)
$
(413,480)
$
(210,890)
$
(944,751)
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY HOME
WESTERN
ERIE COUNTY HOME
WESTERN
ERIE COUNTY MEDICAL CENTE
WESTERN
ERIE COUNTY MEDICAL CENTE
WESTERN
GENESEE COUNTY NURSING HO
WESTERN
THE PINES HEALTHCARE & RE
WESTERN
THE PINES HEALTHCARE & RE
WESTERN
THE VILLAGES OF ORLEANS H
WESTERN
WESTERN NEW YORK STATE VE
WESTERN
WYOMING COUNTY COMMUNITY
WESTERN
Subtotal Western
TOTALS
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
HIGHLIGHTS
$
(175,969)
$
(611,442)
$
(132,867)
$
(17,655)
$
(130,137)
$
(111,099)
$
(108,635)
$
(87,628)
$
(120,113)
$
(112,917)
$
(1,608,464)
$
(9,827,861)
Page 26
$
(107,310)
$
(614,413)
$
(68,600)
$
(9,926)
$
(73,068)
$
(55,897)
$
(67,835)
$
(47,893)
$
(65,141)
$
(54,836)
$
(1,164,919)
$
(5,653,172)
$
(283,279)
$
(1,225,855)
$
(201,467)
$
(27,581)
$
(203,206)
$
(166,996)
$
(176,471)
$
(135,521)
$
(185,255)
$
(167,753)
$
(2,773,383)
$
(15,481,034)
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
NURSING HOME
NYPHRM REGION
TOTALS:
HIGHLIGHTS
ELIMINATE
BALANCE OF
2010 TREND 1.7% (2)
$
(3,115,310)
INCREASE NH
ASSESSMENT
FROM 6% TO 7%
(non-reimbursable)
$
(1,436,002)
TOTAL
IMPACT
$
(4,551,312)
(1) Does not include Other Actions: Carve out NH Drugs, Rate appeal settlement, Reduce Bed Hold Days. Does not include UPL/IGT payments for public facilities
(2) Does not include impact of trend reduction on ALPs
(3) Does not include quality incentive pool, effective April 1, 2010 and Regional Pricing, effective March 1, 2011
COLER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL S
NEW YORK CITY
COLER-GOLDWATER SPECIALTY
NEW YORK CITY
DR SUSAN SMITH MCKINNEY N
NEW YORK CITY
NEW GOUVERNEUR HOSPITAL S
NEW YORK CITY
SEA VIEW HOSPITAL REHABIL
NEW YORK CITY
SEA VIEW HOSPITAL REHABIL
NEW YORK CITY
TOTALS
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(1,092,125)
$
(778,106)
$
(462,483)
$
(286,833)
$
(26,306)
$
(469,458)
$
(3,115,310)
Page 27
$
(449,505)
$
(312,520)
$
(225,873)
$
(147,934)
$
(13,328)
$
(286,843)
$
(1,436,002)
$
(1,541,630)
$
(1,090,626)
$
(688,356)
$
(434,766)
$
(39,633)
$
(756,301)
$
(4,551,312)
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
HIGHLIGHTS
2010-11 Executive Budget Proposals
Personal Care Agency Impacts*
2010-11 NYC and Non-NYC Gross Annual Impact
NYC and Non-NYC
TOTALS:
NYC Personal Care Agencies
Non-NYC Personal Care Agencies
TOTAL:
Eliminate the
Balance of 2010
Trend factor 1.7%
($34,570,331)
($27,677,966)
($6,892,365)
($34,570,331)
Increase
Cash
Assessment
from .35% to
.70% (1)
Total Impact
($6,801,213)
($5,435,409)
($1,365,803)
($6,801,213)
($41,371,544)
($33,113,375)
($8,258,168)
($41,371,544)
* Does not include savings from proposal to manage personal care utilization for over 12 hours
(1) Assessment increase reflects 1 month cash lag.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 28
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
HIGHLIGHTS
2010-11 Executive Budget Proposals
Long Term Home Health Care Program Impacts*
2010-11 Gross Annual Impact by Provider
Provider Name
GRAND TOTAL
ALLEGANY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTM
BETH ABRAHAM HOSPITAL - LTHHCP
BETHEL NURSING HOME
BROOKHAVEN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CABRINI CENTER FOR NURSING & REHABILITAT
CATTARAUGUS COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
CAYUGA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMEN
CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION
CLINTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COBBLE HILL HEALTH CENTER
COLD SPRINGS (Un. Pres.)
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER OF ST.
CONSOLATION NURSING HOME
CORTLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL -LT
DELAWARE COUNTY LTHHCP
DOMINICAN SISTERS FAMILY HEALTH SERVICE,
DUTCHESS COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTM
ELANT AT GOSHEN (1)
ELIZABETH SETON PEDIATRIC CENTER
EMPIRE STATE HOME CARE SERVICES-LTHHCP
FAMILY CARE CERT SERV
FINGER LAKES VISITING NURSE SERVICE
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Eliminate the
Balance of
2010 Trend 1.7%
$
(10,507,920)
$
(7,164)
$
(1,694)
$
(23,393)
$
(11,840)
$
(41,547)
$
(12,232)
$
(537)
$
(650,008)
$
(16,946)
$
(40,714)
$
(97,044)
$
(51,529)
$
(36,710)
$
(23,051)
$
(2,749)
$
(93,017)
$
(5,088)
$
$
(47,136)
$
(86,182)
$
(71,276)
$
(1,081)
Increase
Assessment
from .35% to
.70%(2)
$
(2,595,270)
$
(4,032)
$
(367,527)
$
(5,802)
$
(2,383)
$
(9,867)
$
(3,180)
$
(199)
$
(162,307)
$
(511)
$
(3,085)
$
(19,844)
$
(13,340)
$
(7,387)
$
(5,537)
$
(504)
$
(19,022)
$
(1,119)
$
(19,415)
$
(8,895)
$
(17,958)
$
(8,970)
$
(1,368)
Total Impact
(13,103,190)
$
(11,196)
$
(369,221)
$
(29,194)
$
(14,223)
$
(51,415)
$
(15,412)
$
(736)
$
(812,315)
$
(17,457)
$
(43,799)
$
(116,888)
$
(64,869)
$
(44,097)
$
(28,588)
$
(3,254)
$
(112,039)
$
(6,207)
$
(19,415)
$
(56,031)
$
(104,140)
$
(80,246)
$
(2,448)
Page 29
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
FLUSHING MANOR NURSING HOME
FRANKLIN COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
FRANKLIN GENERAL HOSPITAL -LTH
GENESEE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTME
GENESEE REGION HOME CARE (1)
GOOD SAMARITAN HOSP. / SUFFERN
GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL LTHHCP
GURWIN JEWISH GERIATRIC CENTER- LTHHCP
HEBREW HOME FOR THE AGED
HEBREW HOSPITAL HOME, INC.
HERKIMER COUNTY LTHHCP
HILLSIDE MANOR HRF
HOME CARE OF COLUMBIA GREENE HUDSON VALLEY NURSING CENTER
IDEAL SENIOR LIVING CENTER
INDEPENDENT LIVING FOR SENIORS
ISABELLA HOME NURSING HOME
JEFFERSON COUNTY PHNS
JEWISH HOME AND HOSPITAL/BRONX DIV
JEWISH HOME HOSP F/T AGED
KINGSBRIDGE HEIGHTS NURSING HO
LITSON CERTIFIED CARE, DBA WILLCARE
LONG BEACH MEDICAL CENTER
LUTHERAN AUGUSTANA CENTER
MONTEFIORE HOSPITAL AND MEDICA
MORNINGSIDE HOUSE NURSING HOME
COMPANY,
NEW YORK CONGREGATIONAL
NIAGARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(47,949)
$
(7,475)
$
(225,198)
$
(5,298)
$
$
(87,023)
$
(38,949)
$
(39,697)
$
(93,620)
$
(198,409)
$
(2,614)
$
(185,699)
$
(129,360)
$
(46,276)
$
(21,633)
$
(3,482)
$
(266,552)
$
(34,001)
$
(238,167)
$
(247,382)
$
(220,317)
$
(13,557)
$
(42,962)
$
(17,828)
$
(618,589)
$
(158,428)
$
(52,591)
$
(15,248)
$
(38,709)
$
(1,923)
$
(20,453)
$
(9,615)
$
(10,031)
$
(24,811)
$
(56,467)
$
(620)
$
(36,241)
$
(27,410)
$
(7,857)
$
(4,780)
$
(525)
$
(59,635)
$
(6,705)
$
(587)
$
(62,311)
$
(41,043)
$
(2,301)
$
(8,709)
$
(2,706)
$
(1,612)
$
(3,537)
$
(19,147)
$
(124,766)
$
(35,591)
$
(4,399)
$
(10,425)
HIGHLIGHTS
$
(86,658)
$
(9,398)
$
(245,651)
$
(14,913)
$
(10,031)
$
(111,834)
$
(95,416)
$
(40,317)
$
(129,862)
$
(225,820)
$
(10,471)
$
(190,479)
$
(129,885)
$
(105,911)
$
(28,339)
$
(4,068)
$
(328,864)
$
(75,044)
$
(240,467)
$
(256,091)
$
(223,022)
$
(15,169)
$
(46,498)
$
(36,976)
$
(743,355)
$
(194,019)
$
(56,990)
$
(25,673)
Page 30
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
NYACK HOSPITAL - LTHHCP
ONTARIO COUNTY LTHHCP
ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMEN OF HEALTH
OSWEGO COUNTY HEALTH
OTSEGO COUNTY PHNS
PARK RIDGE NURSING HOME
PARKER JEWISH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH CARE
PUTNAM HOSPITAL CENTER - LTHHC
ROSA COPLON LONG TERM HOME HEALTH
CARE P
SCHERVIER NURSING CARE CENTER
SCHOFIELD RESIDENCE LTHHCP
SHOREFRONT JEWISH GERIATRIC
SISTERS OF CHARITY
SOUTH NASSAU COMMUNITIES HOSPITAL
SPLIT ROCK LONG TERM HOME CARE
PROGRAM
ST JOSEPHS HOSPITAL NURSING HO
ST. CABRINI NURSING HOME, INC.
ST. JOHNLAND NURSING CENTER, INC.
ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY PNHS
ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN
ST. VINCENT'S CATHOLIC MED. CTR.
STEUBEN COUNTY PHNS
SUFFOLK COUNTY HEALTH DEPT.
SULLIVAN COUNTY
TIOGA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH NUR
UNITED HEBREW GERIATRIC CENTER
UNITED ODD FELLOW AD REBEKAH
VILLAGE CENTER FOR CARE
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(48,951)
$
(2,358)
$
(20,883)
$
(8,564)
$
(10,431)
$
(103,436)
$
(319,180)
$
(13,288)
$
(14,073)
$
(175,242)
$
(47,277)
$
(524,546)
$
(38,683)
$
(62,016)
$
(38,543)
$
(217,082)
$
(61,981)
$
(19,207)
$
(11,952)
$
(659,520)
$
(607,833)
$
(3,407)
$
(9,764)
$
(30,193)
$
(1,944)
$
(79,464)
$
(15,317)
$
(101,451)
$
(1,191)
$
(5,017)
$
(2,065)
$
(1,596)
$
(22,598)
$
(67,361)
$
(3,180)
$
(6,293)
$
(1,867)
$
(46,781)
$
(11,731)
$
(92,495)
$
(7,983)
$
(11,245)
$
(8,330)
$
(41,793)
$
(14,049)
$
(3,721)
$
(2,933)
$
(131,444)
$
(121,290)
$
(915)
$
(2,502)
$
(5,977)
$
(900)
$
(8,151)
$
(5,814)
$
(18,883)
HIGHLIGHTS
$
(50,142)
$
(7,375)
$
(22,949)
$
(10,160)
$
(33,029)
$
(170,796)
$
(322,360)
$
(19,581)
$
(15,940)
$
(222,023)
$
(59,008)
$
(617,040)
$
(46,666)
$
(73,261)
$
(46,873)
$
(258,875)
$
(76,030)
$
(22,929)
$
(14,886)
$
(790,964)
$
(729,123)
$
(4,322)
$
(12,266)
$
(36,170)
$
(2,844)
$
(87,615)
$
(21,131)
$
(120,334)
Page 31
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF UTICA AND
VISITNG NURSE ASSOCIATION OF LONG ISLAND
VNA HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC.
VNA OF ALBANY, SARATOGA & RENN
VNA OF BROOKLYN
VNA OF CENTRAL NEW YORK, INC.
VNA OF WESTERN NY, INC.
VNS LTHHCP
VNS OF ITHACA AND TOMPKINS CO.
VNS OF ROCHESTER & MONROE CO.
VNSA OF SCHENECTADY COUNTY
WARREN COUNTY PHNS
WASHINGTON COUNTY PHNS
WINTHROP UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
TOTAL GROSS LAG:
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(13,326)
$
(61,368)
$
(151,358)
$
(56,913)
$
(342,194)
$
(24,206)
$
(20,957)
$
(1,998,737)
$
(4,369)
$
(97,683)
$
(26,454)
$
(10,940)
$
(8,144)
$
(65,442)
(10,507,920)
$
(41,941)
$
(16,414)
$
(2,834)
$
(14,401)
$
(32,653)
$
(12,144)
$
(74,860)
$
(396,577)
$
(3,988)
$
(16,377)
$
(664)
$
(21,764)
$
(5,047)
$
(2,333)
(2,595,270)
HIGHLIGHTS
$
(55,267)
$
(77,782)
$
(154,192)
$
(71,314)
$
(374,848)
$
(36,350)
$
(95,817)
$
(2,395,314)
$
(8,357)
$
(114,060)
$
(27,118)
$
(32,704)
$
(13,191)
$
(67,775)
(13,103,190)
Page 32
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
HIGHLIGHTS
2010/11 Executive Budget Proposals
Personal Care Agency Impacts*
2010-11 Gross Annual Impact by Provider
Provider
No.
Provider Name
TOTALS:
0054673659
A & A STAFFING HEALTH CARE
0048589629
A & B HEALTH CARE SERVICES
0128098243
A & T HEALTHCARE
0128098235
A & T HEALTHCARE
0128098213
A & T HEALTHCARE
0128098239
A & T HEALTHCARE
0207459143
ABET UNIVERSAL SERVICES
0035467829
ABLE HEALTH CARE SERVICE INC.
0035467851
ABLE HEALTH CARE SERVICE INC.
0035467859
ABLE HEALTH CARE SERVICE INC.
0134883801
ACCENT HEALTH CARE SERVICES INC
0134883841
ACCENT HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC.
0134883845
ACCENT HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC.
0134883846
ACCENT HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC.
0099157559
ACCENTCARE OF NY
0099157513
ACCENTCARE OF NY
0099157539
ACCENTCARE OF NY
0179766248
ACCESS TO INDEPENDENCE AND MOBILITY
0179766250
ACCESS TO INDEPENDENCE AND MOBILITY
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Eliminate
the Balance
of 2010
Trend 1.7%
$
(6,892,365)
$
(89,886)
$
(24,943)
$
(57,235)
$
(36,875)
$
(36,522)
$
(36,220)
$
(6,884)
$
(35,563)
$
(19,452)
$
(13,680)
$
(4,700)
$
(6,364)
$
(1,036)
$
(1,016)
$
(130,502)
$
(16,705)
$
(199)
$
(27,575)
$
(10,468)
Increase
Cash
Assessment
from .35% to
.70% (1)
$(1,365,803)
(17,812)
(4,943)
(11,342)
(7,307)
(7,237)
(7,177)
(1,364)
(7,047)
(3,855)
(2,711)
(931)
(1,261)
(205)
(201)
(25,860)
(3,310)
(40)
(5,464)
(2,074)
Total
Impact
$
(8,258,168)
$
(107,698)
$
(29,886)
$
(68,576)
$
(44,182)
$
(43,759)
$
(43,398)
$
(8,248)
$
(42,610)
$
(23,307)
$
(16,390)
$
(5,632)
$
(7,625)
$
(1,242)
$
(1,218)
$
(156,362)
$
(20,015)
$
(239)
$
(33,039)
$
(12,542)
Page 33
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
0179766207
ACCESS TO INDEPENDENCE AND MOBILITY
0090862743
ACCREDITED AIDES PLUS
0081103206
ACCREDITED CARE INC.
0112364201
ACCU CARE HEALTH SERVICES
0106459341
ADEPT HEALTH CARE SERVICE, INC.
0106459301
ADEPT HEALTH CARE SERVICE, INC.
0106459345
ADEPT HEALTH CARE SERVICE, INC.
0118018931
AFTERCARE NURSING SERVICE INC
0118018914
AFTERCARE NURSING SERVICES, INC.
0118018906
AFTERCARE NURSING SERVICES, INC.
0035466951
AIDES AT HOME
0035466929
AIDES AT HOME
0302858027
ALL ABOUT YOU HOME CARE,INC
0084696029
ALL METRO HEALTH CARE
0084696059
ALL METRO HEALTH CARE
0084696001
ALL METRO HEALTH CARE
0084696014
ALL METRO HEALTH CARE
0084696051
ALL METRO HEALTH CARE
0084696046
ALL METRO HEALTH CARE
0084696027
ALL METRO HEALTH CARE
0084696033
ALL METRO HEALTH CARE
0084696045
ALL METRO HEALTH CARE
0084696041
ALL METRO HEALTH CARE
0084696054
ALL METRO HEALTH CARE
0084696019
ALL METRO HEALTH CARE
0084696011
ALL METRO HEALTH CARE
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(9,677)
$
(22,549)
$
(10,382)
$
(3,452)
$
(6,395)
$
(3,169)
$
(124)
$
(662)
$
(36,492)
$
(1,699)
$
(54,792)
$
(10,715)
$
(13,174)
$
(80,732)
$
(35,707)
$
(27,805)
$
(24,653)
$
(19,734)
$
(11,412)
$
(9,765)
$
(4,693)
$
(3,421)
$
(2,932)
$
(1,252)
$
(1,120)
$
(154)
HIGHLIGHTS
(1,918)
(4,468)
(2,057)
(684)
(1,267)
(628)
(25)
(131)
(7,231)
(337)
(10,858)
(2,123)
(2,610)
(15,998)
(7,076)
(5,510)
(4,885)
(3,911)
(2,261)
(1,935)
(930)
(678)
(581)
(248)
(222)
(30)
$
(11,595)
$
(27,017)
$
(12,440)
$
(4,136)
$
(7,662)
$
(3,797)
$
(148)
$
(793)
$
(43,724)
$
(2,035)
$
(65,649)
$
(12,838)
$
(15,784)
$
(96,730)
$
(42,782)
$
(33,315)
$
(29,539)
$
(23,644)
$
(13,673)
$
(11,700)
$
(5,623)
$
(4,099)
$
(3,513)
$
(1,500)
$
(1,342)
$
(184)
Page 34
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
0174093602
ALLEGANY COUNTY ARC
0104012414
AMAK HEALTHCARE
0256956010
ANGEL HOME HEALTH CARE
0256956019
ANGEL HOME HEALTH CARE
0256956001
ANGEL HOME HEALTH CARE
0099143359
ANY-TIME HOME CARE
0099143313
ANY-TIME HOME CARE
0099143355
ANY-TIME HOME CARE
0099143335
ANY-TIME HOME CARE
0099143301
ANY-TIME HOME CARE
0099143352
ANY-TIME HOME CARE
0099143310
ANY-TIME HOME CARE
0099143341
ANY-TIME HOME CARE
0099143339
ANY-TIME HOME CARE
0099143345
ANY-TIME HOME CARE
0099143346
ANY-TIME HOME CARE
0099143319
ANY-TIME HOME CARE
0177645235
ARDEN HILL LIFE CARE CENTER
0173391733
ARISE, INC.
0173391737
ARISE, INC.
0085078429
ATTENTIVE CARE
0085078451
ATTENTIVE CARE
0090869001
ATTENTIVE CARE
0090869041
ATTENTIVE CARE
0090869046
ATTENTIVE CARE
0090869045
ATTENTIVE CARE
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(2,135)
$
(10,626)
$
(5,352)
$
(5,352)
$
(5,258)
$
(250,765)
$
(53,845)
$
(39,654)
$
(38,048)
$
(27,034)
$
(25,395)
$
(25,226)
$
(17,507)
$
(17,215)
$
(15,150)
$
(10,407)
$
(3,706)
$
(619)
$
(16,657)
$
(14,471)
$
(23,712)
$
(12,324)
$
(8,672)
$
(2,312)
$
(1,417)
$
(1,314)
HIGHLIGHTS
(423)
(2,106)
(1,060)
(1,060)
(1,042)
(49,692)
(10,670)
(7,858)
(7,540)
(5,357)
(5,032)
(4,999)
(3,469)
(3,411)
(3,002)
(2,062)
(734)
(123)
(3,301)
(2,868)
(4,699)
(2,442)
(1,718)
(458)
(281)
(260)
$
(2,558)
$
(12,732)
$
(6,412)
$
(6,412)
$
(6,300)
$
(300,457)
$
(64,515)
$
(47,512)
$
(45,587)
$
(32,391)
$
(30,427)
$
(30,225)
$
(20,977)
$
(20,626)
$
(18,152)
$
(12,470)
$
(4,441)
$
(741)
$
(19,958)
$
(17,339)
$
(28,410)
$
(14,767)
$
(10,390)
$
(2,770)
$
(1,698)
$
(1,574)
Page 35
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
0090866355
BERMAC
0090866313
BERMAC
0090866319
BERMAC
0078841859
BEST CARE
0078841829
BEST CARE
0078841851
BEST CARE
0124688629
BETTER HOME HEALTH CARE
0089645105
CAYUGA HEALTH ASSOC.
0194568827
CENTER FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS
0194568834
CENTER FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS
0194568861
CENTER FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS
0194568848
CENTER FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS
0194568858
CENTER FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS
0194568818
CENTER FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS
0194568860
CENTER FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS
0194568850
CENTER FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS
0194568836
CENTER FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS
0194568812
CENTER FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS
0194568825
CENTER FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS
0194568833
CENTER FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS
0161414410
CENTER FOR THE DISABLED
0081104106
CHAUTAUQUA OPPORTUNITIES
0090452704
COMMUNITY CARE OF WNY
0090452760
COMMUNITY CARE OF WNY
0090452718
COMMUNITY CARE OF WNY
0105254243
COMMUNITY HEALTH AIDE SERVICES
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(27,616)
$
(3,587)
$
(33)
$
(69,263)
$
(34,471)
$
(30,875)
$
(62,987)
$
(4,033)
$
(189,713)
$
(63,542)
$
(8,193)
$
(6,399)
$
(5,885)
$
(3,771)
$
(2,991)
$
(2,767)
$
(2,532)
$
(499)
$
(162)
$
(158)
$
(646)
$
(13,625)
$
(4,292)
$
(3,701)
$
(3,318)
$
(9,174)
HIGHLIGHTS
(5,472)
(711)
(7)
(13,725)
(6,831)
(6,118)
(12,482)
(799)
(37,594)
(12,592)
(1,624)
(1,268)
(1,166)
(747)
(593)
(548)
(502)
(99)
(32)
(31)
(128)
(2,700)
(851)
(733)
(658)
(1,818)
$
(33,088)
$
(4,298)
$
(40)
$
(82,988)
$
(41,302)
$
(36,993)
$
(75,468)
$
(4,832)
$
(227,307)
$
(76,134)
$
(9,817)
$
(7,667)
$
(7,052)
$
(4,518)
$
(3,584)
$
(3,315)
$
(3,033)
$
(598)
$
(194)
$
(189)
$
(774)
$
(16,325)
$
(5,143)
$
(4,434)
$
(3,976)
$
(10,992)
Page 36
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
0105254235
COMMUNITY HEALTH AIDE SERVICES
0179301715
COMMUNITY WORK AND INDEPENDENCE
0179301756
COMMUNITY WORK AND INDEPENDENCE INC
0179301757
COMMUNITY WORK AND INDEPENDENCE INC
0170770805
COMPREHENSIVE TECHNOLOGY CTR
0170770849
COMPREHENSIVE TECHNOLOGY CTR
0166411759
CONCEPT: CARE INC
0240779859
CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENT CHOICES
0240779809
CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENT CHOICES
0240779801
CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENT CHOICES
0240779829
CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENT CHOICES
0240779846
CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENT CHOICES
0240779845
CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENT CHOICES
0240779820
CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENT CHOICES
0240779812
CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENT CHOICES
0240779839
CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENT CHOICES
0240779819
CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENT CHOICES
0188056001
CONSUMER DIRECTED CHOICES
0188056045
CONSUMER DIRECTED CHOICES
0188056046
CONSUMER DIRECTED CHOICES
0188056019
CONSUMER DIRECTED CHOICES
0188056010
CONSUMER DIRECTED CHOICES
0284382311
CORTLAND COUNTY DEPT OF HEALTH DIV_ NUR
0128870633
ENABLE
0215044310
ENS HLTH CARE MGMT (Interim Health Care)
0215044301
ENS HLTH CARE MGMT (Interim Healthcare)
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(2,803)
$
(581)
$
(23,619)
$
(12,372)
$
(8,381)
$
(1,213)
$
(9,445)
$
(96,047)
$
(15,103)
$
(9,429)
$
(6,731)
$
(5,279)
$
(5,213)
$
(1,676)
$
(838)
$
(838)
$
(838)
$
(76,646)
$
(64,360)
$
(56,796)
$
(7,877)
$
(179)
$
(316)
$
(92,956)
$
(465)
$
(6,406)
HIGHLIGHTS
(556)
(115)
(4,680)
(2,452)
(1,661)
(240)
(1,872)
(19,033)
(2,993)
(1,869)
(1,334)
(1,046)
(1,033)
(332)
(166)
(166)
(166)
(15,188)
(12,754)
(11,255)
(1,561)
(35)
(63)
(18,420)
(92)
(1,269)
$
(3,359)
$
(696)
$
(28,299)
$
(14,824)
$
(10,042)
$
(1,453)
$
(11,317)
$
(115,079)
$
(18,096)
$
(11,298)
$
(8,065)
$
(6,325)
$
(6,246)
$
(2,008)
$
(1,005)
$
(1,004)
$
(1,004)
$
(91,835)
$
(77,113)
$
(68,051)
$
(9,438)
$
(214)
$
(379)
$
(111,376)
$
(557)
$
(7,676)
Page 37
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
0215044356
ENS HLTH CARE MGMT (Interim Healthcare)
0215044345
ENS HLTH CARE MGMT (Interim Healthcare)
0215044357
ENS HLTH CARE MGMT (Interim Healthcare)
0215044341
ENS HLTH CARE MGMT (Interim Healthcare)
0091458529
EXTENDED CARE HEALTH SERVICE
0091458551
EXTENDED CARE HEALTH SERVICE
0066058651
FAMILY AIDES INC
0035471029
FAMILY AIDES INC
0035471059
FAMILY AIDES INC
0091164243
FAMILY AIDES INC
0055587146
0059034503
FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE
FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SOCIETY OF BROOME
COUNTY
0116872108
FAMILY HOME CARE, INC.
0116872122
FAMILY HOME CARE, INC.
0116872132
FAMILY HOME CARE, INC.
0116872112
FAMILY HOME CARE, INC.
0116872126
FAMILY HOME CARE, INC.
0116872124
FAMILY HOME CARE, INC.
0054661259
FAMILY SERVICE SOCIETY OF YONKERS
0090645007
FAMILY SERVICES OF CHEMUNG
0054660359
FAMILY SERVICES OF WESTCHESTER
0182358734
FINGER LAKES HOME CARE
0177646154
FINGER LAKES INDEPENDENCE CENTER
0141900729
FIRST CHOICE HOME CARE
0296979956
FORT HUDSON HOMECARE
0296979957
FORT HUDSON HOMECARE
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(1,540)
$
(527)
$
(271)
$
(4)
$
(30,055)
$
(19,766)
$
(39,155)
$
(12,148)
$
(3,340)
$
(2,602)
$
(498)
$
(13,264)
$
(5,043)
$
(4,036)
$
(902)
$
(227)
$
(182)
$
(111)
$
(58,924)
$
(10,923)
$
(35,844)
$
(2,127)
$
(33,024)
$
(54,110)
$
(205)
$
(205)
HIGHLIGHTS
(305)
(105)
(54)
(1)
(5,956)
(3,917)
(7,759)
(2,407)
(662)
(516)
(99)
(2,628)
(999)
(800)
(179)
(45)
(36)
(22)
(11,676)
(2,165)
(7,103)
(422)
(6,544)
(10,723)
(41)
(41)
$
(1,845)
$
(632)
$
(325)
$
(5)
$
(36,011)
$
(23,683)
$
(46,914)
$
(14,556)
$
(4,002)
$
(3,118)
$
(596)
$
(15,892)
$
(6,043)
$
(4,836)
$
(1,081)
$
(272)
$
(219)
$
(134)
$
(70,600)
$
(13,088)
$
(42,946)
$
(2,549)
$
(39,568)
$
(64,833)
$
(246)
$
(246)
Page 38
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
0205618251
FRIENDS HOME CARE
0148777829
0147051134
G.E.M HEALTH CARE AGENCY INC.
GENESEE REGION HOME CARE OF ONTARIO
COUN
GENESEE REGION HOME CARE OF ONTARIO
COUN
GENESEE REGION HOME CARE OF ONTARIO
COUN
GENESEE REGION HOME CARE OF ONTARIO
COUN
GENESEE REGION HOME CARE OF ONTARIO
COUNTY, INC.
0035484351
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0080675314
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0090988435
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0090987552
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0055584447
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0055584428
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0055584417
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0055584418
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0090986655
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0055584401
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0065581233
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0055584441
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0080675303
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0065581237
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0080675353
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0080675336
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0055584446
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0080675360
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0080675307
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0147051158
0147051149
0147051125
0147051127
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(9,516)
$
(19,832)
$
(14,520)
$
(1,217)
$
(1,127)
$
(214)
$
(1,273)
$
(8,540)
$
(8,254)
$
(6,268)
$
(4,082)
$
(3,798)
$
(3,161)
$
(2,404)
$
(2,341)
$
(1,890)
$
(1,614)
$
(1,540)
$
(1,085)
$
(816)
$
(504)
$
(449)
$
(361)
$
(340)
$
(130)
$
(47)
HIGHLIGHTS
(1,886)
(3,930)
(2,877)
(241)
(223)
(43)
(252)
(1,692)
(1,636)
(1,242)
(809)
(753)
(626)
(476)
(464)
(375)
(320)
(305)
(215)
(162)
(100)
(89)
(71)
(67)
(26)
(9)
$
(11,402)
$
(23,762)
$
(17,397)
$
(1,458)
$
(1,350)
$
(257)
$
(1,525)
$
(10,232)
$
(9,889)
$
(7,510)
$
(4,891)
$
(4,550)
$
(3,788)
$
(2,880)
$
(2,805)
$
(2,265)
$
(1,934)
$
(1,845)
$
(1,300)
$
(977)
$
(604)
$
(538)
$
(432)
$
(407)
$
(156)
$
(57)
Page 39
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
0055584445
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
0158266346
0179472959
GENTLE HOME HEALTH CARE
GRACE CHURCH COMMUNITY CTR DBA
NEIGHBORS PROGRAM
0035807656
GREATER ADIRONDACK HOME AIDES
0035807657
GREATER ADIRONDACK HOME AIDES
0035807645
GREATER ADIRONDACK HOME AIDES
0206008435
0165664259
HAND IN HAND CARE
HEALTH ACQUISITION CORP DBA ALLEN HEALTH
CARE SERV
HEALTH ACQUISITION CORP DBA ALLEN HEALTH
CARE SERV
0199214914
HEALTH FORCE
0095367744
HEALTH SERVICES OF NORTHERN NY
0081865329
HELPING HANDS HOMEMAKING SERV
0081865351
0198063421
HELPING HANDS HOMEMAKING SERV
HERKIMER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING
SERVICE
0179895235
HOLDEN HOME LICENSED HOME CARE AGENCY
0091624350
HOME & HEALTH CARE SERVICES
0058802326
HOME AIDES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK
0058802333
HOME AIDES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK, INC.
0058802337
HOME AIDES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK, INC.
0090865443
HOME AIDES OF ROCKLAND, INC.
0089644211
0116304213
HOME CARE FOR CORTLAND COUNTY, INC
HOME HEALTH CARE & COMPANION AGENCY,
INC.
HOME HEALTH CARE & COMPANION AGENCY,
INC.
0089174520
HOME HEALTH CARE OF HAMILTON COUNTY, INC.
0054665859
HOME HEALTH SVS. WEST. JEWISH
HOME SERVICE FOR OSWEGO CTY. / OSWEGO
HOSPITAL
0035468729
0116304255
0091415437
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(30)
$
(1,592)
$
(11,044)
$
(3,377)
$
(2,306)
$
(1,887)
$
(4,163)
$
(46,206)
$
(34,126)
$
(28,484)
$
(46,917)
$
(39,940)
$
(6,224)
$
(2,791)
$
(649)
$
(3,368)
$
(268)
$
(20,169)
$
(2,394)
$
(8,808)
$
(5,194)
$
(19,919)
$
(2,571)
$
(890)
$
(32,719)
$
(3,359)
HIGHLIGHTS
(6)
(316)
(2,189)
(669)
(457)
(374)
(825)
(9,156)
(6,762)
(5,644)
(9,297)
(7,915)
(1,233)
(553)
(129)
(667)
(53)
(3,997)
(474)
(1,745)
(1,029)
(3,947)
(510)
(176)
(6,484)
(666)
$
(36)
$
(1,908)
$
(13,233)
$
(4,046)
$
(2,763)
$
(2,261)
$
(4,988)
$
(55,363)
$
(40,888)
$
(34,128)
$
(56,214)
$
(47,855)
$
(7,458)
$
(3,344)
$
(777)
$
(4,035)
$
(321)
$
(24,166)
$
(2,868)
$
(10,553)
$
(6,223)
$
(23,867)
$
(3,081)
$
(1,066)
$
(39,203)
$
(4,025)
Page 40
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
0080671706
HOMEMAKERS OF BROOME, INC DBA
CAREGIVERS
HOMEMAKERS OF MOHAWK VALLEY, INC DBA
CAREGIVERS
HOMEMAKERS OF WESTERN NY, INC DBA
CAREGIVERS
HOMEMAKERS OF WESTERN NY, INC DBA
CAREGIVERS
HOMEMAKERS OF WESTERN NY, INC DBA
CAREGIVERS
HOMEMAKERS OF WESTERN NY, INC DBA
CAREGIVERS
HOMEMAKERS OF WESTERN NY, INC DBA
CAREGIVERS
HOMEMAKERS OF WESTERN NY, INC DBA
CAREGIVERS
HOMEMAKERS OF WESTERN NY, INC DBA
CAREGIVERS
0094476113
HUDSON VALLEY HOME CARE
0094476155
HUDSON VALLEY HOME CARE
0103038633
INDEPENDENT HEALTH CARE SERVIC
0173893055
INDEPENDENT LIVING INC.
0173893052
INDEPENDENT LIVING INC.
0173893035
INDEPENDENT LIVING INC.
0173893013
INDEPENDENT LIVING INC.
0059035403
INTERIM HEALTHCARE OF BINGHAMTON, INC.
0059035453
INTERIM HEALTHCARE OF BINGHAMTON, INC.
0080672614
INTERIM HEALTHCARE OF BUFFALO, INC.
0080672631
INTERIM HEALTHCARE OF BUFFALO, INC.
0297024927
INTERIM HEALTHCARE OF ROCHESTER
0058800533
INTERIM HEALTHCARE OF SYRACUSE,INC.
0167928559
J & K HEALTHCARE SERVICES
0217724651
J&P WATSON DBA INTERIM HEALTHCARE
0217724659
J&P WATSON DBA INTERIM HEALTHCARE
0217724643
J&P WATSON DBA INTERIM HEALTHCARE
0099144203
0092127932
0080671744
0080671714
0080671716
0080671707
0080671722
0080671754
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(3,173)
$
(4,875)
$
(22,179)
$
(9,649)
$
(7,695)
$
(7,116)
$
(6,665)
$
(5,750)
$
(3,129)
$
(563)
$
(99)
$
(2,951)
$
(40,443)
$
(12,514)
$
(12,337)
$
(5,611)
$
(2,460)
$
(457)
$
(31,284)
$
(3,879)
$
(14,773)
$
(2,231)
$
(2,861)
$
(33,263)
$
(23,596)
$
(15,754)
HIGHLIGHTS
(629)
(966)
(4,395)
(1,912)
(1,525)
(1,410)
(1,321)
(1,140)
(620)
(112)
(20)
(585)
(8,014)
(2,480)
(2,445)
(1,112)
(487)
(91)
(6,199)
(769)
(2,927)
(442)
(567)
(6,591)
(4,676)
(3,122)
$
(3,802)
$
(5,841)
$
(26,574)
$
(11,562)
$
(9,220)
$
(8,527)
$
(7,985)
$
(6,890)
$
(3,749)
$
(675)
$
(118)
$
(3,535)
$
(48,457)
$
(14,994)
$
(14,782)
$
(6,723)
$
(2,948)
$
(547)
$
(37,483)
$
(4,648)
$
(17,700)
$
(2,673)
$
(3,427)
$
(39,855)
$
(28,272)
$
(18,876)
Page 41
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
0115759702
JAN & BEV'S HOME CARE INC
0177190243
JAWANIO, INC.
0150897429
JZANUS HOME CARE INC.
0150897451
JZANUS HOME CARE INC.
0091059035
LITSON HOME CARE
0091059052
LITSON HOME CARE
0091059055
LITSON HOME CARE
0091059013
LITSON HOME CARE
0217285646
LIVING RESOURCES HOME CARE AGENCY,INC
0217285645
LIVING RESOURCES HOME CARE AGENCY,INC
0217285601
LIVING RESOURCES HOME CARE AGENCY,INC
0217285641
LIVING RESOURCES HOME CARE AGENCY,INC
0144435729
LONG ISLAND CARE AT HOME
0179473829
LONG ISLAND CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING
0166968559
LOWER WEST SIDE HOUSEHOLD SERVICES CORP
0156052126
MADISON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
0136467629
MARIAN CARE INC.
0231917559
MAXIM OF NY LLC
0231917531
MAXIM OF NY LLC
0231917533
MAXIM OF NY LLC
0231917527
MAXIM OF NY LLC
0197888514
MENORAH LICENSED HOME CARE
0088797614
MERCY HOMECARE
0088797631
MERCY HOMECARE
0174097235
MID-HUDSON MANAGED HOME CARE, INC.
0174097255
MID-HUDSON MANAGED HOME CARE, INC.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(3,723)
$
(23,458)
$
(39,844)
$
(31,145)
$
(22,971)
$
(6,898)
$
(5,987)
$
(2,755)
$
(2,690)
$
(108)
$
(58)
$
(2)
$
(35,092)
$
(228,660)
$
(2,586)
$
(895)
$
(26,492)
$
(33,236)
$
(4,132)
$
(3,734)
$
(1,646)
$
(1,770)
$
(8,641)
$
(5,475)
$
(11,185)
$
(4,539)
HIGHLIGHTS
(738)
(4,649)
(7,896)
(6,172)
(4,552)
(1,367)
(1,186)
(546)
(533)
(21)
(12)
(0)
(6,954)
(45,312)
(512)
(177)
(5,250)
(6,586)
(819)
(740)
(326)
(351)
(1,712)
(1,085)
(2,217)
(899)
$
(4,461)
$
(28,107)
$
(47,739)
$
(37,316)
$
(27,523)
$
(8,265)
$
(7,173)
$
(3,301)
$
(3,223)
$
(130)
$
(70)
$
(2)
$
(42,046)
$
(273,972)
$
(3,098)
$
(1,072)
$
(31,741)
$
(39,822)
$
(4,950)
$
(4,474)
$
(1,973)
$
(2,120)
$
(10,353)
$
(6,560)
$
(13,402)
$
(5,438)
Page 42
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
0254840113
MOUNTAINVIEW HOME CARE AGENCY
0106927229
NEW YORK HEALTH CARE INC
0106927243
NEW YORK HEALTH CARE INC
0106927235
NEW YORK HEALTH CARE INC
0106927259
NEW YORK HEALTH CARE INC.
0177973531
NIAGARA HOME CARE
0089173616
NORTH COUNTRY HOME SERVICES, INC.
0089173609
NORTH COUNTRY HOME SERVICES, INC.
0089173615
NORTH COUNTRY HOME SERVICES, INC.
0089173656
NORTH COUNTRY HOME SERVICES, INC.
0089173657
NORTH COUNTRY HOME SERVICES, INC.
0150251029
NURSES ON HAND REGISTRY
0268995838
OTSEGO COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH
0211146629
PATHWAYS TO INDEPENDENT LIVING
0185593014
PEDIATRIC HOME NURSING SERVICES, INC.
0108728729
PEOPLE CARE INC
0108728759
PEOPLE CARE INC
0108728751
PEOPLE CARE INC
0104801714
PEOPLE INC.
0104801731
PEOPLE INC.
0054668559
PERSONAL TOUCH HOME CARE
0042019551
PERSONAL TOUCH HOME CARE
0042019529
PERSONAL TOUCH HOME CARE
0166341459
PHC SERVICES LTD
0166341429
PHC SERVICES LTD
0134254329
PREMIER HOME HEALTH SERVICES INC.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(2,644)
$
(9,979)
$
(8,677)
$
(6,288)
$
(1,076)
$
(2,017)
$
(36,575)
$
(24,684)
$
(10,461)
$
(514)
$
(60)
$
(21,274)
$
(539)
$
(207,581)
$
(4,974)
$
(37,870)
$
(15,147)
$
(11,969)
$
(31,430)
$
(942)
$
(105,265)
$
(57,086)
$
(27,587)
$
(46,744)
$
(8,308)
$
(25,368)
HIGHLIGHTS
(524)
(1,977)
(1,720)
(1,246)
(213)
(400)
(7,248)
(4,891)
(2,073)
(102)
(12)
(4,216)
(107)
(41,135)
(986)
(7,504)
(3,002)
(2,372)
(6,228)
(187)
(20,859)
(11,312)
(5,467)
(9,263)
(1,646)
(5,027)
$
(3,168)
$
(11,956)
$
(10,397)
$
(7,534)
$
(1,289)
$
(2,417)
$
(43,823)
$
(29,575)
$
(12,534)
$
(616)
$
(72)
$
(25,489)
$
(646)
$
(248,715)
$
(5,960)
$
(45,374)
$
(18,149)
$
(14,340)
$
(37,659)
$
(1,129)
$
(126,124)
$
(68,398)
$
(33,054)
$
(56,007)
$
(9,954)
$
(30,395)
Page 43
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
0134254351
PREMIER HOME HEALTH SERVICES INC.
0134254313
PREMIER HOME HEALTH SERVICES INC.
0255401635
PRIORITY HOME CARE
0172952459
PRIORITY HOME CARE, INC
0047617351
RECCO HOME CARE
0035486129
RECCO HOME CARE
0098972659
RECCO HOME CARE
0161452029
0097412117
REGION CARE INC
RESOURCE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING,
INC.
RESOURCE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING,
INC.
RESOURCE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING,
INC.
RESOURCE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING,
INC.
RESOURCE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING,
INC.
RESOURCE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING,
INC.
RESOURCE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING,
INC.
RESOURCE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING,
INC.
RESOURCE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING,
INC.
RESOURCE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING,
INC.
0166603143
ROCKLAND INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER, INC.
0035587148
SCHUYLER COUNTY HOME HEALTH AGENCY
0097443829
SELFHELP
0268996714
SIBLEY NURSING PERSONNEL SERVICE
0268996722
SIBLEY NURSING PERSONNEL SERVICE
0268996725
SIBLEY NURSING PERSONNEL SERVICE
0268996727
SIBLEY NURSING PERSONNEL SERVICE
0268996744
SIBLEY NURSING PERSONNEL SERVICE
0097412132
0097412128
0097412112
0097412138
0097412108
0097412121
0097412126
0097412124
0097412147
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(20,290)
$
(5,973)
$
(43,188)
$
(36,898)
$
(128,383)
$
(69,314)
$
(52,671)
$
(25,319)
$
(71,372)
$
(22,305)
$
(20,587)
$
(20,112)
$
(11,600)
$
(10,104)
$
(9,382)
$
(6,986)
$
(6,295)
$
(4,355)
$
(40,937)
$
(811)
$
(6,688)
$
(3,319)
$
(2,248)
$
(73)
$
(73)
$
(70)
HIGHLIGHTS
(4,021)
(1,184)
(8,558)
(7,312)
(25,441)
(13,735)
(10,437)
(5,017)
(14,143)
(4,420)
(4,080)
(3,985)
(2,299)
(2,002)
(1,859)
(1,384)
(1,247)
(863)
(8,112)
(161)
(1,325)
(658)
(445)
(14)
(14)
(14)
$
(24,311)
$
(7,156)
$
(51,746)
$
(44,210)
$
(153,824)
$
(83,049)
$
(63,109)
$
(30,336)
$
(85,515)
$
(26,725)
$
(24,667)
$
(24,098)
$
(13,899)
$
(12,106)
$
(11,242)
$
(8,370)
$
(7,543)
$
(5,218)
$
(49,049)
$
(972)
$
(8,013)
$
(3,977)
$
(2,693)
$
(87)
$
(87)
$
(84)
Page 44
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
0268996732
SIBLEY NURSING PERSONNEL SERVICE
0108549651
SOUTH SHORE HOME HEALTH SERVICE
0108549629
SOUTH SHORE HOME HEALTH SERVICE
0108549659
SOUTH SHORE HOME HEALTH SERVICE
0073741702
SOUTHERN TIER HOME HEALTH
0124722713
ST. FRANCIS HOME CARE SERVICES
0095390244
ST. LAWRENCE COMMUNITY DEV. PR
0200188901
ST. PETER'S LICENSED HOME CARE
0200188941
ST. PETER'S LICENSED HOME CARE
0200188919
ST. PETER'S LICENSED HOME CARE
0105243754
STAFKINGS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
0105243733
STAFKINGS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
0105243703
STAFKINGS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
0105243737
STAFKINGS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
0105243705
STAFKINGS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
0105243748
STAFKINGS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
0105243753
STAFKINGS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
0105243749
STAFKINGS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
0105243707
STAFKINGS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
0105243732
STAFKINGS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
0105243708
STAFKINGS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
0105243711
STAFKINGS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
0105243722
STAFKINGS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
0105243750
STAFKINGS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
0121121028
SUPERIOR HOME HEALTH CARE
0121121021
SUPERIOR HOME HEALTH CARE
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(68)
$
(158,197)
$
(32,925)
$
(9,916)
$
(2,634)
$
(2,833)
$
(13,015)
$
(1,283)
$
(521)
$
(30)
$
(5,514)
$
(4,495)
$
(2,711)
$
(2,326)
$
(2,158)
$
(675)
$
(460)
$
(273)
$
(243)
$
(232)
$
(155)
$
(153)
$
(146)
$
(146)
$
(5,511)
$
(5,186)
HIGHLIGHTS
(13)
(31,349)
(6,525)
(1,965)
(522)
(561)
(2,579)
(254)
(103)
(6)
(1,093)
(891)
(537)
(461)
(428)
(134)
(91)
(54)
(48)
(46)
(31)
(30)
(29)
(29)
(1,092)
(1,028)
$
(81)
$
(189,546)
$
(39,450)
$
(11,881)
$
(3,156)
$
(3,395)
$
(15,595)
$
(1,538)
$
(624)
$
(36)
$
(6,606)
$
(5,386)
$
(3,248)
$
(2,787)
$
(2,586)
$
(808)
$
(551)
$
(327)
$
(291)
$
(278)
$
(186)
$
(183)
$
(175)
$
(175)
$
(6,602)
$
(6,214)
Page 45
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
0175102831
THE DALE ASSOCIATION
0264010029
TLCHCS OF LONG ISLAND LLC
0263808031
TLCHCS OF WESTERN NEW YORK
0264007714
TLCHCS OF WESTERN NY LLC
0121932329
TRI-COUNTY HOME NURSING SERVICE
0091093055
0174106022
ULSTER CO. HOME HEALTH
UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOC. OF THE
NORTH COUNTRY
UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOC. OF THE
NORTH COUNTRY
UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOC. OF THE
NORTH COUNTRY
0035491255
UNLIMITED CARE
0035491259
UNLIMITED CARE
0035491213
UNLIMITED CARE
0035491229
UNLIMITED CARE
0035491235
UNLIMITED CARE
0035491239
UNLIMITED CARE
0035491251
UNLIMITED CARE
0035491210
UNLIMITED CARE
0035491225
UNLIMITED CARE
0035491219
UNLIMITED CARE
0035491250
UNLIMITED CARE
0035491218
UNLIMITED CARE
0035491236
UNLIMITED CARE
0035491234
UNLIMITED CARE
0035491212
UNLIMITED CARE
0035491201
UNLIMITED CARE
0035491227
UNLIMITED CARE
0174106044
0174106016
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(20,694)
$
(12,536)
$
(2,685)
$
(18,823)
$
(59,800)
$
(41,668)
$
(59,842)
$
(14,512)
$
(8,706)
$
(75,597)
$
(53,638)
$
(44,526)
$
(37,825)
$
(28,062)
$
(22,290)
$
(12,691)
$
(10,746)
$
(872)
$
(796)
$
(309)
$
(292)
$
(285)
$
(268)
$
(245)
$
(242)
$
(169)
HIGHLIGHTS
(4,101)
(2,484)
(532)
(3,730)
(11,850)
(8,257)
(11,858)
(2,876)
(1,725)
(14,980)
(10,629)
(8,823)
(7,495)
(5,561)
(4,417)
(2,515)
(2,129)
(173)
(158)
(61)
(58)
(56)
(53)
(49)
(48)
(34)
$
(24,794)
$
(15,020)
$
(3,217)
$
(22,553)
$
(71,650)
$
(49,925)
$
(71,700)
$
(17,388)
$
(10,431)
$
(90,577)
$
(64,267)
$
(53,350)
$
(45,320)
$
(33,623)
$
(26,707)
$
(15,206)
$
(12,875)
$
(1,045)
$
(953)
$
(370)
$
(349)
$
(341)
$
(321)
$
(293)
$
(290)
$
(203)
Page 46
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
0113351351
UTOPIA HOME CARE
0113351329
UTOPIA HOME CARE
0072228929
VIP HEALTH CARE SERVICES
0078581959
VIP HEALTH CARE SERVICES
0090863643
0146034239
VIP HEALTH CARE SERVICES
VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION HOME HEALTH
SERVICES
VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION HOME HEALTH
SERVICES
0170109117
VISITING NURSES HOME CARE CORP
0170109147
VISITING NURSES HOME CARE CORP
0170109128
VISITING NURSES HOME CARE CORP
0170109156
VISITING NURSES HOME CARE CORP
0170109145
VISITING NURSES HOME CARE CORP
0170109101
VISITING NURSES HOME CARE CORP
0170109119
VISITING NURSES HOME CARE CORP
0170109157
VISITING NURSES HOME CARE CORP
0170109110
VISITING NURSES HOME CARE CORP
0170109141
VISITING NURSES HOME CARE CORP
0170109138
VISITING NURSES HOME CARE CORP
0170109146
VISITING NURSES HOME CARE CORP
0170109112
VISITING NURSES HOME CARE CORP
0035584427
VNS-ROCHESTER
0166045759
WARTBURG RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY INC.
0233334258
WAYNE COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
0092528252
WELLNESS HOME CARE
0145838259
WESTCHESTER CARE AT HOME
0240778916
WESTERN NY INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT
0146034259
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$
(130,251)
$
(64,316)
$
(38,877)
$
(31,968)
$
(6,544)
$
(27,355)
$
(122)
$
(49,441)
$
(15,880)
$
(14,117)
$
(12,841)
$
(9,829)
$
(5,943)
$
(4,826)
$
(4,137)
$
(3,780)
$
(2,542)
$
(2,208)
$
(2,083)
$
(1,999)
$
(86)
$
(38,674)
$
(1,102)
$
(5,107)
$
(43,985)
$
(259)
HIGHLIGHTS
(25,811)
(12,745)
(7,704)
(6,335)
(1,297)
(5,421)
(24)
(9,797)
(3,147)
(2,797)
(2,545)
(1,948)
(1,178)
(956)
(820)
(749)
(504)
(438)
(413)
(396)
(17)
(7,664)
(218)
(1,012)
(8,716)
(51)
$
(156,062)
$
(77,061)
$
(46,581)
$
(38,303)
$
(7,841)
$
(32,775)
$
(146)
$
(59,238)
$
(19,026)
$
(16,914)
$
(15,386)
$
(11,777)
$
(7,121)
$
(5,783)
$
(4,957)
$
(4,529)
$
(3,046)
$
(2,646)
$
(2,496)
$
(2,395)
$
(104)
$
(46,337)
$
(1,320)
$
(6,119)
$
(52,701)
$
(310)
Page 47
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
0081106914
WILLCARE INC.
0081106906
WILLCARE INC.
0081106904
WILLCARE INC.
0081106931
WILLCARE INC.
0240778914
WNY INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT
0035590461
YATES COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH
$
(30,778)
$
(12,208)
$
(4,959)
$
(825)
$
(34,980)
$
(1,928)
HIGHLIGHTS
(6,099)
(2,419)
(983)
(163)
(6,932)
(382)
$
(36,877)
$
(14,627)
$
(5,942)
$
(988)
$
(41,912)
$
(2,310)
* Does not include savings from proposal to manage personal care utilization for over 12 hours
(1) Assessment increase reflects one month cash lag.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 48
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
HIGHLIGHTS
2010-11 Executive Budget Proposals
Certified Home Health Agency Impacts
2010-11 Gross Annual Impact by Provider
Op.
Cert.
Provider Name
Eliminate the
Balance
of 2010
Trend 1.7%
Increase
Cash
Assessment
from .35%
to .7%
(1-month
lag)
Total Gross
Impact
TOTALS:
($17,747,234)
($8,141,674)
($25,888,908)
($224,881)
($49,464)
($274,345)
($2,633)
ABLE HEALTH CARE SERV INC
ALBANY COUNTY DOH DIV OF NURS
($2,187)
($446)
ALLEGANY DEPT OF HEALTH
($3,867)
($4,551)
($8,418)
($105,030)
($25,217)
($130,248)
($21,561)
($15,229)
($36,790)
ALPINE HOME HEALTH CARE
ALWAYS THERE FAMILY HOME HEALTH
SER
AMERICARE CERTIFIED SS INC
($2,925,946)
($664,204)
($3,590,151)
AT HOME CARE
($4,557)
($17,681)
($22,238)
BROOKDALE HSP MED CTR
($1,058)
($1,580)
($2,638)
($50,324)
($31,552)
($81,876)
($271,746)
($91,484)
($363,230)
BROOKHAVEN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER
CAH ORANGE CNTY DOH DIV PHN
($1,580)
($4,924)
($6,504)
CALVARY HOSPITAL INC
($11,394)
($5,149)
($16,543)
CATHOLIC HOME CARE
($16,151)
($80,046)
($96,197)
CATTARAUGUS CNTY DOH
($10,092)
($15,233)
($25,325)
CAYUGA COUNTY HOME CARE AGENC
($9,939)
($12,849)
($22,788)
CCH HM CARE & PALLIATIVE SER
($4,727)
($5,924)
($10,651)
($21,524)
($6,862)
($28,386)
CHEMUNG COUNTY DOH
CHENANGO CTY PUB HLTH NUR SER
CLINTON CTY DOH DIV OF NURSE
COLUMBIA CY DEPT OF HEALTH
COM HLTH CTR OF SMH & NLH INC
($282)
($58)
($340)
($33,508)
($17,982)
($51,490)
($641)
($3,145)
($3,786)
($9,183)
($15,761)
($24,944)
CORTLAND COUNTY DOH DIV NRSNG
($5,191)
($7,782)
($12,973)
DATAHR HOME HLTH CARE
($7,626)
($2,937)
($10,563)
DELAWARE COUNTY PHNS
($4,519)
($5,019)
($9,538)
($29,022)
($86,289)
($115,311)
($1,166)
($853)
($2,020)
($28,556)
($41,792)
($70,347)
($217,534)
($91,646)
($309,180)
DOMINICAN SISTER FAMILY HEALT
DUTCHESS CNTY DOH
EDDY VNA TWIN COUNTIES
EMPIRE ST HM CARE SER
ESSEX COUNTY NURSING SERVICE
EXCELLENT HOME CARE SVS LLC
EXTENDED HOME CARE
FAM CERT SVCS BKLYN/QUEENS
FAMILY AIDES CERT.NASSAU/SUFF
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
($7,318)
($6,155)
($13,473)
($648,430)
($142,904)
($791,334)
($847,699)
($184,659)
($1,032,358)
($1,152,794)
($261,265)
($1,414,059)
($13,132)
($34,746)
($47,878)
Page 49
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
FINGER LAKES VNS INC
FIRST TO CARE HOME CARE
FRANKLIN HOSPITAL
FRANKLIN CNTY PUBLIC HLTH SER
FULTON NURSING SERVICE
CO
GAMZEL NY INC
HIGHLIGHTS
($15,444)
($24,044)
($39,489)
($226,488)
($79,732)
($306,220)
($29,626)
($42,035)
($71,661)
($22,358)
($10,763)
($33,120)
($1,048)
($2,083)
($3,131)
($1,390,842)
($378,993)
($1,769,835)
GENESEE COUNTY HLTH HHA CO
($1,765)
($3,936)
($5,701)
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
($2,282)
($8,385)
($10,667)
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
($1,681)
($9,193)
($10,874)
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
($1,621)
($7,061)
($8,682)
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
($1,935)
($14,909)
($16,844)
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
($21,366)
($25,896)
($47,262)
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
($20,671)
($32,543)
($53,213)
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
($462)
($520)
($983)
($15,344)
($8,804)
($24,149)
($679,207)
($185,545)
($864,752)
($57,475)
($43,759)
($101,234)
($4,929)
($55,567)
($60,496)
GREENE CY PUBLIC HLTH NURSING
($615)
($4,372)
($4,987)
HAMILTON CO NURSE SVC PSSHSP
($961)
($1,606)
($2,567)
($334,869)
($106,441)
($441,310)
($18,573)
($20,507)
($39,080)
($740)
($1,134)
($1,874)
GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES
GIRLING HEALTH CARE OF NEW YORK
INC
GOOD SAMARITAN HOSP MED CTR
GOOD SAMARITAN HSP SUFFERN
HCR
HEALTH SERV NORTHERN NEW YORK
HERKIMER COUNTY PHNS
HIRAM CERTIFIED HOME CARE CO
($73)
($2,300)
($2,373)
($692)
($834)
($1,526)
HOSPITALS HOME HEALTH CARE
($3,656)
($10,906)
($14,562)
HUDSON VALLEY HOME CARE INC
($1,894)
($13,122)
($15,016)
($286,401)
($126,279)
($412,680)
($2,270)
($4,160)
($6,430)
($16,502)
($16,903)
($33,404)
LAWRENCE HM CARE/WESTCHESTER
($2,185)
($34,851)
($37,036)
LEWIS CNTY PUBLIC HLTH AGENCY
($5,778)
($4,435)
($10,213)
HOME CARE BUFFALO INC
JACOBI MEDICAL CENTER
JAMAICA HOSPITAL MED CTR
JEFFERSON CTY PUB HLTH SERVIC
LIFETIME CARE
($136,284)
($192,622)
($328,906)
LITTLE SISTERS OF ASSUM
($1,911)
($1,392)
($3,302)
LIVING RES CERTIFIED HHA
($16,373)
($3,651)
($20,024)
LIVINGSTON CO DEP HLTH HHA
($2,414)
($6,621)
($9,035)
LONG BEACH MEDICAL CENTER
($12,387)
($7,729)
($20,116)
LONG ISLAND JEWISH MED CTR
($14,748)
($61,746)
($76,494)
MADISON CNTY PUB HLTH DEPART.
($6,404)
($7,022)
($13,426)
MCAULEY-SETON HOME CARE CORP.
($9,271)
($59,746)
($69,016)
($108)
($22)
($130)
METROPOLITAN JEWISH HM CARE
($653,253)
($203,009)
($856,262)
MJGC HOME CARE
($496,876)
($141,567)
($638,443)
MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CTR AI
($160,503)
($97,195)
($257,698)
($8,438)
($4,174)
($12,612)
MERCY CENTER FOR HLTH SVC
NIAGARA CNTY HLTH DEPT
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 50
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
HIGHLIGHTS
NORTH SHORE UNIV HOSP AMB SVC
($121,273)
($125,428)
($246,702)
NYACK HSP
OLOM HOME CARE ST MARY'S MHC
KIDS
ONTARIO HOME HEALTH AGCY CO
($1,758)
($21,579)
($23,337)
($42,087)
($10,625)
($52,712)
($5,295)
($4,544)
($9,839)
($2,081)
($3,182)
($5,263)
($8,396)
($6,323)
($14,720)
ORLEANS COUNTY DOH HHA
OSWEGO DEPT HLTH DIV OF NU CO
EICM
OUR LADY OF LOURDES MEM
PECONIC BAY MED CTR
PEOPLE HOME HLTH SERV CERTI
PERSONAL TOUCH HOME AIDES NY
PRIME HOME HEALTH SRVCS
PTS OF WESTCHESTER INC
($5,317)
($6,914)
($12,230)
($846)
($10,958)
($11,804)
($4,412)
($1,225)
($5,637)
($819,817)
($181,971)
($1,001,788)
($84,912)
($29,666)
($114,578)
($1,933)
($6,497)
($8,431)
($577)
($6,111)
($6,688)
PUTNAM HOSPITAL CENTER
($2,116)
($5,549)
($7,664)
SARATOGA PUBLIC HLTH NURSING
($3,107)
($6,678)
($9,785)
SCHOHARIE COUNTY DOH DIV NURS
($3,638)
($4,714)
($8,351)
SCHUYLER HOME HLTH AGCY CO
($2,323)
($3,112)
($5,435)
($57,836)
($15,462)
($73,298)
SETON HEALTH SYSTEM
($4,485)
($18,205)
($22,690)
SOUTH NASSAU COMMUNITIES HSP
($1,541)
($27,237)
($28,779)
ST CAMILLUS HOME CARE AGENCY
($11,400)
($9,467)
($20,867)
($1,666)
($4,324)
($5,990)
($5,635)
($21,015)
($26,651)
($26,601)
($10,742)
($37,344)
PUTNAM DOH NUR SERCS HM HH CO
SELFHELP SPECIAL FAM HC INC
ST ELIZABETH MED CTR
ST FRANCIS HOSPITAL
ST LAWRENCE CNTY PUB HLTH NUR
ST PETERS HOSPITAL ALBANY
($1,273)
($17,838)
($19,111)
($376,629)
($232,614)
($609,244)
($41,116)
($65,306)
($106,422)
STEUBEN CO PUB HLTH & NSG SRV
($9,411)
($10,025)
($19,436)
SUFFOLK DOH SVCS BUR PUB H CO
($8,728)
($2,988)
($11,715)
SULLIVAN CNTY PUB HLTH SER
($4,311)
($8,728)
($13,039)
TIOGA COUNTY HEALTH DEPT
($2,469)
($4,627)
($7,095)
TLCHCS OF ERIE NIAGARA LLC
($17,289)
($51,900)
($69,189)
TLCHCS OF NASSAU SUFFOLK LLC
($11,682)
($37,103)
($48,785)
ST VINCENTS HSP MED CTR NY
ST.JOSEPH'S HSP HLTH CTR
TOMPKINS COUNTY HM HLTH CARE
($3,588)
($5,785)
($9,374)
TWIN TIER HOME HEALTH
($4,897)
($18,710)
($23,607)
($843)
($374)
($1,217)
VILLAGE CENTER FOR CARE
($584,365)
($132,513)
($716,878)
VIP HEALTH SERVICES INC
($42,677)
($18,484)
($61,161)
VISIT NUR SVC WESTCHEST
($45,307)
($73,332)
($118,639)
VISITING NUR SER/HOSPICE SUF
($10,123)
($46,461)
($56,584)
VISITING NURS SVC/SCHTD & SAR CNTY
($11,602)
($27,096)
($38,698)
VISITING NURSE ASSOC CENTRAL
($39,795)
($29,745)
($69,540)
VISITING NURSE ASSOC LI NHID
($8,691)
($40,429)
($49,119)
VNA OF ALBANY & SARATOGA
($36,335)
($26,009)
($62,345)
INC
ULSTER CNTY DOH NURS DIV
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 51
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FACILITY IMPACT OF MEDICAID
REDUCTIONS
VNA OF BROOKLYN
HIGHLIGHTS
($306,291)
($162,616)
($468,907)
VNA OF HUDSON VALLEY
($4,810)
($43,065)
($47,876)
VNA OF STATEN ISLAND
($34,339)
($43,560)
($77,899)
VNA OF UTICA ONEIDA
($12,431)
($25,756)
($38,187)
VNA OF WESTERN NY INC
($79,866)
($123,163)
($203,029)
VNS ITHACA & TOMPKINS CO INC
VNS OF ROCHESTER
VNSNY COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
WARREN COUNTY HEALTH SERV
WASHINGTON PUB HLTH NURSSV CO
WAYNE COMM NURSING CARE
WESTCHESTER COUNTY DOH
WHITE PLAINS HOSPITAL CENTER
($545)
($1,481)
($2,026)
($104,048)
($126,522)
($230,570)
($3,051,446)
($2,011,253)
($5,062,699)
($9,469)
($14,110)
($23,579)
($10,283)
($13,001)
($23,284)
($9,198)
($4,391)
($13,588)
($15,398)
($4,171)
($19,569)
($355)
($9,058)
($9,413)
WILLCARE
($37,588)
($35,653)
($73,240)
WILLCARE
($70,285)
($54,931)
($125,216)
WINTHROP-UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
($6,085)
($34,909)
($40,993)
WYOMING COUNTY DEPT H H A
($3,020)
($6,390)
($9,410)
($124,309)
($28,464)
($152,772)
($5,393)
($4,089)
($9,482)
($17,747,234)
($8,141,674)
($25,888,908)
YAI HOME HEALTH SERVICES
YATES COUNTY HOME HEALTH
TOTAL GROSS IMPACT:
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 52
HUMAN SERVICES
HIGHLIGHTS
HUMAN SERVICES
TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) FUNDING
New York State receives a $2.4 billion Federal TANF block grant annually as a result of the
1997 Welfare Reform Act. The Executive utilizes the block grant to fund the Federal share of
public assistance caseload expenditures and the remaining amount to fund a variety of services to
support eligible families.
The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget projects a public assistance caseload of 555,494, a 5.2
percent increase from the current year estimate of 527,792. Although the caseload is down from
an all time high of 1.7 million in 1994, it has steadily increased since September 2008 as a result
of the strained economy and increased unemployment rates. The projected amount New York
needs to allocate from the TANF block grant for the Federal share has increased from $723.5
million in SFY 2009-10 to $1.3 billion in SFY 2010-11 resulting in a decrease of $576.5 million
in the availability of TANF surplus funds.
As a result of increased caseload and past investments in non-recurring benefits and job subsidy
programs, New York State has become eligible for Federal TANF Contingency Funds (TCF) and
TANF Emergency Contingency Funds (TECF) amounting to $1.22 billion or fifty percent of the
State’s TANF block grant amount. Of this amount, $583.2 million has been obligated or
expended and a proposal for the utilization of the remaining $638.3 million is included within the
Executive Budget proposal.
The Executive Budget utilizes $285.7 million of TCF funds to partially fund the Federal Share of
the Public Assistance caseload increase, which would otherwise be a General Fund cost to the
State or a decrease in funding to the Flexible Fund for Family Services (FFFS) or Child Care.
An additional $260.6 million of TCF funds is included within the Financial Plan to offset the
increased State share of Public Assistance costs for the purposes of providing General Fund
relief. The remaining $92 million is included within the TANF surplus proposal show below.
The following chart details the Executive’s proposed spending for the available surplus:
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 53
HUMAN SERVICES
HIGHLIGHTS
TANF Surplus Funding
SFY 2010-11
(amounts in thousands)
Program
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Offset
Child Care Subsidies
Child Care Migrant Workers
Child Care SUNY/CUNY
Child Care Demonstration Projects
Transportation
Non-Residential Domestic Violence
Summer Youth Employment
Refugee Resettlement
Bridge
Wage Subsidy
Transitional Jobs Program
Green Jobs Program
Health Care Outreach Program
ATTAIN
Educational Resources
Local Interagency VESID Employment Services (LIVES)
Supplemental Homeless Intervention Program
Supportive Housing for Families
Emergency Homeless
Disability Advocacy Program (DAP)
ACCESS Welfare to Careers
Career Pathways
Displaced Homemakers
Strengthening Families through Stronger Fathers
Settlement Houses
Advantage Afterschool
Alternatives to Detention/ Alternatives to Residential
Placement
Community Reinvestment
Preventive Services
Caretaker Relative-Kinship
Home Visiting
Nurse Family Partnership
Intensive Case Services
Emergency Food Supplement
Local Family Support Fund
Flexible Fund for Family Services
Total
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
2009-10
Enacted
$457,651
$392,967
$1,754
$3,400
$10,900
$11,325
$3,000
$35,000
$1,425
$8,503
$14,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$7,000
$3,000
$1,500
$5,000
$5,000
$2,000
$1,000
$500
$10,000
$5,600
$2,764
$6,000
$11,391
$10,752
2010-11
Executive
$0
$392,967
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$3,000
$5,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,000
$18,792
$1,998
$5,822
$5,000
$3,000
$0
$0
$964,600
$2,030,644
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,313
$10,000
$41,500
$964,600
$1,440,880
Page 54
AGENCY CONSOLIDATIONS AND MERGERS
HIGHLIGHTS
AGENCY CONSOLIDATIONS AND MERGERS
Job Development
Corporation
JDC would have a workforce of 406 reflecting
the transfer of all 168 staff from DED and 238
staff from Empire State Development
Corporation. The resulting savings would be
$4.7 million.
Other Consolidations/Mergers:
The Office of Real Property Service would merge into the New York State Department of
Taxation and Finance (298 staff/1.9 million savings).
The State Employment Relations Board (SERB) would merge into the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB) (-10 staff/ $1.3 million savings).
The Crime Victims Board, the Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, and the
Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence would merge into the Division of Criminal
Justice Services (25 staff /$1.9 million savings).
The State University Construction Fund (SUCF) would no longer be included in the State
appropriation process as part of the New York State Public Higher Education Empowerment and
Innovation Act proposed in the SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget. This Act includes provisions
that align the State University Construction Fund’s operating budget structure with that of other
public benefit corporations, such as the City University Construction Fund and the Dormitory
Authority of the State of New York (135 staff/$19.5 million). The Fund’s operations are
supported entirely from proceeds of revenue bonds issued to finance the construction and
reconstruction of academic facilities.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 55
AGENCY CONSOLIDATIONS AND MERGERS
HIGHLIGHTS
Division of Homeland
Security and
Emergency Services
Savings of $1.5 million from the merger
-15 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) positions.
Other Consolidations/Mergers:
The Authorities Budget Office would merge into the Department of State (DOS) resulting in the
transfer of 11 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) positions. The Authorities Budget Office is not
funded by General Fund appropriation but rather by assessments to public authorities. Those
assessments of $1.32 million in State Special Revenue Funds will transfer to DOS and are
proposed to increase to $1.8 million in SFY 2010-2011.
The Office of Fire Prevention and Control, Fire Academy and related fire programs would be
transferred from the Department of State (DOS) to the Division of Homeland Security and
Emergency Services (DHSES) resulting in the transfer of a net 104 FTEs for a total of $11.188
million.
The Local Wireless Public Safety Account (E911), and the Emergency Service Revolving Loan
Fund ($11.6 million) would be transferred from DOS. This action would result in the transfers
of Federal Special Revenue Funds ($3.3 million) and Other Special Revenue Funds ($1.4
million) to the new Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 56
AGENCY CONSOLIDATIONS AND MERGERS
State of New
York
Mortgage
Agency
Affordable
Housing
Corporattion
Division of
Housing and
Community
Renewal
NYHOMES
HIGHLIGHTS
Mortgage
Insurance
Fund
Municipal
Bond Bank
Agency
Single
Management
Structure
Tobacco
Settlement
Financing
Corporation
The SFY 2010-2011 Executive budget proposes the consolidation of
administration and program operations of State Of New York Mortgage Agency,
Affordable Housing Corporation, Mortgage Insurance Fund, Municipal Bond Bank
Agency, and Tobacco Settlement Financing Corporation, into a single management
structure composed of a consolidation of the Division of Housing and Community
Renewal (DHCR) and the NYHomes public benefit corporations into the Housing
and Finance Agency. This would achieve savings of $3.5 million, equally divided
between Personal and Non-Personal Services.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 57
PRISON CLOSURES
HIGHLIGHTS
PRISON CLOSURES
The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget includes a proposal to close two minimum security
correctional facilities and the minimum portion of a third facility, as well as one medium security
facility. The facilities proposed to be closed are: Lyon Mountain minimum security facility
located in Clinton County; Moriah Shock Incarceration located in Essex County; the minimum
security portion of Butler located in Wayne County, and Ogdensburg medium security located in
St. Lawrence County. In addition, the Executive proposes the consolidation of dorms at several
medium security correctional facilities, however, the Commissioner of the Department of
Correctional Services (DOCS) has not determined which dorms would be consolidated.
The Executive’s proposal would follow the one-year notification statute which governs the
closure of correctional facilities and requires DOCS to notify all employee labor organizations,
and other employees and local government officials a year in advance. According to DOCS,
employees affected by the proposed prison closure would be afforded an opportunity to transfer
to other facilities.
The Executive’s principal rationale for the closures is the declining prison population. Since
1999, the State’s prison population has decreased from a high of almost 71,538 inmates to a
population of 57,600 anticipated by the end of the calendar year 2009, a decrease of 13,938
inmates. The Executive projects that the inmate population will continue to decline by an
additional 778 inmates by the end of 2011.
The Executive anticipates that the closure of the aforementioned correctional facilities and dorm
consolidations would generate operating savings of $7 million in SFY 2010-11 and $52.2 million
when fully annualized in SFY 2011-12.
The following tables list the number of employees affected; the estimated cost/savings achieved
by the closure; and, the number of inmates/capacity levels at each of the facilities proposed for
closure:
SFY 2010-11 Executive Proposed Correctional Facility Closures – Employee Impact
Employee Impact:
Security
Program
Support
Health
Total
Butler
(Wayne)
(75)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(80)
Lyon Mountain
(Clinton)
(64)
(9)
(19)
(1)
(93)
Ogdensburg*
(St.
Lawrence)
(217)
(28)
(35)
(11)
(291)
Moriah
Shock*
(Essex)
(69)
(16)
(21)
(2)
(108)
Total
(425)
(55)
(77)
(15)
(572)
*Ogdensburg and Moriah Shock are slated for closure in April 2011.
Dorm Consolidations are anticipated to result in a reduction of 65 FTE.
Dorm Consolidations are yet to be determined by the Commissioner of DOCS.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 58
PRISON CLOSURES
HIGHLIGHTS
Prison Closure Cost/Savings
SFY 2010-11/SFY 2011-12
Facility
Lyon Mountain
Butler
Ogdensburg*
Moriah Shock*
Facility Closures Total
Dorm Consolidations
Subtotal
Cost/Savings
SFY 2010-11
SFY 2011-12
$1,776,000
$7,245,300
$1,270,000
$5,182,900
$0
$23,910,500
$0
$9,500,000
$3,046,000
$45,838,700
$3,954,000
$6,410,000
Total
$7,000,000
$52,248,700
Ogdensburg and Moriah savings would be realized in SFY
2011-12 since they are slated for closure in April of SFY
2011. However, the Executive anticipates $4.8 million in
reductions attributable to the attrition of personnel at these
facilities prior to the closure date which will assist in meeting
the Department's $35 million non-personal service across
the board reductions ($1.3 million Moriah, and $3.5 million
Ogdensburg).
SFY 2010-11 Executive Proposed Correctional Facility Closures Capacity/Inmate Impact
Facility
County
Total
Number
of Beds
Total Number
of Inmates
Capacity
Level
Lyon Mountain
Butler
Clinton
162
135
83.33%
Wayne
288
72
25.00%
St.
Odgensburg
Lawrence
612
474
77.45%
Moriah Shock
Essex
300
170
56.67%
Total number of inmates as reported on 12/31/09 by the Department of Correctional
Services.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 59
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HIGHLIGHTS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
TAX INCENTIVES
Excelsior Jobs Program - $1.25 billion
This program is the Executive’s proposed replacement for the Empire Zone program that will
sunset in June 2010. Companies that pledge to create at least 50 new jobs and retain them for
five years may apply to the new Job Development Corporation (JDC) to qualify for benefits.
Companies must be in target industries, such as high technology, biotechnology, clean energy,
finance, and manufacturing industries. Once companies are admitted to the new program, they
would be able to claim the following three fully refundable credits: (1) the Excelsior Jobs Credit
to be earned on a per job created basis to companies in the program; (2) the Excelsior Investment
Credit to be earned at a rate of two percent of qualified investments; and (3) the Excelsior
Research and Development Credit to be earned at a rate of 10 percent of the amount of the
Federal Research and Development credit earned. These credits would be capped at $50 million
in SFY 2012-13, $100 million in SFY 2013-14, and $150 million in SFY 2014-15.
Film Tax Credit - $2.1 billion
The Executive proposes extending the film production credit through 2014. This proposal would
also impose additional criteria that a production must meet in order to become eligible for the
credit. Productions must shoot 10 percent of total production days at a qualified New York
production facility and place a credit in the film recognizing New York’s financial assistance for
the production to become eligible. This proposal would also include a delayed payout structure
for the credit. This proposal would reduce revenues by $2.1 billion from SFY 2012-13 through
SFY 2018-19.
NEW PROGRAMS
New Technology Seed Fund - $25 million
This program would provide funding to “ investment intermediaries” (for profit businesses,
universities, not-for-profit corporations, or local development corporations) selected on a
competitive basis that will seek out and support early-stage companies in their efforts to take
cutting edge research from the laboratory to the marketplace. Seed Funds may support
equipment, supplies and research and development related operational costs. Fund Investors
must match State monies either with their own funds or with other sources at least on a 1:1 basis
when making investments. The proposed sources of capital for the Fund include $15 million
from Liberty Bond fees and $10 million from funds held in the “UDC Lockbox”.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 60
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HIGHLIGHTS
Small Business Revolving Loan Fund - $25 million
This program would make low interest loans to qualified lenders selected through a competitive
process. Lenders would in turn make loans to businesses with fewer than 100 employees that are
unable to obtain credit or reasonable terms for credit. The fund would be divi ded into a microloan category for loans under $25,000 and a small loan category for loans over $25,000 but
less than $125,000. Loans may be used for worki ng capital, debt refinancing, the acquisition
of real property, and the acquisition of machinery and equipment. All loans made with State
funds must have a 50 percent match from the participating lender. The New York Power
Authority (NYPA) will provide $25 million to establish the fund.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 61
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES MERGER/CONSOLIDATIONS
HIGHLIGHTS
CRIMINAL JUSTICE MERGERS
The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget proposes that the Crime Victims Board (CVB), the Office
for the Prevention of Domestic Violence (OPDV) and the Division of Probation and Correctional
Alternatives (DPCA) merge into the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and become
specialized offices with the Division.
Under the Executive’s proposal each of the offices would continue their principal missions
headed by a director that would report to the Commissioner of DCJS. This would save $1 million
to $1.9 million (based on the rate of attrition) in SFY 2010-11 and $1.9 million when fully
annualized in SFY 2011-12. The merger would impact 25 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) positions:
DCJS (12); DPCA (2); CVB (8); and OPDV (3).
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 62
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES MERGER/CONSOLIDATIONS
HIGHLIGHTS
The merger is anticipated to foster improved coordination of policies and programs and
consolidate grant operations. The Executive would preserve the missions of the agencies. Each
of the new offices within DCJS would be headed by a Director that would oversee the activities
of the office and would report to the Commissioner of DCJS. In addition each director would
coordinate and recommend policy in their respective program area. The duties of the Offices are
outline below. Furthermore the merger would provide for the transfer of employees, records,
continuity of authority, continuation of rules and regulations, and the transfer of assets and
liabilities from the agencies to DCJS.
Office of Victim Services, formerly CVB
• Provide assistance to victims for losses they incurred as a result of a crime;
• Make grants to local agencies, which assist witnesses and victims; and
• Serve as the Sate’s advocate for crime victims’ rights, needs and interests.
In addition, a Crime Victims Compensation Appeals Board would be created to review claims
appeals and affirm or modify the decision of the Office regarding the claim. The Executive
provides appropriations totaling $78.7 million under the Assistance to Crime Victims Program
for funding associated with crime victim services.
Office of Probation and Correctional Alternatives formerly DPCA
• Oversee county probation department and community correction programs;
• Provide training and technical assistance; and
• Monitor outcome related to the supervision and treatment of offenders; and focus on
evidence based practices, performance measurement, enhanced training and education for
local providers.
The Executive provides appropriations totaling $64.1 million under the Probation and
Correctional Alternatives Program for funding associated with probation and alternatives to
incarceration services.
Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence formerly OPDV
• Conduct domestic violence training for judges, prosecutors, police, attorneys, probation
and parole personnel, social services and health care providers; and
• Provide information and guidance on domestic violence for the entire State.
In addition, the Director of the Office would also serve as a Special Advisor to the Governor on
all matters related to Domestic Violence. The Executive provides appropriations totaling $4.6
million for domestic violence services.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 63
LABOR AND WORKFORCE
HIGHLIGHTS
LABOR
The Executive Budget decreases the appropriation for unemployment benefits by $3.8 billion to
$7.2 billion due to the elimination of a one-time American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) appropriation from SFY 2009-10. The Executive proposes deficiency Article VII
legislation to increase the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefit-Enterprise Funds appropriation
by $1 billion, increasing the appropriation from $6 billion to $7 billion, in order to accommodate
the increased spending on UI as a result of the economic downturn. At the same time, this
proposal would recognize recent federal action, which increased the number of weeks of UI
eligibility for claimants. Since this appropriation is covered by taxes on employers, it has no
impact on the State.
Congress passed legislation between June 2008 and December 2009, which extended eligibility
weeks for unemployment benefits after the exhaustion of the 26 weeks of regular benefits. New
York State has a total of 73 weeks of additional benefits available, 53 are known as Emergency
Benefits, and 20 weeks are known as Extended Benefits. To be eligible for the 20 weeks of
Extended Benefits, a person must meet the following criteria:
•
•
•
Have filed their initial claim for regular unemployment benefits effective on or before
Monday, September 8, 2008;
Exhaust 33 weeks of Emergency Benefits on or before the week ending November 1,
2009; and
Start claiming Extended Benefits on or before the week ending November 8, 2009.
As of November 2009, the most recent month for which data is available, the State economy still
showed no signs of recovering from the current recession. Though employment is expected to
remain flat on an annual average base, it is projected that there will be quarterly net job growth
starting in the first quarter of 2010. The unemployment rate is expected to remain around 10
percent for the majority of 2010.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 64
LABOR AND WORKFORCE
HIGHLIGHTS
SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY THE EXECUTIVE
Pension Reform Bill
The Executive Budget proposes Article VII legislation to allow State and local governments
outside of New York City to amortize a portion of pension contribution costs over a six-year
period to achieve financial relief. If entities choose to participate they would have the ability to
amortize the portion of their pension costs that exceed a contribution rate of 9.5 percent for New
York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System (ERS) and 17.5 percent for New York
State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS) in 2010-11. Each year through 201516 the rate thresholds for ERS and PFRS increase by 1 percent. This would also increase the
minimum employer contribution rate from 4.5 percent to 5.5 percent. Amortized amounts would
be repaid over a ten year period at an interest rate determined by the State Comptroller. The
estimated savings from this legislation would be $217 million for SFY 2010-11.
Proposed Workforce Changes in SFY 2010-11
Starting Estimate 3/31/2009
New Fills Anticipated
Anticipated Layoffs
Attrition
Estimate 3/31/2010
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
FTE
196,375
16,065
(134)
(16,605)
195,701
Page 65
LABOR AND WORKFORCE
HIGHLIGHTS
The Executive is estimating a total reduction in the State workforce of 674 Full Time
Equivalents (FTEs). This reduction is going to be achieved through a small number of
anticipated layoffs and through attrition offset by planned new fills for various agencies. Much
of the attrition is anticipated to be achieved through the voluntary severance package offered by
the Governor in 2009, offset by planned new fills for various agencies. See detailed breakout of
the net change in FTEs by State agency in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Detail of FTE Adjustments by State Agency
State Agencies Under Executive Control
Adirondack Park
Aging
Agriculture and Markets
Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services
Authority Budget Office
Budget
Civil Service
Council on the Arts
Crime Victims Board
Economic Development
Executive Chamber
Housing and Community Renewal
Human Rights
Military and Naval Affairs
Prevention of Domestic Violence
Probation and Correctional Alternatives
Quality of Care and Advocacy for the Disabled
Real Property Services
State
Veterans' Affairs
Wireless Network
Children and Family Services
Correctional Services
Education
Environmental Conservation
General Services
Health
Labor
Mental Health
Motor Vehicles
Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation
Parole
State Police
Transportation
TOTAL REDUCTIONS FOR STATE AGENCIES:
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Net Change in
FTEs
(10)
(2)
(40)
(3)
(8)
(10)
(5)
(10)
(87)
(178)
(5)
(16)
(10)
(97)
(28)
(33)
(2)
(298)
(130)
(2)
(6)
(79)
(60)
(83)
(54)
(48)
(12)
(10)
(128)
(3)
(67)
(51)
(172)
(91)
(1,838)
Page 66
LABOR AND WORKFORCE
HIGHLIGHTS
State Agencies Under Executive Control
Alcoholic Beverage Control
Criminal Justice Services
Emergency Management and Homeland Security
Financial Management Systems
Insurance
Lieutenant Governor
Medicaid Inspector General
Public Service
Technology
Mental Retardation
Taxation and Finance
Temporary and Disability Assistance
Workers Compensation Board
TOTAL ADDITIONS FOR STATE AGENCIES:
Net Change in
FTEs
20
159
221
70
70
7
69
2
31
89
444
20
25
1,227
Agencies Not Subject to Executive Control
Net Change in
FTEs
Audit and Control
City University
Law
State University
State University Construction Fund
SUBTOTAL:
Agencies Not on the Budget
Roswell Park Cancer Institute
Science, Technology, and Innovation
State Insurance Fund
SUBTOTAL FOR AGENCIES NOT ON
BUDGET:
Net Workforce Change:
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
0
0
(100)
37
0
(63)
Net Change in
FTEs
0
0
0
0
(674)
Page 67
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009
HIGHLIGHTS
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009
Federal funding represents more than one third of total All Funds spending for the New York
State Budget. With the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in
February 2009, Federal support has been especially critical in providing fiscal relief to New
York State. When ARRA fiscal relief expires in late 2010, it will leave a shortfall of more than
$4.4 billion, accounting for a substantial share of the State's overall out-year budget gap of $6.3
billion projected for State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2011-12.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Impact on New York
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will provide more than $31 billion in Federal
assistance over two years to New York State. Key ARRA funding categories include:
•
•
•
•
$7 billion for unemployment benefits, food stamp assistance and other forms of economic
support for individuals and families threatened by the national recession;
$4.5 billion for "shovel ready" infrastructure investments in transportation, clean water,
drinking water and other projects, as well as support for a range of energy-related programs
such as weatherization and smart grid improvements;
$2.8 billion for education programs such as Pell Grants for college students and increases in
Federal Title I and special education funding provided directly to school districts; and
$14.1 billion for ARRA relief intended to help the State minimize cuts to essential services
and reduce fiscal stress. Of this amount, more than $11 billion is realized through a
temporary increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) over a 27-month
period ending December 2010. The remaining $3 billion comes from ARRA State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund (SFSF) grants that are primarily intended to mitigate cuts to education
funding.
When ARRA fiscal relief is fully exhausted in SFY 2011-12, New York's Financial Plan will
face an annual Federal funding loss of approximately $4.4 billion in FMAP and SFSF funds.
School districts will experience a nearly $1 billion annual loss of direct Title I and special
education funding on top of a reduction in SFSF revenue provided through the State. Counties
and New York City will lose $1 billion from their local share of FMAP funding.
Category
FMAP
SFSF
Total
ARRA Fiscal Relief in the State Budget
($ in millions)
SFY 2008-09
SFY 2009-10
SFY 2010-11
1,299
3,702
3,387
0
1,523
1,275
1,299
5,225
4,662
SFY 2011-12
0
220
220
Relief in
The State Bu
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 68
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009
HIGHLIGHTS
Job Creation and Infrastructure
In December 2009, the House of Representatives passed the Jobs for Main Street Act. The
United States Senate is expected to consider similar legislation in late January 2010. The
Executive strongly urges action on a jobs bill. The Executive also calls on Congress to act in the
coming year to reauthorize long term highway and transit investment legislation that will support
the State’s growing transportation needs. Finally, the jobs bill now under development in
Congress should extend fiscal relief for states by continuing the FMAP and education funding
provided under ARRA. The Executive maintains that a short-term extension of ARRA fiscal
relief will help minimize immediate cuts to health care, education and other essential services,
while providing the State with the additional time necessary to realign its spending with available
revenues.
Federal Health Care Reform
Congress is considering historic health care reform legislation, which will improve our health
care system and make substantial progress toward providing medical coverage for 2.5 million
uninsured New Yorkers. The Executive has been urging Congressional leadership to enact a
final bill that ensures equity for all states. Federal health care reform should not penalize New
York for its leadership while rewarding other states that have historically provided less coverage
for their uninsured populations. The Executive continues to work with the State's Congressional
Delegation to secure passage of a final agreement that expands health care coverage while
providing equitable Federal reimbursement for the cost of providing Medicaid services.
New York’s Balance of Payments Shortfall with the Federal Government
New York sends substantially more revenue to the Federal government than it receives in the
form of Federal spending and aid. In 2008, the State’s negative balance of payments (BOP)
between Federal taxes paid by its taxpayers and Federal spending in New York totaled $55.6
billion, the highest of any state in the nation. Over a ten-year period through 2008, the State's
shortfall totaled more than $600 billion.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 69
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
HIGHLIGHTS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
All Funds Summary of Spending
Category
2009-10
2010-11
(in millions) (in millions)
Change
(in millions)
Percent
AIM – New York City
$301.7
$0.0
($301.7)
(100.0)
AIM – Other Municipalities
$750.3
$734.8
($15.5)
(2.0)
$1,051.3
$734.8
($317.2)
(30.1)
VLT Impact Aid
$26.4
$23.8
($2.6)
(10.0)
Other Local Aid Programs
$28.3
$32.2
$3.9
13.8
Total AIM
•
The Executive recommends a total All Funds appropriation of $735 million for the Aid and
Incentives for Municipalities (AIM) program. This represents a reduction of $317 million, or
30 percent, from the SFY 2009-10 Adjusted Budget.
•
The Executive recommends eliminating Aid and Incentives for Municipalities (AIM) funding
for New York City totaling $301.7 million.
•
The Executive recommends eliminating AIM payments totaling $668,332 to Erie County,
which has similarly low reliance on AIM as New York City. Erie County is the only county
that currently receives funding under the AIM program.
•
For municipalities besides New York City and Erie County, AIM funding is reduced by
either 2 percent or 5 percent from SFY 2009-10 Enacted Budget levels This reduction is
dependent on whether AIM accounts for more or less than 10 percent of the municipality’s
total revenues. The Executive recommends total AIM funding outside of New York City for
SFY 2010-11 of $734.6 million, a reduction of $15 million from SFY 2009-10.
•
The Executive preserves funding for all previously awarded grants under the Local
Government Efficiency Grants (LGEG) program, but lowers the total amount available for
new grants in SFY 2009-10 and SFY 2010-11 to $10 million each.
•
The Executive would honor in full all grant awards made prior to December 1, 2009 for the
Efficiency Incentive Grants (EIG) program for the City of Buffalo and Erie County, but
reduce remaining available funds by 50 percent. This reduction would leave $12 million for
new grants in addition to the $25 million previously awarded under this program.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 70
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
HIGHLIGHTS
•
Although the amount available for new grant awards is reduced, total spending for both the
LGEG and EIG programs is expected to increase in 2010-11 due to the payout of grants
awarded in prior years. (2010-11 Savings: $5 million; 2011-12 Savings: $9 million)
•
The Executive recommends reducing payments to each municipality that hosts a Video
Lottery Terminal (VLT) facility by 10 percent, achieving a total savings of $2.65 million.
The City of Yonkers and 15 upstate municipalities would receive a total of $23.8 million for
SFY 2010-11 as a State reimbursement for public safety and other local costs resulting from
VLT facilities.
Gap Closing Actions
($ in millions)
Proposal
Eliminate AIM for New York City & Erie County
SFY 2010-11
SFY 2011-12
302
302
Reduce AIM for Other Municipalities
15
15
Scale Back Incentive Grant Programs
5
9
Reduce VLT Impact Aid
3
3
325
329
Total
Other Actions
•
Enable Additional Local Justice Court Consolidation. The Executive recommends that
local governments be allowed to share court facilities through intermunicipal agreements and
proposes some technical changes that would better allow town courts to take advantage of the
existing consolidation process.
•
Increase Special District Accountability. The Executive recommends a number of
proposals to promote greater fiscal accountability and efficiency improvements in
commissioner-run special districts including:
o treating town improvement district commissioners the same as school board members
and fire district commissioners by eliminating compensation and perquisites;
o providing for improved management of all sanitary districts by transferring day-today management of commissioner-run sanitary districts to town boards; and
o allowing citizens to petition to eliminate the offices of improvement district
commissioners.
•
Promote Local Government Efficiency. The Executive recommends empowering local
governments to achieve efficiencies and share services by:
o allowing counties to share directors of weights and measures;
o giving additional residency requirement flexibility to fire districts; and
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 71
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
HIGHLIGHTS
o allowing counties to enter into intermunicipal agreements with other local
governments to collect property taxes.
•
Provide Revenue and Financing Flexibility for New York City. The Executive
recommends authorizing New York City to apply the Mortgage Recording Tax to
cooperative apartments. Current apartments and homes are subject to the mortgage recording
tax. The Executive also provides the City with greater financing flexibility in issuing
Qualified School Construction Bonds authorized under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009.
•
Provide Revenue and Investment Flexibility for Other Local Governments. The
Executive recommends providing municipalities with the following revenue options to help
minimize the property tax burden:
o authorization for cities and villages to increase the local gross receipts tax rate on
utilities from 1% to a maximum of 3%;
o charges for accident reports at levels authorized for the State Police;
o fees for ambulance and emergency medical services provided by fire departments
similar to a local government's ability to charge for freestanding ambulance agencies;
o charges for additional police at paid-admission events; and
o flexibility to deposit municipal funds in credit unions and savings banks.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 72
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
HIGHLIGHTS
2010-11 Executive Budget AIM Proposal
Cities, Sorted by County
AIM
2009-10 AIM
Reliance
Funding
Percentage(1)
$13,692,858
8.0%
$2,887,748
13.7%
$1,314,343
9.7%
2010-11
Proposed
AIM Funding
$13,008,215
$2,829,993
$1,248,626
YTY
YTY Dollar
Percent
Change
Change
($684,643) -5.0%
($57,755) -2.0%
($65,717) -5.0%
County
Albany
Albany
Albany
Municipality
ALBANY
COHOES
WATERVLIET
Broome
BINGHAMTON
$9,737,955
13.0%
$9,543,196
($194,759)
-2.0%
Cattaraugus
Cattaraugus
OLEAN
SALAMANCA
$2,334,539
$987,846
10.1%
6.1%
$2,310,958
$957,606
($23,581)
($30,240)
-1.0%
-3.1%
Cayuga
AUBURN
$5,175,523
10.2%
$5,123,245
($52,278)
-1.0%
Chautauqua
Chautauqua
DUNKIRK
JAMESTOWN
$1,711,118
$4,965,773
8.4%
5.9%
$1,625,562
$4,717,484
($85,556)
($248,289)
-5.0%
-5.0%
Chemung
ELMIRA
$4,820,625
11.4%
$4,724,212
($96,413)
-2.0%
Chenango
NORWICH
$1,146,807
11.7%
$1,123,871
($22,936)
-2.0%
Clinton
PLATTSBURGH
$2,876,844
5.7%
$2,733,002
($143,842)
-5.0%
Columbia
HUDSON
$1,533,940
13.5%
$1,503,261
($30,679)
-2.0%
Cortland
CORTLAND
$2,192,027
9.6%
$2,082,426
($109,601)
-5.0%
Dutchess
Dutchess
BEACON
POUGHKEEPSIE
$1,669,794
$4,613,607
7.4%
7.6%
$1,586,304
$4,382,927
($83,490)
($230,680)
-5.0%
-5.0%
Erie
Erie
Erie
BUFFALO
LACKAWANNA
TONAWANDA
$167,337,178
$6,546,879
$2,739,531
34.8%
20.8%
13.7%
$165,646,904
$6,480,749
$2,684,740
($1,690,274)
($66,130)
($54,791)
-1.0%
-1.0%
-2.0%
Fulton
Fulton
GLOVERSVILLE
JOHNSTOWN
$2,424,201
$1,462,264
10.7%
11.1%
$2,375,717
$1,433,019
($48,484)
($29,245)
-2.0%
-2.0%
Genesee
BATAVIA
$1,863,631
7.6%
$1,806,581
($57,050)
-3.1%
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 73
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
HIGHLIGHTS
AIM
2009-10 AIM
Reliance
Funding
Percentage(1)
$911,772
10.8%
2010-11
Proposed
AIM Funding
$893,537
YTY
YTY Dollar
Percent
Change
Change
($18,235) -2.0%
County
Herkimer
Municipality
LITTLE FALLS
Jefferson
WATERTOWN
$4,988,372
9.2%
$4,835,667
($152,705)
-3.1%
Madison
ONEIDA
$1,790,707
11.8%
$1,754,893
($35,814)
-2.0%
Monroe
ROCHESTER
$91,293,532
19.9%
$90,371,375
($922,157)
-1.0%
Montgomery AMSTERDAM
$2,980,036
12.2%
$2,949,934
($30,102)
-1.0%
Nassau
Nassau
GLEN COVE
LONG BEACH
$3,081,878
$3,302,020
6.6%
4.8%
$2,927,784
$3,233,937
($154,094)
($68,083)
-5.0%
-2.1%
Niagara
Niagara
$2,878,631
$18,734,214
7.7%
18.3%
$2,734,699
$18,359,530
($143,932)
($374,684)
-5.0%
-2.0%
Niagara
LOCKPORT
NIAGARA FALLS
NORTH
TONAWANDA
$4,564,065
10.4%
$4,472,784
($91,281)
-2.0%
Oneida
Oneida
Oneida
ROME
SHERRILL
UTICA
$9,563,065
$404,763
$16,791,715
17.6%
6.5%
23.6%
$9,371,804
$384,525
$16,622,101
($191,261)
($20,238)
($169,614)
-2.0%
-5.0%
-1.0%
Onondaga
SYRACUSE
$74,333,228
25.4%
$73,582,388
($750,840)
-1.0%
Ontario
Ontario
CANANDAIGUA
GENEVA
$1,215,633
$2,109,796
7.0%
8.0%
$1,154,851
$2,004,306
($60,782)
($105,490)
-5.0%
-5.0%
Orange
Orange
Orange
MIDDLETOWN
NEWBURGH
PORT JERVIS
$2,938,692
$4,848,886
$1,480,533
7.7%
9.3%
10.2%
$2,791,757
$4,606,442
$1,450,922
($146,935)
($242,444)
($29,611)
-5.0%
-5.0%
-2.0%
Oswego
Oswego
FULTON
OSWEGO
$1,766,826
$2,662,694
7.1%
7.0%
$1,678,485
$2,529,559
($88,341)
($133,135)
-5.0%
-5.0%
Otsego
ONEONTA
$2,349,730
11.4%
$2,302,735
($46,995)
-2.0%
Rensselaer
Rensselaer
RENSSELAER
TROY
$1,202,530
$12,927,988
8.0%
15.5%
$1,165,717
$12,669,428
($36,813)
($258,560)
-3.1%
-2.0%
Saratoga
MECHANICVILLE
$697,374
10.9%
$683,427
($13,947)
-2.0%
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 74
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
HIGHLIGHTS
2009-10 AIM
Funding
AIM
Reliance
Percentage(1)
2010-11
Proposed
AIM Funding
YTY Dollar
Change
YTY
Percent
Change
County
Municipality
Schenectady
SCHENECTADY
$11,797,825
12.2%
$11,561,868
($235,957)
-2.0%
St. Lawrence
OGDENSBURG
$1,855,708
9.8%
$1,762,923
($92,785)
-5.0%
Steuben
Steuben
CORNING
HORNELL
$1,589,854
$1,561,123
9.6%
10.7%
$1,541,185
$1,545,354
($48,669)
($15,769)
-3.1%
-1.0%
Tompkins
ITHACA
$2,835,051
4.6%
$2,693,298
($141,753)
-5.0%
Ulster
KINGSTON
$3,333,284
7.6%
$3,166,620
($166,664)
-5.0%
Warren
GLENS FALLS
$1,745,310
6.1%
$1,658,044
($87,266)
-5.0%
Westchester
Westchester
Westchester
Westchester
Westchester
Westchester
MOUNT VERNON
NEW ROCHELLE
PEEKSKILL
RYE
WHITE PLAINS
YONKERS
$7,771,514
$6,693,312
$2,410,385
$1,311,987
$5,719,243
$111,943,812
8.0%
5.2%
5.5%
3.1%
3.6%
29.4%
$7,382,938
$6,358,646
$2,289,866
$1,246,388
$5,601,321
$110,813,067
($388,576)
($334,666)
($120,519)
($65,599)
($117,922)
($1,130,745)
-5.0%
-5.0%
-5.0%
-5.0%
-2.1%
-1.0%
Cities Total (2)
$676,213,795
$664,784,795 ($11,429,000)
-1.7%
Notes:
(1) - AIM Reliance Percentage is SFY 2008-09 AIM funding as a percentage of 2008 total revenues.
(2) - Total excludes AIM funding for the City of New York.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 75
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
HIGHLIGHTS
Distribution of VLT Aid to Municipalities
2010-11 Executive Budget
VLT Facility
Municipality
Yonkers
City of Yonkers
All Other:
Batavia
Downs
City of Batavia
Town of Batavia
Genesee County
2009-10
VLT Aid
Payment
10 Percent
Reduction
2010-11
Proposed
Funding
$19,600,000 ($1,960,000) $17,640,000
$314,849
$114,563
$143,137
($31,485)
($11,456)
($14,314)
$283,364
$103,107
$128,823
Fairgrounds
(Buffalo)
Town of Hamburg
Erie County
$1,236,683
$412,228
($123,668)
($41,223)
$1,113,015
$371,005
Finger Lakes
Town of Farmington
Ontario County
$1,269,695
$422,267
($126,970)
($42,227)
$1,142,725
$380,040
Monticello
Village of Monticello
Town of Thompson
Sullivan County
$416,006
$906,436
$440,814
($41,601)
($90,644)
($44,081)
$374,405
$815,792
$396,733
Village of Vernon
Town of Vernon
Oneida County
$195,861
$331,125
$366,851
($19,586)
($33,113)
($36,685)
$176,275
$298,012
$330,166
Town of Nichols
Tioga County
$114,890
$203,577
($11,489)
($20,358)
$103,401
$183,219
$6,888,982
($688,898)
$6,200,084
Vernon
Downs
Tioga Downs
Total Outside Yonkers
Grand Total
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$26,488,982 ($2,648,898) $23,840,084
Page 76
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
HIGHLIGHTS
Efficiency Incentive Grant Program Savings Proposal (in dollars)
Program Experience
2010-11 Executive Budget
As of 12/1/2009
Fiscal Year of
Appropriation
Grants
Available for
50%
Available for
Appropriation
Amount
Awarded
New Awards
Reduction
New Awards
BFSA:
-
2006-07
10,000,000
10,000,000
-
2007-08
11,760,000
5,500,000
6,260,000
(3,130,000)
3,130,000
2008-09
2,940,000
2,940,000
(1,470,000)
1,470,000
-
-
24,700,000
15,500,000
9,200,000
(4,600,000)
4,600,000
2006-07
17,640,000
9,673,492
7,966,508
(3,983,254)
3,983,254
2008-09
6,860,000
6,860,000
(3,430,000)
3,430,000
7,413,254
ECFSA:
Grand Total
-
24,500,000
9,673,492
14,826,508
(7,413,254)
$49,200,000
$25,173,492
$24,026,508
($12,013,254)
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
$12,013,254
Page 77
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
HIGHLIGHTS
Page 78
MANDATE REFORM
HIGHLIGHTS
MANDATE REFORM
•
The Executive recommends eliminating or modifying more than 100 existing mandates
across a broad range of State programs, producing an estimated local fiscal benefit of nearly
$1 billion over the next three years.
•
The Executive recommends strict protections to prevent the imposition of new unfunded
mandates that drive up property taxes. More than half of these mandate reform initiatives are
advanced with the SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget and require legislative action.
The Major Statutory Reforms are:
Four-Year Moratorium on Unfunded Mandates: Legislation advanced with the Executive
Budget would protect local property taxpayers by imposing a four year moratorium on all
significant unfunded statutory mandates affecting local governments. During this four-year
period, this would include the approval of a constitutional amendment to protect localities from
unfunded mandates. To ensure successful implementation of the proposed ban on unfunded
mandates, the Executive proposes statutory changes to improve the existing legislative fiscal
note requirement used to identify the estimated costs of any mandate.
Wicks Law Reform: Under current law, New York City, Buffalo and several other school
districts have a full exemption from all Wicks law requirements. Remaining school districts are
subject to Wicks-related cost increases for any project above $500,000 and $1.5 million for
Upstate and Downstate, respectively. The Executive recommends ending this disparate
treatment by advancing a permanent repeal of the Wicks Law for all school districts, saving $200
million annually in capital costs.
County Mandated Services Reform: Counties and New York City are required by the State to
pay a share of the cost for a range of mandated services such as welfare, Medicaid and early
childhood services. The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget would provide substantial relief for
counties across nearly the full range of mandated services with major initiatives that include:
o Preschool Special Education: Counties are required to share in the cost of a rapidly
growing preschool special education program, even though county officials have little
authority to determine how these services are provided. To provide relief from growing
preschool special education costs, county financial exposure would be capped at a 2
percent annual growth rate with school districts assuming responsibility for any spending
over this level. Currently, school districts have no cost share in this program. Program
costs would be better managed through statutory changes to encourage the placement of
children with nearby providers and by requiring the State Education Department to
respond to county audits of preschool special education providers in a timely manner.
o Early Intervention: The Executive recommends requiring insurance companies to pay for
services covered under the terms of their policy, instituting a parental fee on services that
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 79
MANDATE REFORM
HIGHLIGHTS
would vary based on income, and revising rates for home- and facility based care to
encourage the use of less costly facility-based care.
o Medicaid: In addition to continuing the State's cap on the local Medicaid share and
Family Health local share pick-up at a cost of $1.3 billion, the SFY 2010-11 Executive
Budget would authorize a new demonstration program that gives counties that are closing
or downsizing nursing homes the option to redirect these savings to enhance communitybased long term care services and enable the placement of “hard to place” individuals in
private nursing homes.
o Local Jails/Probation: In addition to regulatory changes advanced by the State
Commission of Corrections, the Executive recommends several statutory changes to
reduce the mandated cost-burden on county jails. These changes would include
expanding the use of videoconferencing for certain court appearances and services to
inmates and providing additional flexibility in housing inmates. County probation offices
would also benefit from initiatives that streamline the presentencing investigation
processes, eliminate funding-specific mandates for aid, and provide additional flexibility
in the day-to-day operations of probation departments.
Requiring the State Education Department and Office of Court Administration to
Implement an Executive Order 17 Process: The Executive recommends statutory changes that
would require both the State Education Department and the Office of Court Administration to
implement a mandate review process similar to Executive Order 17. The Executive Order is
intended to discourage the promulgation of unfunded regulatory mandates by these nonExecutive agencies, while providing relief from existing regulations. Since the Executive Order
was issued in April 2009, the Governor’s mandate review process has increased state agency
interaction with local governments in relation to the impact of proposed regulations on the
affected municipalities. This had led to the modification of numerous regulations to ease the
burden on local governments.
Other School District Mandate Reforms: The Executive recommends other reforms including
lessening the administrative paperwork burden by streamlining and eliminating unnecessary
reporting and planning requirements and by allowing school districts to file reports with the State
Education Department electronically. School districts will also be given additional fiscal
flexibility with additional transportation savings options and through the use of reserve funds.
Procurement Flexibility: The Executive would give school districts and other local
governments significant additional procurement flexibility by: increasing bidding thresholds;
allowing local governments to piggyback on other states’ and local governments’ contracts, as
well as certain federal contracts; authorizing electronic bidding and reverse auctions; giving local
governments the ability to award contracts based on best value; and providing local governments
with the option of publishing bid notifications in the statewide procurement opportunities
newsletter. The Executive would eliminate the fee imposed by the Office of General Services
for use of State contracts.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 80
MANDATE REFORM
HIGHLIGHTS
Other Mandate Reform Initiatives
Local Fiscal Notes on Legislation would be required a fiscal note on every bill that clearly
estimates the budgetary impact on any legislation affecting local governments.
Procurement Fee would be repealed to local governments for their use of Office of General
Services (OGS) centralized contracts.
Competitive Bidding Thresholds would be increased for local governments with more
contracting flexibility by increasing local competitive bidding threshold. The competitive
bidding contracts for public works contracts would increase from $35,000 to $50,000 and for
purchase contracts the threshold would increase from $10,000 to $20,000.
Electronic Bidding requirement would be provided to local governments with the option of
requiring that vendors submit bids electronically
Reverse Auctions would be allowed to enable local government to hold reverse auctions, in
which vendors bid against one another for lower prices.
Award on Best Value would allow for service and technology contracts to be awarded by "best
value.” The State currently has this ability.
Alternative Publication Options would be provided to local governments with the option of
publishing procurement notices in the Contract Reporter instead of publishing in newspapers.
School District Planning and Reporting Streamlining would eliminate duplicative or
unnecessary planning and reporting requirements.
Electronic Filing of Reports Authorization would allow school districts to file reports with
SED electronically.
In Certain Transportation Contracts Piggybacking would be allowed for school districts in
an existing private transportation contract of another school district to provide student
transportation outside of a pupil’s home district.
Regional Transportation Strategies and Bus Maintenance would be promoted by enabling
school districts to reduce expenses by contracting with other entities, including other school
districts, counties and municipalities to provide more efficient student transportation. School
districts would also be authorized to partner on school bus maintenance.
Eliminate State-Mandated Aging Out Notifications Duplicative notices to parents of students
that are aging-out of special education services would be eliminated.
Reform Special Education Space Planning Requirements The current five-year plan would
be replaced with a general provision placing responsibility for determining the adequacy and
appropriateness of facilities.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 81
MANDATE REFORM
HIGHLIGHTS
Allow Withdrawal from Employee Benefit Accrued Liability Reserve Funds School
districts would be authorized to withdraw excess employee benefits reserves during the 2010-11
school year.
Allow Pension Amortization/ Reform Pension Benefits To address the substantial pension
contribution increases that local governments and the State will face over the next five years due
to investment losses experienced by the Common Retirement Fund, this proposal would give
local governments and the State the option to amortize a portion of their pension costs from SFY
2010-11 through SFY 2015-16. Local governments and the State, if they choose to participate,
would be permitted to amortize the portion of their respective pension costs exceeding a
contribution rate of 9.5 percent for the New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System
and 17.5 percent for the New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System in SFY
2010-11. The contribution rate above which future amortizations are allowed would be
increased by one percentage point each year through SFY 2015-16. Repayment of the amortized
amounts would be made over a ten-year period at an interest rate to be determined by the State
Comptroller.
Provide New York State Health Insurance Program (NYSHIP) Rate Relief 2010 NYSHIP
premiums, paid by local governments for employee health insurance, would be limited to a 3.3
percent rate increase. This administrative action taken in Fall 2009 is consistent with the
Governor’s pledge that 2010 Empire Plan premiums charged to local participants would not
increase by more than 3.5 percent.
Limit Travel Requirements Municipal staff participation in Individualized Family Service
Plan meetings via phone or other means would be allowed, saving localities travel costs.
Authorize a Long-Term Care Demonstration Program Statute and regulations would be
revised to facilitate county closure or downsizing of public nursing homes by allowing savings to
be redirected to enhance community-based long-term care services and enable placement of
"hard to place" individuals in private nursing homes.
Streamline Review of Certificate of Need (CON) Construction Applications The project cost
thresholds that establish the level of review for CON construction applications submitted by
Article 28 facilities (whether public, proprietary or voluntary) would be raised. Given that fees
for these applications vary by level of review, the shift from more intensive levels of review to
less intensive ones will result in cost reductions.
Reduce Uniform Financial Reporting System Requirements Local reporting requirements
would be eased under Article 6 public health programs.
Eliminate Unnecessary Consent for Medical Education County medical examiners would be
relieved from a regulatory provision that could have required these officials to obtain consent for
HIV testing of cadavers donated for medical education.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 82
MANDATE REFORM
HIGHLIGHTS
Modify Third Party Health Insurance Determination and Recovery Process The
determination of cost-effective Third Party Health Insurance and the pursuit of primary payment
for medical costs, which currently lies with a county department of social services would be
transferred to the Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG), relieving counties of the
burden of performing it.
Remove Unnecessary Inmate Classifications The requirement that jails separately house
inmates ages 19-21 would be eliminated, thereby providing jail administrators with additional
flexibility in allocating space.
Consolidate Probation Aid All direct sources of funding provided to counties for a variety of
probation functions would be consolidated into one grant which will provide counties with
flexibility in applying for and reporting on the execution of their grant awards. A review will be
undertaken of existing mandates associated with receipt of these funds and new regulations will
issued.
Increase Local Probation Staffing Flexibility Local probation management would be provided
additional flexibility regarding the recruitment, selection, and promotion of probation
professional personnel.
Permit Multi-year Contracts Regulations would be amended to allow local social services
districts to enter into multi-year contracts for the purchase of services, which they are currently
prohibited from doing for longer than 12 months.
Increase Flexibility in Local Consolidated Service Plans The cycle would be extended from
three to five years, the requirement would be eliminated for annual implementation reports, more
flexibility would be provided for public participation in the planning process, unnecessary
information would be eliminated from plans and districts would be allowed to report on updates
to their plans as necessary.
Eliminate Freshwater Wetland Maps Filing The requirement that county clerks file
freshwater wetlands maps that are now available on DEC's website would be eliminated, making
it no longer essential that county clerks perform this service and incur modest fiscal impacts by
it.
Share Business Filings Electronically An electronic process for the required sharing of
business filings with county clerks would be created.
Allow Shared Justice Court Facilities Adjacent municipalities would be allowed to share court
facilities as part of an intermunicipal agreement.
Allow Shared Directors of Weights and Measures Multiple counties would be allowed to
share one Director of Weights and Measures pursuant to an intermunicipal agreement. The
Agriculture and Markets Law currently requires each county to have its own Director of Weights
and Measures, who must reside in the county.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 83
MANDATE REFORM
HIGHLIGHTS
Allow Fire Districts/Companies to Have Additional Members from Outside of the Districts
Volunteer fire companies would be allowed to have additional members that do not reside in the
fire district in which they serve upon approval by the Office of Fire Prevention and Control
(there is currently a prohibition on allowing more than 45 percent of members to be from outside
the district).
Establish a Default Mutual Aid Agreement Across the State A default intrastate emergency
services mutual aid compact, which municipalities can opt-out of, would be created.
Eliminate Special District Commissioner Compensation Special district commissioners
would be prohibited from receiving compensation for their services. However, such
commissioners may still receive reimbursement for any actual and necessary expenses they incur
in the performance of their official duties. This change brings special district commissioners into
conformity with school board members and fire district commissioners, who are also barred from
receiving compensation.
Transfer Management of Sanitary Districts Most of management responsibilities for
commissioner-run town special districts providing sanitary, refuse, or garbage services would be
transferred to town boards. Elected special district commissioners would be allowed to continue
to hold referenda on whether the level of services provided to district residents should be
changed. Towns already manage nearly all of these districts statewide. These amendments have
the potential to improve management and reduce the costs of these special districts.
Restore Process to Eliminate Town Improvement District Commissioners The process by
which town boards and citizens can remove the independently elected board of town
improvement district commissioners would be restored and improved.
Expand Tax Collection Options Local governments would be provided with the option of
entering into an agreement with the county for tax collection.
Improve Assessment Disclosure Notices More meaningful, well-timed assessment notices with
electronic distribution would be authorized to achieve cost savings for local governments.
Provide Deposit Flexibility Local governments would be provided with more options to
achieve interest revenue by allowing the deposits of municipal funds in local savings banks and
credit unions. Current law limits municipal deposits to commercial banks and trust companies.
Increase New York City Financing Flexibility New York City would be provided with the
option of using a sinking fund to take full advantage of qualified school construction bonding
authorized under ARRA.
Allow Electronic Delivery of Local Laws Local governments would be allowed to submit all
passed local laws to the Department of State electronically for filing. Currently, local
governments are required to submit laws by mail or delivery to the Department of State.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 84
MANDATE REFORM
HIGHLIGHTS
Allow Shared Business Analyses/Risk Assessments Local governments would be allowed to
adopt existing business analyses/risk assessments when the application they wish to use is the
same as an existing application in another locality or to share resources in a collaborative effort
to develop an online application. This regulatory change reduces a barrier to entry for local
governments desiring to deliver more information and provide services online.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 85
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF
HIGHLIGHTS
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF
BACKGROUND
The amount of property taxes paid by the State’s homeowners has been a major issue for many
years. Property taxes are a significant contributor to the overall tax burden on the State’s
taxpayers. Over the course of time, there have been attempts to mitigate the property tax burden
on State homeowners.
In 1978, the Real Property Tax Circuit Breaker Credit was enacted. Specified New York
taxpayers are allowed a refundable credit against their personal income tax liability for the
amount of real property taxes that they pay. The credit is available to both homeowners and
renters, but is extremely limited. In order to qualify for the credit, the taxpayer must have a total
household income (the income of everyone living in the household, not just the taxpayer) of less
than $18,000. In addition, the total value of the property must be less than $85,000 or, in the
case of renters, the average monthly rent must be less than $450. This credit has not been
amended since enactment. As a result, only 290,000 taxpayers currently qualify for the credit;
with an average credit of $106.
In SFY 1997-98, the NYS STAR program was enacted, which provided a partial property tax
exemption for the State’s homeowners. The exemption was available to all homeowners, but the
amount depended upon the age and income of the homeowner. Specifically, all homeowners are
eligible for an exemption up to $30,000 of their home’s assessed value with homeowners over
the age of 65 receiving an exemption of up to $60,100. Seniors would also have to an income of
less than $74,400 to receive the enhanced exemption. The taxpayer realizes their savings
directly through an offset against their school property tax bills.
In SFY 2006-07, the STAR program was enhanced to provide the State’s homeowners with
rebate checks for their school property taxes paid. These checks were based upon the
homeowner’s STAR exemption amount and were sent by the Department of Taxation and
Finance. In SFY 2007-08, the rebate check program was amended to apply income limits to
those taxpayers receiving the checks; only homeowners with incomes less than $250,000 would
receive rebate checks.
Due to State fiscal restraints, the scheduled increase in the rebate check program was postponed
in SFY 2008-09 with the program being eliminated in SFY 2009-10. However, the original
STAR program was left intact.
Although the current STAR program provides some property tax relief to the State’s
homeowners, the amount of the relief as well as the “pool” of recipients for this relief has long
been criticized. Most critics state that the amount of the relief is too small and provides no
benefit to those most overburdened with property taxes. In addition, as property values increase,
the amount of the STAR exemption declines; thus, reducing the amount of the benefit.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 86
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF
HIGHLIGHTS
Many feel that a new circuit breaker tax credit – a personal income tax credit based upon a
taxpayer’s income and property tax burden – is a more equitable means by which to provide
property tax relief. There have been numerous bills introduced in the Senate to either amend the
current circuit breaker credit or create a new real property tax circuit breaker credit.
EXECUTIVE CIRCUIT BREAKER PROPOSAL
The Executive proposes an amendment to the Tax Law which would allow taxpayers a credit
against their personal income tax of the school property taxes they pay. The credit would be
structured similar to the current real property circuit breaker credit and would be capped at
$3,000. eligibility is dependent upon the total household income of the taxpayers. Taxpayers
would have to be within statutory income thresholds to qualify for the credit but, there is no limit
on the value of the house. The income threshold is dependent upon the region of the State in
which the taxpayer lives. For the downstate region, which includes New York City and the
counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Orange, and Dutchess, households
with incomes less than $300,000 would qualify for the credit. In the upstate region, the
remaining counties within the State, households with incomes less than $200,000 would qualify
for the credit.
The credit would be based upon the amount of school property taxes paid in excess of a statutory
property tax burden; in other words, school taxes paid as a percentage of the taxpayer’s
household income. The amount of the tax burden to which the credit applies increases as total
household income increases. The tax burden would also vary depending on the balance in the
property tax circuit breaker reserve fund that would be established under this legislation. The
following tables show the amount of the property tax burden to qualify for the credit at the
various income levels and balance of the reserve fund.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 87
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF
HIGHLIGHTS
DOWNSTATE PROPERTY TAX BURDEN
FUND BALANCE
INCOME THRESHOLD
(Million of $)
< $120,000 $120,000 - $175,000 $175,000 - $300,000
100 – 500
6 percent
7 percent
8 percent
500 – 1,000
5 percent
6 percent
7 percent
1,000 – 1,500
4 percent
5 percent
6 percent
1,500 – 2,000
3 percent
4 percent
5 percent
> 2,000
2.5 percent
3.5 percent
4.5 percent
FUND BALANCE
(Million of $)
100 – 500
500 – 1,000
1,000 – 1,500
1,500 – 2,000
> 2,000
UPSTATE PROPERTY TAX BURDEN
INCOME THRESHOLD
< $90,000
$90,000 - $150,000 $150,000 - $200,000
6 percent
7 percent
8 percent
5 percent
6 percent
7 percent
4 percent
5 percent
6 percent
3 percent
4 percent
5 percent
2.5 percent
3.5 percent
4.5 percent
This proposal also contains an adjustment factor which would function as an implicit property
tax growth cap to ensure that the benefits of the tax credit do not disproportionately accrue to
jurisdictions whose spending has outpaced the rate of inflation.
The Executive’s proposal would create the Property Tax Circuit Breaker Reserve Fund. This
fund would be the funding mechanism for the new school property tax circuit breaker credit.
The fund would be comprised of any General Fund surplus remaining at the end of the fiscal
year after deposits are made to the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund and the Rainy Day Fund. The
amount of the maximum balance of the Rainy Day Fund would be increased from three percent
to ten percent of General Fund disbursements.
Moneys in the Circuit Breaker Reserve Fund could only be used for the payment of the school
property tax circuit breaker credits. According to a schedule set by the Budget Director, the
Comptroller would transfer money from the fund to the General Fund. As stated above, the
amount of the credit would be determined by the amount of money in the fund.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 88
TRANSPORTATION
HIGHLIGHTS
TRANSPORTATION
SFY 2010-11 MAJ OR BUDGET INITIATIVES
Reductions in Preventive Maintenance and Snow/Ice Removal: The Executive proposes to
achieve $6 million in savings in SFY 2010-11 by implementing a more cost effective salt
application technique and reducing the staffing level associated with preventive maintenance and
snow/ice removal by 100 positions. The Department of Transportation (DOT) would achieve
this reduction by hiring fewer workers to perform preventive maintenance and snow/ice activities
during the SFY 2010-11 winter season.
DOT Plan to Close Rest Areas: The Executive also proposes an initiative to achieve
approximately one million dollars in savings in SFY 2010-11 by closing highway rest areas. The
rest area closure plan is still under development by the Department and may include proposals
for both permanent and seasonal closures. Suitable locations would be identified based upon
proximity to other available services. Once fully implemented, the Executive anticipates $2
million in annual savings from these closures.
Return of I-84 Maintenance and Operation to DOT: The Executive Budget Proposal also
recommends that DOT re-assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of I-84 from
the Thruway Authority. The Thruway Authority currently maintains operating responsibility for
I-84 under a contract with DOT. This proposal would eliminate that contract, and DOT would
absorb the operational and maintenance costs of I-84 as a part of the State-owned highway
system.
TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROGRAMS
The previous $18.1 billion 2005-2010 DOT Capital Program entered its final year in SFY 200910. The Executive Budget therefore includes a proposal to establish a new two-year $7 billion
DOT Capital Program. Projects in the final years of the previous plan will continue to be
completed and paid out for a number of years to come. In fact, DOT is still administering a
small portion of projects in the out-years of the 2000-2005 DOT Capital Program.
No new revenue is proposed to support the new two-year plan. Rather, the new DOT Capital
Program would rely on financing derived from the following two sources:
•
Revenue from Existing Bonding Authority: A portion of the new plan would be
financed from bond proceeds generated utilizing the existing bonding authority of the
Dedicated Highway and Bridge Trust Fund (DHBTF).
•
Federal Capital Aid: The remainder of the two-year capital program is projected to be
financed through the continued receipt of Federal capital infrastructure aid from the US
Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 89
TRANSPORTATION
HIGHLIGHTS
It should be noted, however, that the Federal government has not yet replaced the existing
Federal transportation act (known as SAFETEA-LU) that expired on September 30, 2009 with a
new multi-year Federal transportation act that would set forth the long-term financing proposal
for Federal transportation capital aid. Since September of 2009, SAFETEA-LU has received a
number of short-term extensions, allowing Federal capital aid to continue to flow to the states.
The table below outlines the Executive’s Proposed Two-Year Capital Program by major
categories of spending.
Executive Proposed DOT Two-Year Capital Plan
(in millions)
OBLIGATIONS
State & Local System Construction
Contracts
Administration
State Forces Engineering &
Program Management
Consultant Engineering
Preventive Maintenance
Right of Way
Maintenance Facilities
Special Federal Programs
Rail Development
Aviation Systems
Non-MTA Transit Capital
Canal Infrastructure
CHIPS/Marchiselli
TOTAL
201011
201112
TOTAL
1,830
1,794
3,624
122
126
248
413
446
859
173
264
70
38
42
52
14
50
16
403
3,487
169
278
69
38
32
68
14
50
16
403
3,503
342
542
139
76
74
120
28
100
32
806
6,990
Like DOT, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority entered the last year of its previous 20052009 Capital Program in calendar year 2009. With respect to State-supported capital aid for the
MTA in SFY 2010-11, the Executive does not recommend any new capital appropriations –
though capital funding will still be made available to the Authority through reappropriations in
the SFY 2010-11 Executive Proposed Budget. Similarly, the Authority will continue to
administer projects in the out-years of the previous plan for years to come. The MTA is still
paying out projects that were included in its capital program from ten years ago.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 90
TRANSPORTATION
HIGHLIGHTS
However, the Authority cannot advance any new projects until a new MTA multi-year capital
program is approved by both the MTA’s Board and the Capital Program Review Board (CPRB).
(New projects are defined as those projects that are not currently included in the 2005-2009
Capital Program or a previous capital program of the Authority.) In October of 2009, the
Authority submitted a Proposed 2010-2014 MTA Capital Program to CPRB for approval. The
Review Board had a ninety-day period to review the proposed plan. In December of 2009, the
Executive’s representative to the CPRB vetoed the Proposed 2010-2014 Capital Program. The
Authority has yet to re-submit a new multi-year capital program to the CPRB for approval. It is
anticipated that the Authority will re-submit a new multi-year capital plan in the near future.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 91
ENVIRONMENT
HIGHLIGHTS
ENVIRONMENT
SFY 2010-11 MAJ OR BUDGET INITIATIVES
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Staffing Reductions: The Executive
recommends combined savings of approximately $34.2 million in personal service and nonpersonal service savings for SFY 2010-11. A portion of these savings can be attributed to the
Executive’s proposal for an overall staffing reduction of 54 positions from the staffing level of
3,368 in SFY 2009-10, bringing the total size of DEC’s staff to 3,314 in SFY 2010-11. This
reduction of 54 positions is primarily attributable to the loss of 83 positions through attrition.
This loss of 83 positions is offset by an increase in 29 positions associated with increased
oversight of drilling in Marcellus Shale (discussed below).
Natural Gas Drilling in Marcellus Shale: The Executive also recommends an increase of $2.5
million in funding for the DEC’s Mineral Resources Program to support 29 additional staff
associated with increased oversight of the natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale. These new
employees would be assigned the tasks of reviewing drilling permit applications, reviewing
pipeline applications, as well as overseeing drilling sites.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FUND
The Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) is the primary source of State capital funding
intended to support a wide variety of programs that both protect the environment and enhance
natural resources. The Fund was originally established and designed to be a dedicated trust fund
that could withstand both good and bad fiscal times. However, in recent years the EPF has been
used as a source of General Fund relief – with sweeps of the EPF being a common component of
Executive Budget proposals over the past several State fiscal years. An estimated total of a halfbillion dollars has been re-directed from the EPF to other State programs, while the overall level
of capital appropriations from the Fund have decreased.
For SFY 2010-11, the Executive proposes total appropriations of approximately $143 million
from the EPF, representing a reduction of $69 million or 32.6 percent from SFY 2009-10
appropriation levels adjusted by the SFY 2009-10 Deficit Reduction Program (DRP). The SFY
2009-10 DRP reduced EPF capital appropriations by $10 million, bringing the SFY 2009-10
enacted appropriation level from $222 million to a total of $212 million. As a point of
comparison, $255 million was provided for the EPF Program in the SFY 2008-09 Enacted
Budget representing an overall decrease of $112 million within only two years..
In addition, the Executive recommends Article VII legislation that would statutorily decrease the
amount of Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) deposited to the EPF from $199.3 million to $132.3
million beginning in SFY 2010-11 – an overall decrease of $67 million in the amount of RETT
currently deposited into the EPF – to align the amount of RETT revenue directed to the Fund
with the size of the recommended reduction in EPF appropriations in SFY 2010-11. While no
new sweeps of the Fund are proposed for SFY 2010-11, the long-term sustainability of the EPF
should still be kept in mind since this proposal would reduce the financial resources of the Fund.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 92
ENVIRONMENT
HIGHLIGHTS
Moreover, the Executive also recommends the creation of several new EPF categories in SFY
2010-11 that would achieve savings for other State programs. A new category in the Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation Account would provide funding to help allay the costs of
rehabilitation and improvements at facilities operated by the Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation. Another new category in the Fund would allow monies from the EPF to
be used for the purpose of paying taxes on public lands and for certain real property tax
payments.
Similarly, the Executive also proposes an increase of $25 million for the EPF category of Public
Access and Stewardship, raising the overall appropriation from $5 million in SFY 2009-10 to
$30 million in SFY 2010-11. This represents an increase five times greater than the SFY 200910 DRP-adjusted appropriation. Much of this increase is attributable to an new sub-allocation of
approximately $15 million provided for the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation (OPRHP) within this EPF category, which is intended to provide funding for
maintenance and improvements at Parks facilities.
Senate Finance Committee – Staff Analysis
Page 93
Statistical and Narrative Summary
of the
Executive Budget
Fiscal Year
April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011
State of New York
Prepared by the
New York State Assembly
Committee on Ways and Means
SHELDON SILVER
Speaker of the Assembly
HERMAN D. FARRELL, JR.
Committee Chairman
January 2010
ASSEMBLY WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE
HERMAN D. FARRELL, JR.
CHAIRMAN
MAJORITY MEMBERS
JOSEPH R. LENTOL
JOHN J. MCENENY
ROBIN L. SCHIMMINGER
VIVIAN E. COOK
WILLIAM L. PARMENT
KEVIN A. CAHILL
DAVID F. GANTT
JEFFRION L. AUBRY
HELENE E. WEINSTEIN
JOSEPH D. MORELLE
DEBORAH GLICK
MICHAEL J. SPANO
CATHERINE T. NOLAN
RHODA S. JACOBS
J. GARY PRETLOW
EARLENE HOOPER
N. NICK PERRY
WILLIAM SCARBOROUGH
WILLIAM COLTON
FRED W. THIELE
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT
KEITH L.T. WRIGHT
ROANN M. DESTITO
MICHAEL J. CUSICK
SAM HOYT
January 25, 2010
Dear Colleagues:
I am pleased to provide you with the Statistical and Narrative Summary of the
Executive Budget for the upcoming State Fiscal Year, April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011. The
"Yellow Book" is intended to provide the Members of the Committee, the Members of the
Assembly, and the public with an overview of the fiscal and policy proposals made by the
Governor in the bills submitted as his Executive Budget on January 19, 2010. This document
presents the budget as introduced and does not reflect acceptance of the proposals put forth
by the Executive. This publication may also be accessed using the Assembly Website at
www.assembly.state.ny.us/Reports/WAM/2010Yellow/.
The "Yellow Book" marks the beginning of the Legislature's public review of the
Governor's proposed budget. It is the Assembly's preliminary response to the budget, as
required by Section 53 of the Legislative Law. Joint legislative fiscal committee hearings on
the budget proposal will be the next step in our efforts to ensure public accessibility and
accountability.
Section One, Overview of Executive Budget, provides an executive summary of the
Governor's proposal for State Fiscal Year 2010-11 including analysis intended to place the
proposed financial plan and spending in major programmatic areas in perspective. The
section also includes an analysis of the national economy and the Executive’s revenue
forecast. The overview also lists the appropriation budget bills and detail on the nonappropriation budget bills.
Section Two, Summary of Recommended Appropriations by Agency, provides an
overview of current appropriations and recommendations for the 2010-11 State Fiscal Year
for each agency, a presentation of the proposed changes in each agency’s budgeted
personnel level, and a description of the programmatic and statutory modifications proposed
in Article VII legislation included with the Executive Budget submission. The section reflects
the structure of the Executive Budget appropriation bills. Agencies are presented in
alphabetical order within the appropriation bills as they appear in the Governor’s proposed
budget.
Speaker Silver and I know that you share our goal of rising to the challenges facing
this State as we confront the painful reality of the current economic crisis. Together, we will
continue to strive toward producing an on-time budget that is fair and equitable – and meets
the needs of working families across the State.
As the Legislature begins its work on the State Fiscal Year 2010-11 Budget, I would
like to express appreciation to my Assembly colleagues for the time and commitment you
will dedicate to the budget process. I would also like to convey to the Ways and Means
Committee staff my gratitude for their outstanding efforts to produce this document, which is
a tremendous resource for the Members of the Assembly.
Sincerely,
HERMAN D. FARRELL, JR.
STATISTICAL AND NARRATIVE SUMMARY
OF THE
EXECUTIVE BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR APRIL 1, 2010 TO MARCH 31, 2011
January 2010
Herman D. Farrell, Jr.
Chairman
Assembly Ways and Means Committee
Prepared by the
Assembly Ways and Means Committee Staff
Dean A. Fuleihan
Secretary to the Committee
Steven A. Pleydle
Director of Tax and Fiscal Studies
Matthew A. Howard
Director of Budget Studies
Audra Nowosielski
Director of Economic Studies
Note: This Statistical and Narrative Summary analyzes all of the budget bills
submitted by the Governor, both multiple appropriation bills and the nonappropriation bills. Many provisions within the submitted appropriation bills
would amend or circumvent existing State law. In delineating the authority of the
Governor and the Legislature in the budget-making process, the New York Court
of Appeals, in its opinion in Pataki v. Assembly and Silver v. Pataki (4 N.Y.3d 75,
94 (2004)) has said “that a Governor should not put into [an appropriation] bill
essentially non-fiscal or non-budgetary legislation. . .” Our analysis of such
provisions as contained herein, does not indicate acquiescence by the Ways and
Means Committee of the New York State Assembly that such provisions are
“essentially” fiscal or budgetary. The Committee does not, via its analysis of the
entire gubernatorial budget submission, concede that each provision submitted as
an “item of appropriation” has been crafted and proposed in accordance with the
requirements of the New York State Constitution.
Note: This Statistical and Narrative Summary analyzes all of the budget bills submitted
by the Governor, both multiple appropriation bills and the non-appropriation bills.
Many provisions within the submitted appropriation bills would amend or circumvent
existing State law. In delineating the authority of the Governor and the Legislature in the
budget-making process, the New York Court of Appeals, in its opinion in Pataki v.
Assembly and Silver v. Pataki (4 N.Y.3d 75, 94 (2004)) has said “that a Governor should
not put into [an appropriation] bill essentially non-fiscal or non-budgetary legislation. . .”
Our analysis of such provisions as contained herein, does not indicate acquiescence by
the Ways and Means Committee of the New York State Assembly that such provisions
are “essentially” fiscal or budgetary. The Committee does not, via its analysis of the
entire gubernatorial budget submission, concede that each provision submitted as an
“item of appropriation” has been crafted and proposed in accordance with the
requirements of the New York State Constitution.
SECTION ONE
Overview of Executive Budget
OVERVIEW OF EXECUTIVE BUDGET
SFY 2010-11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part A - Programmatic Overview
OVERVIEW OF THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET .......................................... 1
EDUCATION........................................................................................ 5
HEALTH ............................................................................................... 8
HIGHER EDUCATION ....................................................................... 11
STATE WORKFORCE ........................................................................ 15
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ................................................................... 18
TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................... 24
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ............................................................ 26
Part B - The Financial Plan
FINANCIAL PLAN .............................................................................. 29
CAPITAL PROGRAM & FINANCING PLAN ....................................... 44
Part C – The Economy & Revenues
ECONOMY ........................................................................................ 55
EXECUTIVE TAX REVENUE FORECAST.............................................. 59
EXECUTIVE TAX REVENUE PROPOSALS ........................................... 62
EXECUTIVE MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS........................................... 67
Part D - Budget Bills & Budget Hearings Schedule
BUDGET BILLS................................................................................... 71
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET .......................... 99
PART A
Programmatic Overview
OVERVIEW OF THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET
SFY 2010-11
The Governor proposes an All Funds
Budget of $133.9 billion for State Fiscal
Year (SFY) 2010-2011 (see Table 1). This
Budget is $786 million higher than the
estimated $133.2 billion in spending for
SFY 2009-2010 representing growth of
0.6 percent. The All Funds Budget is the
broadest measure of spending; accounting
for state unrestricted and restricted funds
as well as funds received from the federal
government. The All Funds accounting
system consists of four major fund types:
the General Fund; Special Revenue Fund;
Capital Project Fund; and, Debt Service
Fund.
Table 1
Disbursements
($ in Millions)
SFY
2009-10
General Fund
State Funds
All Funds
SFY
2010-11
$54,129
$54,522
-0.9%
0.7%
$84,639
$86,149
1.8%
1.8%
$133,172
$133,958
9.5%
0.6%
Moving Funds Off Budget
The
Governor’s
Executive
Budget
proposes amendments to the budget
process which will have substantial
changes to All Funds accounting
principles adopted almost 30 years ago.
The Executive proposes to move the
tuition and other university revenue for
the State University of New York (SUNY)
and the City University of New York
(CUNY) off budget, which would lower
All Funds disbursement by $4.1 billion
though the spending will still occur.
Further, it does not provide an accounting
for the increased revenue that would be
generated by the proposal to allow tuition
levels at SUNY and CUNY to increase
subject to an index limitation that this
year would allow for tuition to rise by
9.5 percent.
The General Fund accounts for
unrestricted taxes and receipts, and
spending on state operations and local
governments
not
funded
through
dedicated revenues. For SFY 2010-2011
the Governor proposes 0.7 percent
growth
in
the
General
Fund
disbursements over SFY 2009-2010
which is projected to be $54.1 billion, a
decrease of 0.9 percent from the prior
year.
In addition, the Executive’s Financial Plan
forecasts out-year General Fund current
services gaps in SFY 2011-12 of
$14.3 billion,
$18.3 billion
in
SFY 2012-13
and
$20.7 billion
in
SFY 2013-14 (see Figure 1).
Another measure of State spending is
State Funds which consists of the General
Fund plus non federal Special Revenue,
Capital Project, and Debt Service Funds.
State Funds spending for SFY 2010-11 is
projected to total $86.1 billion, an
increase of 1.8 percent or $1.5 billion
higher than SFY 2009-10.
Overview 1
The State Finance Law requires the
Executive to propose and the Legislature
to adopt a balanced budget. Based on the
Executive’s current services forecast the
Governor Budget proposal closes a
$7.4 billion gap in SFY 2010-11. This gap
includes the rolling over of $500 million
deficit from SFY 2009-10 in order to
avoid the use of Tax Stabilization Reserve
Funds.
In enacting last year’s budget over
$10 billion were made available from the
State Personal Income Tax surcharge and
the federal Stimulus Funds to lessen the
SFY 2010-2011 deficit. Absent these
funds the deficit for this year would be
over $15 billion. The Executive does not
recognize these as non-recurring although
a significant part of the growth in the
deficit in the years following SFY 2010-11
is due to the lack of such funds.
Executive General Fund Current
Services Budget Gaps Estimate
$ 25,000
Table 2
($ in Millions)
$20,713
20,000
$18,331
$14,311
15,000
Combined General Fund
& HCRA Budget-Balancing Plan
SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget
($ in Millions)
2010-11
Current Services Gaps
10,000
$7,418
5,000
DRP (Dec. 2009):
($7,418)
$692
Agency Reductions
$360
Aid to Localities
$427
All Other
($95)
0
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Budget Recommendations
Spending Control
Figure 1
Aid to Localilties
Agency Reductions/Fringe Benefits
Debt Service Savings
Closing the SFY 2010-11 Budget Gap
The
Executive
Proposal
includes
recommendations that are intended to
close an estimated $7.4 billion General
Fund budget gap in SFY 2010-11. The
Executive has indicated that these actions
are comprised of the following:
$4.9 billion in spending reductions;
roughly $1.2 billion in revenue actions;
and the use of $565 million in nonrecurring resources; and $692 million
from actions enacted in the Deficit
Reduction Plan of December 2009. (see
Table 2).
Overview 2
Tax/Fee Changes
$6,726
$4,870
$3,639
$1,221
$10
$1,070
Tax Audits/Recoveries
$221
Non-Recurring
$565
Executive Budget Gaps
$0
With the adoption of the Gap Closing
Plan the Executive Projects out-year
budget gaps would be reduced in
SFY 2011-12 to $6.3 billion, $10.5 billion
in SFY 2012-13 and $12.2 billion in
SFY 2013-14.
All Funds by Function
The majority of State spending provides
grants to local governments for education
and for the health, safety and welfare of
its citizens (see Figure 2). In addition, the
operation of State government and
General State Charges accounts for
20 percent of State spending. The
remaining 10 percent of the budget is
used to finance Capital Projects and Debt
Service on outstanding bonds.
2010-11 All Funds Spending
State
Operations General
15%
State
Charges
5%
Debt
Service
4%
Capital
Projects
6%
that costs $50 million and $168 million,
respectively, in SFY 2012-13.
Deficit Reduction Plan
In December 2009 the Legislature passed
a Deficit Reduction Plan which provided
$2.7 billion to address a current year
deficit. The Executive estimates that this
plan produces recurring savings of
$700 million to $875 million over the
next four fiscal years. This included
recurring savings in Agency Operations,
Health Care, Mental Hygiene, Education
and Local Government Aid. This plan
provides $692 million in savings for
SFY 2010-11.
Grants to
Local
Governments
70%
Figure 2
Executive Revenue Proposals
The Executive proposes over $2.0 billion
in various tax and revenue increases
when fully implemented, offset by
$221 million in new tax credits. The
proposed General Fund tax actions total
$1.4 billion in SFY 2010-11 increasing to
$1.9 billion in SFY 2011 12. Additional
new and increased fees that impact the
General Fund total $53.8 million in
SFY 2010-11. Proposed charges and
assessments in the All Funds total
$387.4 million in SFY 2010-11. The
Executive proposes to provide General
Fund tax credits of $4 million in
SFY 2009-10 for low income housing,
and proposes a new Excelsior program
and an expanded Film Credit allocation
Overview 3
Table 3
Executive Combined General Fund and HCRA
Gap-Closing Plan for 2010-11
(Millions)
2010-11
Current Services GAP Estimates (before any actions)
Approved Deficit Reduction Plan Actions
(7,418)
692
Total Executive Budget Gap-Closing Actions
6,726
Spending Control
4,870
Local Assistance
School Aid/Lottery Aid
Health Care
School Tax Relief Program
Human Services/Labor/Housing
Higher Education
Mental Hygiene
Education/Special Education
Local Government Aid
All Other
Bonded Capital Spending Reductions
State Agency Operations/Fringe Benefits
Stage Agency Operational Reductions
Workforce Savings
Fringe Benefits/Pension Amortization
Revenue Actions
Tax Actions
Syrup Excise Tax
Cigarette Tax
Sale of Wine in Grocery Stores
Information Returns for Credit/Debit Cards
Medicaid Provider Assessment
Work-Zone Cameras for Speed Enforcement
Civil Court Filing Fees
All Other Revenues Actions
3,639
1,625
823
213
201
208
46
139
325
59
10
1,221
709
250
262
1,070
799
465
210
92
0
216
25
31
(1)
Tax Audit and Recoveries
221
Non-Recurring Resources
Federal TANF Resources
Physician Excess Medical Malpractice Payment Timing
Available Fund Balances/Resources
Lottery Investment Flexibility
School Aid Overpayment Recoveries
565
261
127
95
50
32
Executive Budget Surplus/(Gap) Estimate
Overview 4
0
EDUCATION
The Commitment to Education
The Foundation Aid formula, which the
Assembly had originally developed and
initiated,
provides
comprehensive
operating funds in an equitable and
transparent manner and reflects the
conditions of school districts and the
students they serve. Past increases in
Foundation Aid coupled with the EXCEL
capital program of 2006-07 have
demonstrated our commitment to provide
a sound basic education for all children
throughout the State.
18.0
14.9
13.6
13.6
14.9
14.9
16
14.9
16.4
18
12.5
12.5
14
12
Executive Plan
2010-11
2009-10
2008-09
10
2007-08
This plan is $4.6 billion below what was
pledged to schools for Foundation Aid
under the CFE agreement (see Figure 3).
Moreover, the Executive once again
stretches out the timetable for full
implementation by three years.
This
means that the phase-in of Foundation
Aid will take 10 years.
($ in Billions)
2006-07
In his 2010-11 Executive budget, the
Governor responded to the current
economic climate by cutting aid to
schools by $2.1 billion, which is offset by
the use of $726 million in Federal
Stimulus Funds leaving a net reduction to
schools of $1.4 billion, the largest cut to
education ever proposed by a Governor.
Foundation Aid- Original Plan vs.
Executive Plan
Original Plan
Figure 3
Governor’s Proposal Cuts
Funding by $1.4 Billion
Education
The Governor’s 2010-11 budget provides
$20.7 billion in General Support for
Public Schools which is a $1.1 billion
decrease from School Year 2009-10 and a
$1.4 billion decrease from a commitment
to fulfill present law obligations. This
proposal would result in a $1.4 billion net
reduction in education aid for the
2010-11 School Year.
The Executive education proposal is
comprised of a $2.1 billion Gap
Elimination Adjustment (GEA), which is
partially offset by $726 million in Federal
ARRA funds (see Table 4). The proposal
maintains current reimbursable formulas
and freezes Foundation Aid. The budget
overlays the GEA calculation on top of all
formula aids excluding Building Aid and
Overview 5
Universal Prekindergarten. This is the
fourth time the Governor has proposed
cuts to school aid in the past 14 months.
Growth in Universal
Prekindergarten Students Served
120
Executive Gap Elimination Adjustment
($ in Millions)
SY 2010-11
Gap Elimination Adjustment
Federal ARRA Restoration
Net Reduction
(2,138)
726
(1,412)
The Executive GEA calculation would
take into account student need,
administrative efficiency, wealth and
residential tax burden. Additionally, the
Executive proposal includes a cost shift
for summer special education programs
that results in an additional cost of
$86 million to school districts in this
school year.
Universal Prekindergarten: A First Step
in Learning
The Assembly has been on the forefront
of fighting for the continuation and
growth of the Universal Prekindergarten
(UPK) program. Over the past four years,
both funding and participation have been
growing dramatically, from 259 districts
and 75,281 students in 2006-07 to 451
districts and an estimated 109,031
students in the 2009-10 School Year for a
cost of approximately $399 million. In
fact, nearly 180 school districts have
reached full implementation, realizing the
goal of a truly universal program. This
growth in participation is a clear
indication of the recognition of the value
of prekindergarten to a child’s ongoing
educational experience (see Figure 4 ).
Overview 6
Students (in Thousands)
Table 4
109
100
100
80
92
75
60
40
20
0
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Source: NYS Department of Education.
Figure 4
For more than three decades, educational
research has consistently documented the
clear, lasting benefits that the investment
in a high quality prekindergarten program
has on student preparation, achievement
and college attendance. Prekindergarten
programs provide the first learning step in
building a foundation upon which to
support future learning.
Children
attending prekindergarten programs are
better prepared to meet the rigorous
demands facing them in their schooling
and ultimately, in the global economy.
As with Foundation Aid, the Governor
proposes to extend the freeze on UPK
into the 2011-12 School Year, thereby
preventing continued growth. Although
the Executive Financial Plan projections
indicates continued growth beginning in
the 2012-13 School Year, there is no
concomitant statutory commitment. The
Assembly remains committed to the
implementation of a truly universal
prekindergarten program.
Investment in Quality
Over the previous several years the
Assembly has spearheaded efforts to
dramatically increase State support for
education, especially in districts where
the need is the most acute.
The
abrogation of the commitment to fully
fund Foundation Aid risks the State’s
moving backward on recent educational
gains.
Overview 7
HEALTH
The SFY 2010-11 Executive budget
includes $51.5 billion to support
projected Medicaid spending, an increase
of $882 million or 1.7 percent over last
year.
The Executive proposal includes a
number of spending reductions across all
health sectors, and it also includes several
revenue actions to offset State spending
obligations associated with the Medicaid
program. In the aggregate, the Governor’s
proposal recommends $1.8 billion in
State health care actions, which when
combined with a Federal contribution for
such costs, represent an overall health
care impact of $2.7 billion (see Table 5).
This translates into a $458.8 million State
share ($780 million All Funds) impact on
hospitals, nursing homes, home care and
personal care service providers.
assessments, taxes and fees by an
additional $890.2 million. A $300 million
increase in the Medicaid fraud target and
a $127.4 deferral in an Excess Medical
Malpractice insurance premium payment
are also included in the plan. These
actions
are
accompanied
by
$61.9 million in spending reallocations
(see Table 6 ).
Table 6
Executive Budget Actions
($ in Millions)
State Share
Hospital Services
Nursing Home Services
State Share
Reductions
(243.1)
(74.0)
(154.8)
Pharmacy Services
(47.1)
(57.8)
(197.4)
(267.4)
(61.4)
(147.9)
(300.0)
(600.0)
(42.7)
(71.6)
(674.6)
(674.6)
(66.9)
(66.9)
($1,848.9)
($2,666.2)
Insurance Actions
Medicaid Managed Care
Taxes and Fees
Public Health
Total Actions
All Funds
($593.2)
($1,190.1)
Provider Assessments
(215.6)
(215.6)
Medicaid Fraud
Collections
(300.0)
(600.0)
Payment Deferrals
(127.4)
(127.4)
Taxes and Fees
(647.6)
(647.6)
($1,910.8)
($2,807.7)
Total
Reallocations
Net Actions
61.9
($1,848.9)
141.5
($2,666.2)
Specifically, the Executive plan would
reduce State support across all health
sectors by $593.2 million ($1.2 billion All
Funds), and would adopt or expand
Overview 8
($382.1)
(140.2)
Other Medicaid/HCRA
Components of the
Executive Healthcare Actions
($ in Millions)
($244.6)
Home Care Services
Medicaid Fraud
Collections
Table 5
All Funds
Hospital Cuts
The Governor’s budget would reduce
State share support for hospitals by a net
$244.6 million. Included in the Executive
plan is a proposal to reduce State support
for Indirect Medical Education (IME)—a
line of reimbursement for teaching
hospital-specific costs that would now be
transferred to overall hospital payment
rates, obstetrics rates and the Doctors
Across New York Program. The Governor
also proposes an overhaul to the indigent
care program, which would result in a
redistribution of indigent care payments
among New York’s hospitals. In addition,
the Governor proposes to increase the
gross receipts assessment to 0.7 percent
and to eliminate the remaining trend
factor for calendar year 2010.
Over the past few years, significant
reforms have been implemented with
respect to the Medicaid reimbursement
methodology for hospitals and these
reforms have put a financial strain on
many facilities as they struggle to adapt.
Additional reductions in reimbursement
can further disrupt the availability of
hospital services across the State.
Long Term Care Reduction
The Executive proposal would also
reduce State support for nursing homes,
home care and personal care providers by
a total $214.2 million ($397.9 million All
Funds). As in the hospital sector, the
Governor’s proposed budget would also
eliminate the 2010 trend factor and
increase the gross receipts assessment
levied on nursing homes (these
assessments would not be eligible for
reimbursement by Medicaid), home care
agencies and personal care providers.
model to a community-based model.
These reforms are jeopardized by
proposed reductions to home care.
Likewise, proposed reductions to nursing
homes strain their ability to provide
necessary services in areas of the State
that
do
not
have
access
to
community-based alternatives.
Pharmacy and EPIC Cuts
In total, the Governor proposes
$47.1 million
in
reductions
($57.8 million All Funds) to the Medicaid
pharmacy and Elderly Pharmaceutical
Insurance Coverage (EPIC) program. The
Medicaid program currently covers any
HIV/AIDS drugs, anti-rejection drugs,
anti-psychotics or anti depressants that are
denied by a dual-eligible enrollees
Medicare Part D plan. The EPIC Program
currently covers any drugs that are denied
by a senior’s Medicare Part D plan. The
Governor proposes to eliminate this
“wrap-around” coverage in both the
Medicaid program and the EPIC program
and requires these individual to obtain all
their covered drugs through a Part D plan.
The Governor also proposes changes to
the Preferred Drug Program that would
accelerate the approval of additional
classes of drugs into the program.
The Executive budget would delay the
implementation of a regional pricing
reimbursement model until March 2011
and would allow nursing home rebasing
to go forward until February 2011. Also
included in the Executive proposal is an
initiative to limit the over-utilization of
personal care services.
The Executive’s long term care reform
agenda has been centered on the
transition of care from an institution-based
Overview 9
Medicaid Enrollment Growth
The Governor’s plan for SFY 2010-11
comes on the heels of successive
reductions
in
Medicaid
provider
reimbursement over the previous two
state fiscal years, at a time when the State
is witnessing unprecedented growth in
the Medicaid program.
While some
additional spending is attributable to the
State’s assumption of a greater share of
local Medicaid spending and its takeover
of Family Health Plus, the recent
economic downturn has generated a
16 percent
increase
in
Medicaid
enrollment over the last two years. At
present, more than one in five New
Yorkers are enrolled in the Medicaid
program (see Figure 5).
Medicaid Enrollment
4.2
Millions
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
2009_09
2009_05
2009_01
2008_09
2008_05
2008_01
2007_09
3.2
Figure 5
Looming Loss of Federal Support
In addition, the State is on the verge of
losing a short term infusion of federal
support made available through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009. The State of New York has
traditionally
received
a
Medicaid
Overview 10
matching rate of 50 percent—the lowest
possible rate under federal law. Under
this Act, New York received an
enhancement in its Federal Medical
Assistance percentages (FMAP), which
committed an additional $7.13 billion to
New York over a span of three state fiscal
years (see Table 7).
Table 7
State Benefit from the Enhanced FMAP
($ in Millions)
SFY 2008-09
SFY 2009-10
SFY 2010-11
$1,092
$3,155
$2,883
Without changes at the federal level, the
increase in FMAP will expire at the end of
calendar year 2010, and the State of New
York would return to its base matching
rate. The loss of this FMAP enhancement
now presents serious fiscal challenges for
the Medicaid program.
Medicaid has always provided a safety
net for the indigent, the disabled and the
elderly, and has increasingly become a
necessity for the unemployed and their
families who have witnessed job loss or
underemployment
during
national
recession, which began in December
2007. The compounding effect of
underlying enrollment growth, a loss of
Federal funds and proposed reductions in
provider reimbursement contained in the
Executive proposal has the potential of
undermining the health care delivery
system in New York State.
HIGHER EDUCATION
In
SFY
2010-11,
the
Governor
recommends $321 million in reductions
for Higher Education (see Table 8).
Table 8
Executive Budget Reductions
SFY 2010-11
($ in Millions)
Reduce Operating Support
SUNY/CUNY
($143)
Reduce Operating Support for SUNY
Statutory Colleges
($15)
Reduce Base Aid SUNY/CUNY
Community Colleges
($57)
Use Federal ARRA Funds to Support
Community Colleges
($50)
TAP Reforms and Scholarship
Reductions
($37)
Eliminating New Merit Scholarships
Other Higher Education Savings
Actions
Total Reduction
($5)
($14)
($321)
The
Governor
recommends
State
operating support of $1.086 billion for
State-operated campuses of the State
University of New York (SUNY) and
$576.6 million for the Senior Colleges of
the City University of New York (CUNY)
in the 2010-11 Academic Year. This
results in a reduction of General Fund
operating support of $136.4 million
below the 2009-10 Academic Year
adjusted levels for SUNY. The Executive
proposal reduces General Fund operating
support by $63.6 million for CUNY
Senior Colleges below the 2009-10
Academic Year adjusted levels.
The Governor’s Tuition Proposal
The Executive proposal includes a new
framework for establishing tuition at our
public University systems. Tuition policy
would be wholly determined by the
SUNY and CUNY Board of Trustees, who
would be unaccountable to the public.
The Executive proposal also removes
$4.1 billion in SUNY university revenues
off-budget. The SUNY and CUNY Board
of Trustees would have the ability to
increase tuition as much as 250 percent
of the five year average of the Higher
Education Price Index.
In 2010-11, this would result in a
9.5 percent tuition increase, raising SUNY
tuition by $472 from $4,970 to $5,442
and raising CUNY tuition by $437 from
$4,600 to $5,037.
In order for the
systems to re-coup the losses that result
from the Governor’s proposed cuts in
State funding, SUNY would need to raise
tuition by 12.5 percent or $621 for
resident undergraduate students and
CUNY would need to increase tuition by
8.5 percent or $391 for resident
undergraduate students. These increases
would result in two-year increases of
$1,241 or 30 percent for SUNY students
and $991 or 25 percent for CUNY
students.
Further, each Board of Trustees would be
permitted to charge varying tuition rates
by school and by program across the
system. This proposal removes the checks
and balances on tuition decisions, and as
shown in the table below fosters
extraordinary tuition rates when fully
exercised (see Figure 6). If the Executive’s
Overview 11
proposal had been in place following the
2003-04 Academic year, tuition would
stand at $8,346 in 2010-11 an increase of
$3,376 or 91.9 percent. Over the period,
tuition increased by $620 or 14 percent.
The SUNY system was created to ensure
that all students of New York can receive
a quality education at an affordable price.
These tuition changes would make it
difficult for students from working
families to have continued access to
educational opportunities through public
higher education. In hard times, the
Assembly believes in keeping public
education publicly controlled, publicly
funded, and publicly accessible.
Projected Impacts of the
Executive SUNY Tuition Proposal
2003-2009
Tuition Rates
($ in Thousands)
$ 8
6
4
2
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
0
Fiscal Year
Actual SUNY Tuition
Estimated SUNY Tuition
Figure 6
Governor Recommends Cuts to the
Tuition Assistance Program
On the 35th anniversary of the creation of
the program, the Executive proposal
recommends $825 million for the Tuition
Assistance Program (TAP) for the 2010-11
Academic Year.
This represents a
Overview 12
$52.7 million cut to the program and is
the 4th time the Governor has proposed
cuts to the program in the last 18 months.
The Executive proposed TAP cuts are
comprised of the following: the
elimination of TAP eligibility for graduate
students; cutting TAP awards by changing
TAP academic eligibility standards;
reducing all TAP awards across the board
by $75; including all public and private
pension benefits within the calculation of
net taxable income for TAP purposes;
reducing TAP awards from $5,000 to
$4,000 for students who are enrolled in
proprietary colleges granting two year
degree programs; reducing TAP awards
for financially independent married
students, and eliminating awards for
students that are in default of Federal
student loans from TAP eligibility.
The Executive does not increase TAP to
accommodate the tuition increases
proposed by the Governor at SUNY and
CUNY making the maximum award less
than the cost of tuition at public colleges
for the first time in the history of the
program (see Figure 7). As a
consequence, students will have to bear
the entire burden of Governor Paterson’s
tuition increases without any additional
support from TAP. This translates into
additional costs that are not supported by
TAP of $442 for SUNY students and $37
for CUNY students.
The most recent increase in the award
levels provided by the TAP program
occurred in SFY 1999-2000. Even as
costs have increased over this last decade,
the TAP awards have not been increased
for what is now the longest period in the
program’s history.
some of our most vulnerable students
may not overcome.
Public Higher Education
TAP History
Maximum TAP Award
$ 6,000
Removing Attorney General, State
Comptroller, and Legislative Oversight of
Land Use and Public Private Partnerships
at SUNY
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
2010-11
2007-08
2004-05
2001-02
1998-99
1995-96
1992-93
1989-90
1986-87
1983-84
1980-81
0
Academic Year
SUNY Tuition
CUNY Tuition
Maximum TAP Award
Note: Data for 2010-11 is an estimate.
Figure 7
Cutting State Support for Community
Colleges
The Executive recommends a base aid
reduction for SUNY and CUNY
Community Colleges of $285 per full
time equivalent (FTE) student, decreasing
the level of State support from $2,545 to
$2,260. The Executive also offsets an
additional reduction of $250 in
State-support per FTE with $67 million in
temporary Federal Stimulus funding. As a
result, 2010-11 State support for SUNY
Community
Colleges
stands
at
$437.8 million and at $175.5 million for
CUNY Community Colleges. This is
significantly below the level of support
required by current law. By diminishing
State support for community colleges at a
time when SUNY and CUNY have record
enrollments, the Executive proposal
places barriers to a higher education that
The Executive Proposal creates a new
State University Asset Maximization
Review Board to undertake land leases,
joint ventures, and public private
partnerships without special legislation.
The board is a three member board that
must act within 45 days of receiving a
proposed project and make decisions
through majority rule. Prior Attorney
General and State Comptroller oversight
of SUNY contracting activities would also
be removed.
The Executive proposal also moves the
State University Construction Fund
outside of the budget process; allows the
SUNY Construction Fund to utilize
Design/Build and Construction Manager
at Risk delivery methods; and permits
SUNY non-profit affiliates to utilize
Dormitory Authority of the State of New
York financing to construct facilities or
dormitories.
Updating the Infrastructure of SUNY and
CUNY
The Executive proposal continues the
planned 5-year critical maintenance
investment of $2.75 billion at SUNY and
$1.42 billion at CUNY enacted in
2008-09. In 2010-11 the Executive
appropriates $550 million for critical
maintenance projects at SUNY State
operated campuses and $284.2 million
for critical maintenance projects at CUNY
Overview 13
Senior College campuses. An additional
$22.4 million is provided for projects at
SUNY
Community
Colleges
and
$34.5 million for CUNY Community
Colleges.
Maintaining
Opportunity
in
Postsecondary Education for All New
Yorkers
The Assembly has made opportunity
programs that increase access the
cornerstone of its higher education
policy. The Executive budget maintains
funding for each of the opportunity
programs; the Educational Opportunity
Program (EOP), the Higher Education
Opportunity Program (HEOP), the Search
for Education, Elevation, and Knowledge
(SEEK), and College Discovery.
The
Executive budget also maintains funding
for the Science and Technology Entry
Program (STEP), the Collegiate Science
and Technology Entry Program (CSTEP),
and the Liberty Partnerships Program.
However, the Governor recommends
eliminating $3.4 million in funding for
child care programs offered at SUNY and
CUNY campuses. This proposed cut will
clearly place a barrier on families’ efforts
to pursue a college education.
Overview 14
STATE WORKFORCE
The Executive Proposal for Workforce
Reductions
By the end of State Fiscal Year
(SFY) 2009-10, the Executive estimates
there will be 196,375 State employees,
3,541 below the actual workforce
number at the start of the fiscal year. The
Executive proposes to reduce the State
workforce by another 674 positions by
the end of SFY 2010-11, bringing the
workforce total to 195,701. The Executive
recommends 16,065 new hires and a
16,605 reduction of positions due to
attrition and 134 due to layoffs (see Table
9). The Executive workforce tables do not
include the use of temporary workers.
Unspecified
Proposals
Workforce
Reduction
The SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget also
assumes $250 million in reductions from
unidentified State Workforce actions. The
Executive proposal does not make any
recommendations for how these savings
may be achieved.
The Governor indicates that it could
come from the elimination of negotiated
salary increases for public employee
unions or through the deferral of five days
of salary payments for State employees.
These concessions were proposed in last
year’s budget and no agreement was
reached. Even though the Governor is
hopeful that there will be an agreement
reached between the unions and the
Executive this year, the outcome of
negotiations is far from certain.
Temporary Workers
Despite the Assembly’s efforts to reduce
the State’s reliance on expensive contract
workers, information was recently
brought to light revealing the extent to
which the State relies on temporary
workers. Over a 19 month period from
April 2008 through November 2009, the
State spent over $62 million on temporary
workers at dozens of State agencies
despite the fact that a hiring freeze was in
effect during the entire period. There has
been no approval of these hires by the
Director of Budget or accounting of fees
charged by placement agencies. More
than 12 state agencies and facilities have
expenses exceeding a million dollars on
temporary
workers
hired
through
temporary service agencies since April
2008. The Department of Health (DOH)
alone has spent more than 13 million in
taxpayer dollars on temporary services,
followed by the State University of New
York (SUNY) at $9.5 million, Office of
General Services (OGS) at $5.7 million,
and the State Education Department (SED)
at $4.7 million.
The Executive Pension Plan-Payment
Deferrals and Benefit Cuts
The Executive assumes $216.7 million in
savings resulting from a proposal to allow
the State and localities outside New York
City to defer a portion of their pension
payments for six consecutive years,
beginning with the 2010-11 fiscal year.
An additional amount of pension
contributions of $5 billion would be
delayed over the next five years with total
repayment of $7.4 billion. Therefore, the
Overview 15
Governor estimates that the net long-term
cost to the State for the period of 2010-11
through 2025-26 would be a net
additional $2.1 billion in pension costs.
The Executive proposal would also
require current and future retirees to pay
10 percent of Individual Medicaid Part B
premiums and 25 percent for dependent
coverage. The Executive estimates that
this will cost retirees $30 million in
SFY 2010-11.
Finally, the Executive is recommending
$15 million in savings resulting from
allowing the New York State Health
Insurance Plan (NYSHIP) to become self
insured.
Information Technology Workers
As a result of the Assembly’s ongoing
efforts to reduce the State’s reliance on
contract workers, the Legislature and
Governor enacted Chapter 500 of the
Laws of 2009 during Extraordinary
Session to reduce the number of
information technology (IT) contract
workers. That law authorizes up to 500
term IT appointments for up to 60
months. Following two years of service,
the appointee would be eligible to take a
promotion examination and thus join the
civil service system. This action will save
an estimated $50 million in SFY 2010-11.
Overview 16
Table 9
WORKFORCE IMPACT SUMMARY REPORT
ALL FUNDS
2008-09 Through 2010-11
Major Agencies
Children and Family Services
Correctional Services
2008-09
2009-10
Actual
Estimate
(03/31/09)
(03/31/10)
2010-11
Abolitions
3,874
3,576
(75)
31,159
30,027
0
Attritions
New
Fills
Fund
Shifts
Mergers
Net
Estimate
Change
(03/31/11)
(582)
578
0
0
(79)
3,497
(1,689)
1,629
0
0
(60)
29,967
Education
3,129
2,998
0
(283)
200
0
0
(83)
2,915
Environmental Conservation
3,657
3,368
0
(105)
51
0
0
(54)
3,314
1,500
General Services
1,652
1,548
0
(54)
6
0
0
(48)
Health
5,704
5,491
0
(332)
321
0
(1)
(12)
5,479
Labor
3,779
4,011
(2)
(417)
409
0
0
(10)
4,001
Mental Health
16,716
16,297
0
(2,070)
1,942
0
0
(128)
16,169
Mental Retardation
22,590
21,786
0
(2,074)
2,163
0
0
89
21,875
Motor Vehicles
2,820
2,812
0
(214)
211
0
0
(3)
2,809
Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation
2,188
2,073
0
(87)
20
0
0
(67)
2,006
Parole
2,121
2,006
(6)
(110)
65
0
0
(51)
1,955
State Police
5,901
5,702
0
(172)
0
0
0
(172)
5,530
Taxation and Finance
5,049
5,178
0
(434)
580
0
298
444
5,622
Temporary and Disability Assistance
2,191
2,359
0
(221)
241
0
0
20
2,379
10,185
9,701
0
(429)
338
0
0
(91)
9,610
Transportation
Workers' Compensation Board
1,463
1,425
(55)
80
0
0
SUBTOTAL - Major Agencies
124,178
120,358
(83)
(9,328)
8,834
0
297
(280)
120,078
12,312
12,159
(51)
(1,078)
1,095
0
(297)
(331)
11,828
136,490
132,517
(134)
(10,406)
9,929
0
0
(611)
131,906
Minor Agencies
0
25
1,450
SUBTOTAL:
Subject to Executive Control
Not Subject to Executive Control
Audit and Control
City University
Law
State University
State University Construction Fund
2,517
2,552
0
(150)
150
0
0
0
2,552
12,653
12,933
0
(1,306)
1,306
0
0
0
12,933
1,935
1,847
0
(122)
22
0
0
(100)
1,747
41,605
41,778
0
(4,223)
4,260
0
0
37
41,815
120
135
0
(13)
13
0
0
0
135
58,830
59,245
0
(5,814)
5,751
0
0
(63)
59,182
1,947
2,025
0
(170)
170
0
0
0
2,025
27
24
0
0
0
0
0
24
2,622
2,564
0
(215)
215
0
0
0
2,564
199,916
196,375
(16,605)
16,065
0
0
SUBTOTAL:
Not Subject to Executive Control
Off-Budget Agencies
Roswell Park Cancer Institute
Science, Technology, and Innovation
State Insurance Fund
GRAND TOTAL
(134)
0
(674)
195,701
Overview 17
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
For local government fiscal years ending
in 2011, the Executive Budget reduces
overall Local Aid by $1.3 billion. (see
Table 10) The Executive Budget further
proposes local revenue options that could
provide a total of $175.4 million for
municipalities.
Aid & Incentives for Municipalities (AIM)
– Local Aid Reduction
Aid & Incentives for Municipalities (AIM)
– LGEG Grants and Efficiency Grants
The Executive Budget recommends
$11 million for the Local Government
Efficiency
Grant
(LGEG)
program,
including $10 million for grants and
$1 million for merger incentives. This
reflects a decrease of $2 million from the
SFY 2009-10 post Deficit Reduction Plan
(DRP).
The Executive Budget for State Fiscal Year
2010-11 reduces AIM funding by
$320.2 million. In addition, the Executive
proposes eliminating payments to New
York City and Erie County. Erie County is
the only County that currently receives
AIM funding.
Table 10
Impact of the 2010-11 Executive Budget on Local Governments
Local Fiscal Year Basis Ending in 2011
($ in Millions)
Total
NYC
School
Districts
Counties
Other
Cities
Towns &
Villages
School Aid
Revenue Actions
Human Services
Health
Mental Hygiene
Transportation
Municipal Aid
Public Protection
All Other Impacts
(1,166.2)
175.4
(85.6)
27.2
(1.6)
(8.9)
(320.2)
71.8
31.7
(469.0)
59.5
(53.3)
10.5
(0.5)
(3.9)
(301.7)
8.8
1.0
(703.0)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.8
5.8
1.2
(32.3)
16.7
(1.1)
(5.0)
(0.9)
63.0
9.4
0.0
53.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(13.4)
0.0
8.6
0.0
61.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(4.2)
0.0
4.9
Total
(1,276.4)
(748.6)
(695.2)
56.8
48.9
61.7
Source: Executive Budget.
Overview 18
The
Executive
Budget
reduces
reappropriations by 50 percent, or
$12 million to Erie County and the City of
Buffalo. Existing commitments totaling
$13 million will be disbursed.
Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) Municipal
Aid
The Executive Budget proposes reducing
VLT Aid for eligible host municipalities,
including the City of Yonkers by
10 percent,
or
$2.6
million
in
SFY 2010-11. The SFY 2010-11 Executive
budget allocates $23.8 million in VLT aid.
All Other Impacts
The Executive budget includes
following mandate relief proposals:
•
Wicks Law proposal which would
provide school districts a full Wicks
exemption.
•
Procurement
modifications
that
includes:
increasing
competitive
bidding thresholds for commodities
and public works projects, allowing
contracts for services to be awarded
on “best value” rather than lowest bid,
using
Federal
guidelines
for
cooperative
purchasing
for
information technology products and
services, allow Local Governments to
hold reverse auctions and allowing
localities to purchase materials and
equipment through pre-existing State
and local government contracts.
•
The Executive Budget would provide
for pension amortization. This would
permit Local Governments to amortize
a portion of their pension costs from
2010-11
through
2015-16.
Participation would be adopted via
local option. Municipalities would be
able to amortize costs exceeding
contribution rates of 9.5 percent for
NYS State and Local Employees’
Retirement System and 17.5 percent
for the NYS Local Police and Fire
Retirement System in 2010-11. Future
contribution rates that are amortized
would
be
increased
by
one
percentage point each year through
2015-16. Repayment would be made
over a ten year period, at an interest
rate determined by the Comptroller.
Local Revenue Actions
The Executive proposes a revenue action
that if adopted, could generate an
increase of $71.5 million in New York
City revenue to offset the Executive
Budget reductions. This amount is offset
by a decrease of $12 million from a
proposal to increase the State cigarette tax
rate. The net impact from revenue actions
to New York City is estimated at
$59.5 million. This is comprised of the
following:
•
Extend the Mortgage Recording Tax
(MRT)
to
cooperatives
raising
$71 million;
The Executive also proposes revenue
actions that if adopted by Local
Governments could generate $1.2 million
for Counties, $53.7 million for Other
Cities and $61 million for towns and
villages.
the
Overview 19
The fiscal impact to localities is as
follows:
•
Counties are projected to realize a
savings of $9.8 million.
•
Other Cities are estimated to realize a
savings of $8.4 million.
•
School districts are projected
realize a savings of $6.7 million.
•
Towns and villages are estimated to
realize a savings of $4.5 million.
to
Additional
miscellaneous
proposals
would reduce local aid by a net
$1.6 million. They include an increase to
New York City for rent administration
billing, a decrease in reimbursements
from 75 percent to 50 percent from Water
Navigation Enforcement Grants and from
reforming the processing of dog licenses.
Aid & Incentives to Municipalities (AIM)
– Local Aid Distribution
In SFY 2010-11, the Executive proposed
that the total $734.6 million AIM
Overview 20
allocation be distributed based upon a
local reliance factor. Municipalities that
are dependent upon AIM funding for
more than 10 percent of their total
revenue will receive a two percent
reduction, while municipalities with AIM
reliance below 10 percent will realize a
five percent
reduction
from
their
SFY 2009-10 Enacted Budget allocations.
Actions taken in the SFY 2009-10 Deficit
Reduction
Plan
reduced
aid
to
non-calendar year cities outside of New
York City by $5.3 million, but did not
impact the calculation of the new
SFY 2010-11 base due to the fact that
reductions were from the SFY 2009-10
Enacted Budget. Therefore, the combined
actions in SFY 2009-10 and SFY 2010-11
will impact non-calendar year cities by
two percent and five percent, which is the
same reduction that every calendar year
city will realize in SFY 2010-11. (see
Table 11)
Table 11
2010-11 Executive Budget---Aid and Incentives for Municipalities Proposal
Municipality
BUFFALO
YONKERS
ROCHESTER
SYRACUSE
NIAGARA FALLS
UTICA
ALBANY
TROY
SCHENECTADY
BINGHAMTON
ROME
MOUNT VERNON
NEW ROCHELLE
LACKAWANNA
WHITE PLAINS
AUBURN
WATERTOWN
JAMESTOWN
NEWBURGH
ELMIRA
POUGHKEEPSIE
NORTH TONAWANDA
LONG BEACH
KINGSTON
GLEN COVE
AMSTERDAM
MIDDLETOWN
COHOES
LOCKPORT
PLATTSBURGH
ITHACA
TONAWANDA
OSWEGO
GLOVERSVILLE
PEEKSKILL
OLEAN
ONEONTA
CORTLAND
GENEVA
BATAVIA
OGDENSBURG
SARATOGA SPRINGS
2009-10
Enacted Budget
169,027,453
113,074,558
92,215,689
75,084,069
18,734,214
16,961,328
13,692,858
12,927,988
11,797,825
9,737,955
9,563,065
7,771,514
6,693,312
6,613,009
5,896,127
5,227,801
5,090,176
4,965,773
4,848,886
4,820,625
4,613,607
4,564,065
3,404,144
3,333,284
3,081,878
3,010,137
2,938,692
2,887,748
2,878,631
2,876,844
2,835,051
2,739,531
2,662,694
2,424,201
2,410,385
2,358,120
2,349,730
2,192,027
2,109,796
1,901,664
1,855,708
1,791,676
DRP Change
2009-10
AIM Final
Funding
Proposed YTY
Dollar Change
from 2009-10
2010-11
Proposed AIM
Funding
(1,690,275)
(1,130,746)
(922,157)
(750,841)
0
(169,613)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(66,130)
(176,884)
(52,278)
(101,804)
0
0
0
0
0
(102,124)
0
0
(30,101)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(23,581)
0
0
0
(38,033)
0
0
167,337,178
111,943,812
91,293,532
74,333,228
18,734,214
16,791,715
13,692,858
12,927,988
11,797,825
9,737,955
9,563,065
7,771,514
6,693,312
6,546,879
5,719,243
5,175,523
4,988,372
4,965,773
4,848,886
4,820,625
4,613,607
4,564,065
3,302,020
3,333,284
3,081,878
2,980,036
2,938,692
2,887,748
2,878,631
2,876,844
2,835,051
2,739,531
2,662,694
2,424,201
2,410,385
2,334,539
2,349,730
2,192,027
2,109,796
1,863,631
1,855,708
1,791,676
(1,690,274)
(1,130,745)
(922,157)
(750,840)
(374,684)
(169,614)
(684,643)
(258,560)
(235,957)
(194,759)
(191,261)
(388,576)
(334,666)
(66,130)
(117,922)
(52,278)
(152,705)
(248,289)
(242,444)
(96,413)
(230,680)
(91,281)
(68,083)
(166,664)
(154,094)
(30,102)
(146,935)
(57,755)
(143,932)
(143,842)
(141,753)
(54,791)
(133,135)
(48,484)
(120,519)
(23,581)
(46,995)
(109,601)
(105,490)
(57,050)
(92,785)
(89,584)
165,646,904
110,813,067
90,371,375
73,582,388
18,359,530
16,622,101
13,008,215
12,669,428
11,561,868
9,543,196
9,371,804
7,382,938
6,358,646
6,480,749
5,601,321
5,123,245
4,835,667
4,717,484
4,606,442
4,724,212
4,382,927
4,472,784
3,233,937
3,166,620
2,927,784
2,949,934
2,791,757
2,829,993
2,734,699
2,733,002
2,693,298
2,684,740
2,529,559
2,375,717
2,289,866
2,310,958
2,302,735
2,082,426
2,004,306
1,806,581
1,762,923
1,702,092
- continued -
Overview 21
2010-11 Executive Budget---Aid and Incentives for Municipalities Proposal
- continued -
Municipality
ONEIDA
FULTON
GLENS FALLS
DUNKIRK
BEACON
CORNING
HORNELL
HUDSON
PORT JERVIS
JOHNSTOWN
WATERVLIET
RYE
RENSSELAER
CANANDAIGUA
NORWICH
SALAMANCA
LITTLE FALLS
MECHANICVILLE
SHERRILL
Cities Total
TOWNS (1)
VILLAGES (2)
NEW YORK CITY
ERIE COUNTY
Total
DRP Change
2009-10
AIM Final
Funding
Proposed YTY
Dollar Change
from 2009-10
2010-11
Proposed AIM
Funding
1,790,707
1,766,826
1,745,310
1,711,118
1,669,794
1,622,300
1,576,892
1,533,940
1,480,533
1,462,264
1,314,343
1,311,987
1,227,071
1,215,633
1,146,807
1,008,006
911,772
697,374
404,763
681,561,278
0
0
0
0
0
(32,446)
(15,769)
0
0
0
0
0
(24,541)
0
0
(20,160)
0
0
0
(5,347,483)
1,790,707
1,766,826
1,745,310
1,711,118
1,669,794
1,589,854
1,561,123
1,533,940
1,480,533
1,462,264
1,314,343
1,311,987
1,202,530
1,215,633
1,146,807
987,846
911,772
697,374
404,763
676,213,795
(35,814)
(88,341)
(87,266)
(85,556)
(83,490)
(48,669)
(15,769)
(30,679)
(29,611)
(29,245)
(65,717)
(65,599)
(36,813)
(60,782)
(22,936)
(30,240)
(18,235)
(13,947)
(20,238)
(11,429,000)
1,754,893
1,678,485
1,658,044
1,625,562
1,586,304
1,541,185
1,545,354
1,503,261
1,450,922
1,433,019
1,248,626
1,246,388
1,165,717
1,154,851
1,123,871
957,606
893,537
683,427
384,525
664,784,795
51,802,333
21,650,852
327,889,668
668,332
0
0
(26,231,173)
0
51,802,333
21,650,852
301,658,495
668,332
(2,581,640)
(1,085,458)
(301,658,495)
(668,332)
1,083,572,463
(31,578,656)
1,051,993,807
(317,422,925)
2009-10
Enacted Budget
49,220,693
20,565,394
0
0
734,570,882
(1) Most towns will realize a 5 percent reduction from the Post DRP allocation. Only the Town of Forestburgh
(Sullivan County) will realize a 2 percent reduction.
(2) Most villages will realize a 5 percent reduction from the 2009-10 Post DRP allocation. Only the Village of
Brushton (Franklin County), Village of Cold Brook (Herkimer County), Village of Bridgewater (Oneida County), and
the Village of Oneida Castle (Oneida County) will realize a 2 percent reduction.
Overview 22
Table 12
Impact of the 2010-11 Executive Budget on Local Governments
Local Fiscal Year Basis Ending in 2010
($ in Millions)
NYC
School
Districts
Counties
Other
Cities
Towns &
Villages
3.1
(38.3)
4.6
(1.0)
(4.8)
(10.6)
37.4
0.2
0.1
(13.5)
2.0
(0.2)
(1.0)
0.0
2.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.8
(24.8)
2.6
(0.8)
(3.8)
(0.8)
35.4
(0.5)
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(7.1)
0.0
0.1
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(2.7)
0.0
0.1
(9.4)
(10.3)
0.2
8.1
(6.8)
(0.6)
Total
Revenue Actions
Human Services
Health
Mental Hygiene
Transportation
Municipal Aid
Public Protection
All Other Impacts
Total
Source: Executive Budget.
Overview 23
TRANSPORTATION
The Executive budget proposes a two year
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Road and Bridge Capital Plan totaling
$6.99 billion (see Table 13), in which
$3.487 billion would be spent in
SFY 2010-11 and $3.503 billion would
be spent in SFY 2011-12. This is a
reduction
of
$221 million
from
SFY 2009-10 due to decreased funding
available from the 2005 Bond Act which
provided $278 million in 2009-10. As a
consequence of the fact that the Governor
has not recommended a complete
five-year plan, the funding for the final
three years of the 2010-14 plan has not
been establish, leaving a funding gap of
$18.1 billion for the Capital Program.
Table 13
2010-11 EXECUTIVE BUDGET PROPOSED
DOT TWO-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN
($ in Millions)
OBLIGATIONS
State and Local System Construction
Contracts
Administration
State Forces Engineering & Program
Management
Consultant Engineering
Preventive Maintenance
Right of Way
Maintenance Facilities
Special Federal Programs
Rail Development
Aviation Systems
Non-MTA Transit
Canal Infrastructure
Capital Aid to Locals
Total
Department of Transportation and
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
2010-2014 proposed 5-year Capital Plans
The current year marks the start of a new
5-year capital project program for both
the
DOT
and
the
Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA). In the
Overview 24
2010-11
Proposed
2011-12
Proposed
TOTAL
1,830
122
1,794
126
3,624
248
413
173
264
70
38
42
52
14
50
16
403
446
169
278
69
38
32
68
14
50
16
403
859
342
542
139
76
74
120
28
100
32
806
3,487
3,503
6,990
fall of 2009, both systems submitted plans
for 2010-2014. The MTA proposed a
capital plan of $28.08 billion. During the
spring of 2009, the Legislature took fiscal
action to raise $1.54 billion in revenue
for the MTA so that daily transit
operations may continue unhindered. As
a part of these actions an annual
$400 million was raised to support capital
improvements for the MTA. However, the
submitted MTA capital program still
remained under funded by $9.9 billion.
On this basis, passage of the MTA capital
plan was vetoed by the Governor.
shortfall, the MTA has proposed a new
smaller round of service cuts, which are
less drastic but repeat certain service cuts
included in previous plans. The MTA has
proposed phasing out its free metrocard
plan for school children.
The DOT proposed a road and bridges
plan of $25.8 billion submitted to the
Executive by his Department of
Transportation in November of 2009-10
laid out priorities, but did not include
supporting revenues to fund the plan.
The Executive rejected the DOT Road
and Bridge capital plan on the basis that it
too had insufficient funds and would not
be fiscally sustainable.
Regardless of the fact that the Governor
originally
recommended
reducing
operating support for the MTA in his Fall
2009 Deficit Reduction Plan, the 2010-11
Executive
Proposal
restores
$160.6 million in transit aid to the MTA,
including at $25 million restoration of aid
for the free metrocard plan for school
children.
Metropolitan Transit Authority Financing
The fiscal year of the Metropolitan Transit
Authority is based on a calendar year, and
for 2010-11 the Authority budget stands
at $4.1 billion. The 2009-10 fiscal year of
the MTA ended with a budget of
$3.9 billion, after beginning the year with
a $1.44 billion deficit before legislative
action was taken. Through a package of
revenue enhancements, legislative action
provided an additional $1.54 billion;
$1.14 billion for operating expenses and
an annual $400 million that will support
$6 billion in the 2010-2014 capital plan.
However, in December 2009, the State
Deficit Reduction Plan (DRP) cut
$141.3 million in state support dedicated
to the MTA; the conclusion of a pending
labor suit filed against the MTA required
an additional $91 million to be paid by
the Authority, and due to downward
revised revenue projections further
lowered
available
revenues
by
$100 million. Facing a new $372 million
Overview 25
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The turbulent economy continues to
present challenges to working families
across the State. The road ahead is still
uncertain and the near-term prospects for
a return to economic growth are tenuous.
According to New York State Department
of Labor, the State continued to lose jobs
in December 2009, and the State’s
unemployment rate rose to 9.0 percent
from 8.6 percent in November 2009.
Now more than ever, the State needs
aggressive leadership to turn our State
around, as well as a strong champion for
job creation. The Assembly has long
been the leading voice in championing
such economic development efforts.
nothing new and has long been argued by
the Assembly in prior years as an
important component of any economic
development plan.
Replacing the Empire Zones Program
New Economic Development Initiatives
In 2000-01, the Empire Zone program
was established as a key Assembly
initiative to spur economic activity in
distressed communities. Unfortunately,
due to mismanagement the program
became ineffective and ultimately,
extremely costly. These facts led the
Assembly to push for various reforms in
SFY 2009-10. As a result, the program is
set to sunset on June 30, 2010.
The
Executive
recommends
a
$100 million appropriation for an
Innovation Economy Matching Grants
Program. This five-year program would
establish a ten percent State funded match
for research and development awards
financed through the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The level
of disbursements proposed by the
Executive in SFY 2010-11 remain
uncertain.
The 2010-11 Executive Proposal includes
a new program named the Excelsior Jobs
Program which would replace the current
Empire Zone Program and is restricted to
$250 million annually for a five-year
period.
This program would target
specific industries such as high-tech,
bio-tech, clean-tech, green-tech, finance
and manufacturing, thus replacing the
current Empire Zones Program which
targets specific geographical areas. The
concept of targeting specific industries is
Overview 26
Companies within these industries must
create and maintain at least 50 net new
jobs to New York State over a five year
period to be eligible for three tax credits
which include: an expanded Research
and Development Tax Credit; an
enhanced Investment Tax Credit to
encourage capital expansion in New York
State; and a New Jobs Credit based upon
the number of net jobs created and would
compensate a portion of payroll costs.
The Executive recommends a $25 million
appropriation for a New Technology Seed
Fund. The goals would be to provide
financial support for research and
development on New York State
campuses and strengthen partnerships
with the business community to advance
commercialization. These investments
would be made by independent
professionals and require matches of 1:1
from federal or private sources.
The Executive also proposes a new
$25 million appropriation for a Revolving
Loan Fund for Small Businesses. This
program would target funding businesses
owned by minorities, women and other
disadvantaged New Yorkers that have
traditionally been denied access to
mainstream credit markets.
Consolidation of Economic Development
Agencies
The economic development efforts of the
State of New York have been traditionally
administered by ESDC, the Department of
Economic Development (DED) and the
Foundation for Science, Technology, and
Innovation (NYSTAR).
The Executive proposes to consolidate
DED and ESDC into a new entity, the Job
Development Corporation. The proposed
restructuring would produce savings of
$4.6
million
in
SFY
2010-11.
Overview 27
This page is intentionally left blank.
Overview 28
FINANCIAL PLAN
New York State uses a cash basis
Financial Plan to report the amount of
money that is collected and spent during
the State fiscal year. Each year the
Division of Budget develops a plan that
shows
proposed
receipts
and
disbursements for the coming fiscal year.
The plan is then submitted as part of the
Executive Budget. It is revised subsequent
to enactment of the budget to show the
effect of the changes made by the
Legislature to the Executive’s original
budget proposal. The plan is then
updated quarterly to reflect actual
experience and revised estimates.
General Fund
The Financial Plan divides receipts and
disbursements into different fund types.
The General Fund is the fund into which
most State taxes are deposited and from
which State Operations and the state
share of local grants are disbursed. The
General Fund provides for funding to
programs that are not supported by
dedicated fees and revenues.
The Executive proposes General Fund
disbursements for State Fiscal Year
(SFY) 2010-11 of $54.5 billion, an
increase of $393 million or 0.7 percent
from SFY 2009-10. Local Assistance is
projected at $35.9 billion, a $506 million
or
1.4
percent
decrease
below
SFY 2009-10 levels.
The Executive estimates General Fund
receipts for SFY 2010-11 at $54.6 billion,
an increase of $1 billion or 1.9 percent
above SFY 2009-10; $1.6 billion higher in
PIT, $406 million higher in User Taxes,
$22 million higher in Business Taxes,
$20 million lower in Other Taxes,
$605 million lower in Miscellaneous
Receipts.
State Funds
State Funds, in addition to the General
Fund, include non-federal Special
Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, and
Capital Project Funds.
The
Executive
proposes
that
in
SFY 2010-11, State Funds disbursements
increase by $1.5 billion for a total of
$86.1 billion. This represents an increase
of 1.8 percent over SFY 2009-10.
All Funds
All Governmental Funds is a term
referring to all State government funds
within the following fund types: General,
Special Revenue including Federal Funds,
Capital Projects, and Debt Service.
The
Governor
proposes
an
All
Governmental
Funds
budget
of
$133.9 billion,
an
increase
of
$786 million or 0.6 percent over
SFY 2009-10 estimates.
General State Charges is estimated at
$6.3 billion, an increase of $515 million
above the previous year. This level of
spending includes $1.5 billion in pension
contribution, $1.9 billion employee
healthcare insurance, $1.3 billion to
retiree health care insurance, $1 billion to
social security and $568 million in all
other.
Overview 29
Table 14
Financial Plan
SFY 2009-10
($ in Millions)
General Fund
Special
Revenue
Funds
1,948
2,846
Receipts
53,554
69,178
Disbursement
54,129
71,470
1,373
1,770
Opening Balance
Closing Balance
Capital
Projects
Fund
(506)
Debt Service
Funds
(MEMO)
All Funds
298
4,586
8,051
12,383
131,059
7,975
4,996
133,172
283
2,918
(508)
Table 15
Financial Plan
SFY 2010-11
($ in Millions)
General Fund
Special
Revenue
Funds
1,373
1,770
Receipts
54,570
68,834
Disbursement
54,522
70,938
1,421
1,413
Opening Balance
Closing Balance
Overview 30
Capital
Projects
Fund
(508)
Debt Service
Funds
(MEMO)
All Funds
283
2,918
8,256
13,021
133,001
8,858
5,858
133,958
249
2,484
(551)
General Fund Receipts
SFY 2010-11
Federal Grants
0.1%
Transfers
21.4%
($ in Millions)
Miscellaneous
Receipts
5.3%
Other Taxes
1.7%
Business
Taxes
10.5%
Consumption
User Tax and
Fee
15.8%
Personal
Income Tax
45.2%
Personal Income Tax
Consumption User Tax and Fee
Business Taxes
Other Taxes
Miscellaneous Receipts
Federal Grants
Transfers
Total Receipts
24,649
8,635
5,710
933
2,903
60
11,680
$54,570
Figure 8
General Fund Disbursements
SFY 2010-11
($ in Millions)
Debt Service
3.4%
Transfer to
Other Funds
8.0%
General State
Charges
7.6%
State
Operations
15.3%
Grants to
Local
Governments
65.8%
Grants to Local Governments
State Operations
General State Charges
Debt Service
Transfer to Other Funds
Total Disbursements
35,851
8,317
4,136
1,831
4,387
$54,522
Figure 9
Overview 31
State Funds Receipts
SFY 2010-11
Federal
Grants
0.1%
($ in Millions)
Miscellaneous
Receipts
25.2%
Taxes
Miscellaneous Receipts
Federal Grants
Total Receipts
63,213
21,353
61
$84,627
Taxes
74.7%
Figure 10
State Funds Disbursements
SFY 2010-11
($ in Millions)
Capital
Projects
6.9%
Debt Service
6.7%
General State
Charges
6.0%
State
Operations
17.7%
Figure 11
Overview 32
Grants to
Local
Governments
62.7%
Grants to Local Governments
State Operations
General State Charges
Debt Service
Capital Projects
Total Disbursements
54,001
15,256
5,180
5,766
5,946
$86,149
All Funds Receipts
SFY 2010-11
($ in Millions)
Federal
Grants
36.3%
Net PIT
27.9%
User
11.6%
Miscellaneous
Receipts
16.2%
Business
5.8%
PayrollTaxes
1.1%
Net PIT
User
Business
Other
PayrollTaxes
Miscellaneous Receipts
Federal Grants
Total Receipts
37,143
15,403
7,759
1,425
1,483
21,541
48,247
$133,001
Other
1.1%
Figure 12
All Funds Disbursements
SFY 2010-11
($ in Millions)
Capital
Projects
6.4%
Debt Service
6.0%
General State
Charges
5.4%
State
Operations
18.4%
Grants to
Local
Governments
63.8%
Grants to Local Governments
State Operations
General State Charges
Debt Service
Capital Projects
Total Disbursements
94,161
19,662
6,316
5,766
8,053
$133,958
Figure 13
Overview 33
General Fund Local Assistance Grants
All Other
Transportation 4.8%
0.3%
Temp. & Dis.
Assistance
3.1%
SFY 2010-11
($ in Millions)
School Aid
47.7%
Children &
Families
5.2%
Mental Hygiene
6.3%
Public Health
2.2%
Medicaid - DOH
19.7%
Higher
Education
All Other 6.7%
Education
4.1%
School Aid
Higher Education
All Other Education
Medicaid - DOH
Public Health
Mental Hygiene
Children & Families
Temp. & Dis. Assistance
Transportation
All Other
Total Disbursements
17,096
2,388
1,460
7,074
785
2,255
1,856
1,106
100
1,731
$35,851
Figure 14
State Funds Local Assistance Grants
SFY 2010-11
($ in Millions)
T ransportation
8.1%
Temp. & Dis.
Assistance
2.0%
Children &
Families
3.4%
Mental Hygiene
6.4%
All Other
4.2%
School Aid
36.9%
Higher Education
4.5%
Public Health
3.6%
Medicaid - DOH
22.0%
Figure 15
Overview 34
ST AR
5.9%
All Other Education
2.7%
School Aid
Higher Education
All Other Education
STAR
Medicaid - DOH
Public Health
Mental Hygiene
Children & Families
Temp. & Dis. Assistance
Transportation
All Other
Total Disbursements
19,939
2,411
1,475
3,208
11,891
1,967
3,472
1,857
1,106
4,398
2,277
$54,001
All Funds Local Assistance Grants
All Other
Transportation 3.9%
4.7%
Temp. & Dis.
Assistance
5.0%
Children &
Families
3.1%
Mental
Hygiene
4.1%
Public Health
3.6%
Medicaid DOH
40.6%
SFY 2010-11
($ in Millions)
School Aid
25.8%
Higher
Education
2.7%
All Other
Education
3.1%
STAR
3.4%
School Aid
Higher Education
All Other Education
STAR
Medicaid - DOH
Public Health
Mental Hygiene
Children & Families
Temp. & Dis. Assistance
Transportation
All Other
Total Disbursements
24,317
2,576
2,901
3,208
38,184
3,359
3,900
2,908
4,683
4,430
3,695
$94,161
Figure 16
Overview 35
Fund Balance and Reserves
The Executive budget shows virtually no
change in the year end closing balance
from this year to next year. The Executive
estimates the SFY 2010-11 General Fund
closing balance will be $1.4 billion,
maintaining $1 billion in the Tax
Stabilization Reserve Fund, $21 million in
the Contingency Reserve Fund and
$175 million in the Rainy Day Reserve.
The Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund is a
constitutionally restricted fund that can
only be used in the event of a revenue
shortfall or deficit during a fiscal year.
Table 16
Closing Fund Balance
($ in Millions)
Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund
Statutory Rainy Day Reserve Fund
Contingency Reserve Fund
Community Projects Fund
Reserved for Debt Reduction
Total
Overview 36
2009-10
2010-11
1,031
175
21
73
73
$1,373
1,031
175
21
121
73
$1,421
General Fund Reserves
($ in Millions)
$ 6,000
5,135
5,000
4,616
4,000
3,257
2,698
3,000
2,302
3,045
2,546
2,754
1,948
2,000
1,443
1,373
1,421
2010
2011
1,000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Note: Data for 2010 and 2011 is estimated.
Source: Offie of the State Comptroller and Executive Budget.
Figure 17
Pension Deferral Plan
The Executive proposes to amortize the
State pension contribution costs to save
$216.7 million in the General Fund for
SFY 2010-11. An additional amount of
pension contribution of $5 billion will be
amortized over the next five years with
total repayment of $7.4 billion. Under the
Executive’s plan to amortize its pension
contribution costs, the State will incur an
additional $2.1 billion in General Fund
spending over the next 16 years.
Transportation CHIPs program, Economic
Development and Mental Hygiene. The
All Funds budget including Off-Budget
spending is $135.9 billion, an increase of
$668 million or 0.5 percent over
SFY 2009-10 estimates.
In addition, as mentioned earlier,
$4.1 billion of university funding would
be taken Off-budget.
Off-Budget Spending
The cash Financial Plan does not reflect
approximately $2 billion in Off-budget
spending. Off-budget spending is reported
in the GAAP Financial Statement. The
Off-budget spending consists mostly of
$1.9 billion in Capital projects spending
for Higher Education facilities at SUNY
and CUNY, Education EXCEL program,
Overview 37
Table 17
Executive's Estimate of Out-year
Budget Gaps
($ in Millions)
Gap Size in the General Fund
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
($7,418)
($14,311)
($18,331)
($20,713)
692
811
876
854
Proposed Spending Controls
4,870
5,340
5,358
6,184
Proposed Revenue Actions
1,856
1,874
1,609
1,448
$0
($6,286)
($10,488)
($12,227)
Current Services Gap Estimates
(before any actions)
Deficit Reduction Actions (December
2009)
Surplus/(Deficit)
Source: Executive Budget
Out-year Services Gaps
Prior to the recommendations of the
Executive Budget, the forecast for out-year
budget gaps were calculated at
$7.4 billion in SFY 2010-11, $14.3 billion
in 2011-12, $18.3 billion in 2012-13 and
$20.7 billion in 2013-14. (see Table 17)
The Executive proposes reducing the
projected out-year gaps by the following:
restraining spending in fastest growing
programs,
particularly
healthcare,
education and children and families;
creative revenue generation such as the
Syrup Excise Tax, Cigarette Tax, Medicaid
Provider Assessment, and increasing fees
and surcharges.
Overview 38
Non-Recurring Resource Actions
by State Fiscal Year
($ in Millions)
$ 7,000
6,320
6,000
5,116
5,000
4,499
4,229
3,907
4,000
3,011
3,000
2,375
1,856
2,000
1,000
565
270
2002
2003
2004
2005
Note: Data for 2010 and 2011 is estimated.
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Source: Offie of the State Comptroller and Executive Budget.
Figure 18
Non-Recurring Action
The
Executive
budget
proposes
$565 million in non-recurring actions to
support General Fund operations. These
actions include a $261 million use of
TANF Emergency Contingency Fund;
$127 million is related to the timing of
payment under the Physician’s Excess
Medical
Malpractice
program;
$50 million in Lottery prize fund receipts
to be invested in AAA-rate municipal
bonds instead of US Treasure bonds; the
recovery of $32 million in excess aid
payments to school districts from prior
years; and $95 million in available
Special Revenue Fund balances and other
resources.
operating deficit into the following fiscal
year.
As mentioned earlier, the Executive did
not recognize $10.1 billion in temporary
budget closing actions as non-recurring
this year.
In addition, for SFY 2009-10 the
Executive proposes to delay $500 million
in Personal Income Tax refund to transfer
Overview 39
Table 18
PROPOSED DISBURSEMENTS BY PROGRAM CATEGORY
ALL FUNDS
($ in Thousands)
Estimated
2009-10
Proposed
2010-11
Change
Health & Social Welfare
Medical Assistance
Income Maintenance
Health
Other
Health - Total
$38,338,069
5,364,499
4,543,136
5,656,448
$53,902,152
$38,184,325
5,106,653
4,708,639
5,148,337
$53,147,954
($153,744)
(257,846)
165,503
(508,111)
($754,198)
(0.4)
(4.8)
3.6
(9.0)
(1.4)
Education
School Aid
State University
City University
Other
Education - Total
$24,601,563
7,287,088
1,663,720
4,577,195
$38,129,566
$24,191,240
7,410,391
1,383,542
4,626,631
$37,611,804
($410,323)
123,303
(280,178)
49,436
($517,762)
(1.7)
1.7
(16.8)
1.1
(1.4)
Star Property Tax Relief
$3,419,450
$3,207,570
($211,880)
(6.2)
Mental Health
Mental Health
Developmentally Disabled
Other
Mental Health - Total
$3,212,365
4,269,833
587,969
$8,070,167
$3,413,532
4,464,575
620,865
$8,498,972
$201,167
194,742
32,896
$428,805
6.3
4.6
5.6
5.3
Transportation
$8,240,165
$9,137,728
$897,563
10.9
Public Protection
$5,013,043
$4,800,729
($212,314)
(4.2)
General Government
$1,315,126
$1,370,601
$55,475
4.2
Parks and the Environment
$1,461,614
$1,319,379
($142,235)
(9.7)
Econ Dev & Govt Oversight
$1,676,955
$1,718,242
$41,287
2.5
$1,084,848
3,121,137
4,995,826
2,744,235
$11,946,046
$768,867
3,352,040
5,858,374
3,166,217
$13,145,498
($315,981)
230,903
862,548
421,982
$1,199,452
(29.1)
7.4
17.3
15.4
10.0
$133,174,284
$133,958,477
$784,193
0.6
All Others
Local Government Assistance
General State Charges
Long Term Debt Service
Other
All Others - Total
Total
Source: Executive Budget.
Overview 40
Percent
Change
Table 19
PROPOSED DISBURSEMENTS BY PROGRAM CATEGORY
STATE FUND
($ in Thousands)
Estimated
Proposed
Percent
2009-10
2010-11
Health & Social Welfare
Medical Assistance
Income Maintenance
Health
Other
Health - Total
$10,983,775
1,396,114
$2,705,055
2,766,053
$17,850,997
$12,251,702
1,213,363
$2,895,316
2,488,458
$18,848,839
$1,267,927
(182,751)
190,261
(277,595)
$997,842
11.5
(13.1)
7.0
(10.0)
5.6
Education
School Aid
State University
City University
Other
Education - Total
$20,345,073
7,021,916
1,649,990
2,937,039
$31,954,018
$19,813,140
7,081,018
1,350,763
2,850,997
$31,095,918
($531,933)
59,102
(299,227)
(86,042)
($858,100)
(2.6)
0.8
(18.1)
(2.9)
(2.7)
Star Property Tax Relief
$3,419,450
$3,207,570
($211,880)
(6.2)
Mental Health
Mental Health
Developmentally Disabled
Other
Mental Health - Total
$2,049,988
2,152,584
435,284
$4,637,856
$2,142,367
2,236,582
465,041
$4,843,990
$92,379
83,998
29,757
$206,134
4.5
3.9
6.8
4.4
Transportation
$6,399,589
$6,947,628
$548,039
8.6
Public Protection
$4,385,011
$4,248,639
($136,372)
(3.1)
General Government
$1,146,084
$1,146,852
Parks and the Environment
$1,067,511
$915,311
Econ Dev & Govt Oversight
$1,661,122
$1,705,036
All Others
Local Government Assistance
General State Charges
Long Term Debt Service
Other
All Others - Total
$1,084,848
3,121,137
4,995,826
$2,917,329
$12,119,140
$768,867
3,352,040
5,858,374
$3,211,019
$13,190,300
($315,981)
230,903
862,548
293,690
$1,071,160
(29.1)
7.4
17.3
10.1
8.8
Total
$84,640,778
$86,150,083
$1,509,305
1.8
Change
$768
Change
0.1
($152,200)
(14.3)
$43,914
2.6
Source: Executive Budget.
Overview 41
Table 20
PROPOSED DISBURSEMENTS BY PROGRAM CATEGORY
GENERAL FUND
($ in Thousands)
Estimated
2009-10
Proposed
2010-11
Health & Social Welfare
Medical Assistance
Income Maintenance
Health
Other
Health - Total
$6,033,907
1,355,967
7,539,194
(3,885,637)
$11,043,431
$6,592,771
1,168,159
8,210,097
(4,385,409)
$11,585,618
Education
School Aid
State University
City University
Other
Education - Total
$17,519,073
1,842,339
1,526,282
2,574,092
$23,461,786
$16,970,140
1,615,586
1,199,983
2,505,239
$22,290,948
$112,367
1,533,319
548,873
$2,194,559
$113,048
1,593,603
554,245
$2,260,896
$681
60,284
5,372
$66,337
0.6
3.9
1.0
3.0
$65,267
$100,975
$35,708
54.7
$3,672,498
$3,326,773
($345,725)
(9.4)
General Government
$720,361
$729,187
$8,826
1.2
Parks and the Environment
$279,998
$240,244
($39,754)
(14.2)
Econ Dev & Govt Oversight
$256,630
$226,546
($30,084)
(11.7)
All Others
Local Government Assistance
General State Charges/Misc
Other
All Other - Total
$1,084,848
3,129,497
2,823,025
$7,037,370
$768,867
3,846,398
2,928,013
$7,543,278
($315,981)
716,901
104,988
$505,908
(29.1)
22.9
3.7
7.2
Transfers to Other Funds
$5,397,527
$6,217,548
$820,021
15.2
$54,129,427
$54,522,013
392,586
0.7
Mental Health
Mental Health
Developmentally Disabled
Other
Mental Health - Total
Transportation
Public Protection
Total
Source: Executive Budget.
Overview 42
Change
Percent
Change
$558,864
(187,808)
670,903
(499,772)
$542,187
9.3
(13.9)
8.9
12.9
4.9
($548,933)
(226,753)
(326,299)
(68,853)
($1,170,838)
(3.1)
(12.3)
(21.4)
(2.7)
(5.0)
Table 21
Out-year Disbursement Projections - General Fund
($ in Thousands)
Annual
Annual
Annual
2010-11
2011-12
$ Change
2012-13
$ Change
2013-14
$ Change
$35,851
$42,643
$6,792
$46,301
$3,658
$49,786
$3,485
17,096
18,801
1,705
20,728
1,927
22,339
1,611
Medicaid (inc. administration)
7,074
11,095
4,021
12,130
1,035
13,622
1,492
Higher Education
2,389
2,557
168
2,644
87
2,731
87
Mental Hygiene
2,255
2,392
137
2,526
134
2,666
140
Children and FamilyServices
1,856
2,076
220
2,281
205
2,508
227
Other Education Aid
1,460
1,807
347
1,885
78
1,941
56
Temporary / Disability Assistance
1,106
1,435
329
1,572
137
1,581
All Other
2,615
2,480
(135)
2,535
55
2,398
(137)
$8,317
$8,760
$443
$9,009
$249
$9,100
$91
Personal Service
Non-Personal Service
6,399
6,690
291
6,889
199
6,903
14
1,918
2,070
152
2,120
50
2,197
77
General State Charges
Grants to Local Governments:
School Aid
State Operations:
9
$4,136
$4,411
$275
$4,615
$204
$5,009
$394
Pensions
1,519
1,673
154
1,870
197
2,334
464
Health Ins. (Active Employees)
1,826
2,009
183
2,177
168
2,357
180
120
Health Ins. (Retired Employees)
1,184
1,304
120
1,416
112
1,536
Fringe Benefit Escrow
All Other
(2,334)
(2,535)
(201)
(2,731)
(196)
(2,819)
(88)
1,941
1,960
19
1,883
(77)
1,601
(282)
Transfers to Other Funds:
$6,218
$7,498
$1,280
$7,979
$481
$8,429
$450
$2,536
$3,115
579
$3,117
2
$3,083
Debt Service
1,831
1,757
(74)
1,743
(14)
1,675
(68)
Capital Projects
1,084
1,337
253
1,485
148
1,646
161
767
1,289
522
1,634
345
2,025
391
$54,522
$63,312
$8,790
$67,904
$4,592
$72,324
$4,420
State Share Medicaid
All Other
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS
Annual Percent Change
16.1%
7.3%
(34)
6.5%
Overview 43
CAPITAL PROGRAM AND FINANCING PLAN
The Five-Year Capital Plan
The Executive is proposing a $48.8 billion
Five-Year Capital Plan (see Table 22). The
$10.8
billion
Capital
Plan
for
SFY 2010-11 has increased by 8 percent,
or $765 million, from SFY 2009-10 and
includes “Off-budget spending” of
$1.9 billion from bond proceeds by
public authorities. Nevertheless, new
capital initiatives have been significantly
reduced and existing projects have been
prioritized in order to contain costs. (see
Table 23)
The Capital Plan for SFY 2010-11 will
include the Capital Reduction Program
which will decrease previously planned
projects financed with debt by extending
the period of time in which the capital
projects will be implemented. The
five-year plan will save $1.8 billion in
capital costs resulting in a direct savings
of $360 million in debt service costs,
thereby negating any exposure to debt
service cap limits.
This new program will continue to
maintain
critical
investments
in
infrastructure and health and safety while
deferring or eliminating lower priority
projects. The Dedicated Highway and
Bridge Trust Fund support for DOT
Highway and Bridge program will not be
reduced. For this fiscal year it is estimated
that the State will save $238 million in
capital
costs
and
approximately
$10 million in debt service savings.
$1.8 billion also includes a savings of
$147 million in capital reduction savings
in 2009-10.
Table 22
Capital Spending by Function
5-Year Plan
($ in Thousands)
Spending
2010-11
2011-12
Transportation
Other Higher Education/
Education Programs
Economic Development
& Gov't. Oversight
Mental Hygiene
Parks and Environment
Health and Social Welfare
Public Protection
Education - EXCEL
General Government
Other
$4,945,845
Total
Overview 44
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Total 5-Yr
$5,103,788
$5,144,270
$5,086,141
$4,894,674
$25,174,718
1,925,661
1,739,458
1,594,019
1,648,231
1,674,086
$8,581,455
1,144,711
483,650
765,096
522,776
409,014
211,054
90,301
258,957
952,691
668,408
514,651
708,958
396,271
200,000
97,424
201,700
460,501
755,462
509,396
333,913
368,105
122,863
172,900
498,800
666,987
477,596
227,349
372,302
81,619
100,000
442,671
667,474
473,304
153,518
374,643
72,633
100,000
$3,499,374
$3,241,981
$2,740,043
$1,946,514
$1,920,335
$411,054
$464,840
$833,557
$10,757,065
$10,583,349
$9,461,429
$9,159,025
$8,853,003
$48,813,871
Table 23
Capital Reduction Program
Spending Decreases from Current-Services Forecast by Function
2010-11 through 2014-2015
($ in Thousands)
Spending
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Total 5-Yr*
($10,478)
(27,900)
($12,480)
(10,200)
($11,333)
(6,000)
($10,608)
(42,800)
($10,383)
(47,200)
($55,282)
(134,100)
(48,165)
(6,664)
(65,220)
(10,403)
(93,160)
(15,353)
(64,220)
(7,012)
(48,165)
(6,798)
(318,930)
(46,230)
(72,516)
(13,535)
(56,872)
(1,908)
(107,300)
(28,529)
(44,167)
(4,076)
(157,691)
(33,695)
(25,813)
(2,137)
(190,615)
(43,998)
(16,564)
(2,441)
(207,291)
(42,657)
(15,964)
(2,367)
(735,413)
(162,414)
(159,380)
(12,929)
Total 5-Year Savings
Savings in 2009-10
($238,038)
-
($282,375)
-
($345,182)
-
($378,258)
-
($380,825)
-
($1,624,678)
($147,000)
Grand Total Savings
Estimate Debt Service Savings
($238,038)
($10,000)
($282,375)
($37,000)
($345,182)
($78,000)
($378,258)
($100,000)
($380,825)
($135,000)
($1,771,678)
($360,000)
Transportation
Parks and Environment
Economic Development
& Gov't. Oversight
Health and Social Welfare
Education/ Higher Education
Programs
Public Protection
Mental Hygiene
General Government
Overview 45
Table 24
Capital Spending by Financing Sources
SFY 2009-10 through SFY 2014-15
($ in Thousands)
Financing
SFY 10-11
SFY 11-12
SFY 12-13
SFY 13-14
SFY 14-15
TOTAL 5-Yr
State Pay-As-You-Go
Federal Pay-As-You-Go
General Obligation
Public Authority
Total
$2,249,708
2,635,151
586,183
5,286,023
$10,757,065
$2,674,298
2,576,704
495,494
4,836,853
$10,583,349
$2,509,026
2,616,768
428,043
3,907,592
$9,461,429
$2,563,219
2,531,636
343,290
3,720,880
$9,159,025
$2,691,512
2,346,055
310,262
3,505,174
$8,853,003
$12,687,763
$12,706,314
$2,163,272
$21,256,522
$48,813,871
State Financing of Capital Projects
The State uses four different financing
sources to support its programs: State
Pay-as-you-go (PAYGO), Federal PAYGO,
General Obligation Bonding, and Public
Authority Bonding. (see Table 24)
The Executive proposes to finance the
Five-Year Capital program with a
combination of PAYGO and bonded
resources. State PAYGO is estimated to
be $2.25 billion or 20.91 percent; Federal
PAYGO $2.6 billion or 24.5 percent;
General
Obligation
bonding
of
$590 million or 5.45 percent; and Public
Authority bonding $5.29 billion or
49.14 percent.
PAYGO
for SFY 2010-11. (see Table 25) Capital
spending supported by General Fund
receipts is classified as a transfer to the
various Capital Projects Funds. Transfers
to capital projects from the General Fund
are estimated to be $1.1 billion in
SFY 2010-11 and up to $1.5 billion
annually over the Five Year Plan. General
Fund transfers to capital projects
essentially finances non-bond eligible
capital spending, including minor
rehabilitation of facilities operated by
Office of General Services, Department of
Environmental Conservation, Parks and
the Department of Mental Hygiene.
General Fund transfers also includes:
$5 million annually to the Hazardous
Waste Remedial Fund to support the State
Superfund program.
State
State PAYGO resources consists of
General Fund taxes, other taxes and user
fees dedicated for specific capital
programs,
repayment
from
Local
Government and Public Authorities for
their share of the projects, and transfers
from other funds including the General
Fund. Capital Projects financed by State
PAYGO Resources will total $2.25 billion
Overview 46
Over $866 million will be annually
designated for the Dedicated Highway
Bridge and Trust Fund (DHBTF) from
various transportation taxes.
Table 25
Five-Year Capital Projects Financed by
State PAYGO Resources
($ in Thousands)
Transportation
Parks and Environment
Economic Dev. & Gov't Oversight
Health and Social Welfare
Education
Public Protection
Mental Hygiene
General Government
Other
Total State PAYGO Financing
Bond Financing
General Obligation
SFY 2010-11
$1,362,236
210,764
102,575
254,500
170,431
16,549
79,924
48,729
4,000
General
Obligation
bonds
are
voter-approved and therefore backed by
the taxing authority of the State.
$2,249,708
($ in Thousands)
Federal
Table 27
Five-Year Capital Projects Financed by
General Obligation Resources
Transportation
Parks and Environment
Federal
PAYGO
resources
for
SFY 2010-11 year will total $2.64 billion,
portioned primarily to transportation
($2.1 billion) and Environmental projects
($340 million). The Capital Plan for
federal spending will also include
$205 million for Department of Health
Safe Drinking Water projects. Federal
PAYGO supports spending financed by
grants from the federal government,
earmarked for highways and bridges,
drinking water and water pollution
control facilities, public protection and
housing and will total $12.7 billion over
the five-year capital plan. (see Table 26)
Table 26
Federal PAYGO Resources
Total General Obligation Financing
SFY 2010-11
$529,740
56,443
$586,183
There are nine voter approved bond acts,
five for transportation, four for parks and
environment. The financing for the 2005
Rebuild and Renew New York Bond Act
currently takes up the bulk of the General
Obligation financing. It is projected that
spending authorizations from seven of the
eight acts will be exhausted by 2013. The
State expects to issue $606 million of
general obligation bonds for Rebuild and
Renew New York Transportation Bond
Act of 2005 and $549 million of other
transportation purposes and $57 million
of clean water/clean air and other
environmental bond acts. (see Table 27)
Public Authority
($ in Thousands)
Transportation
Parks and Environment
Economic Dev. & Gov't Oversight
Health and Social Welfare
Public Protection
Other
Total Federal PAYGO Financing
SFY 2010-11
$2,107,744
340,289
3,000
89,118
45,000
50,000
$2,635,151
Public Authority bonds will be issued to
support bond-financed capital projects
over the plan. The security for these State
supported debts issued by State public
authorities
is
provided
by
the
appropriations of the Legislature in the
Debt Service Appropriation Bill.
Overview 47
Table 28
Five-Year Capital Projects Financed by
Authority Bonds Resources
($ in Thousands)
Transportation
Parks and Environment
Economic Dev. & Gov't Oversight
Health and Social Welfare
Education
Public Protection
Mental Hygiene
General Government
Other
Total Authority Bonds Financing
SFY 2010-11
$946,125
157,600
1,039,136
179,158
1,966,284
347,465
403,726
41,572
204,957
$5,286,023
The SFY 2010-11 five-year Capital Plan
will finance $5.28 billion through the
issuance
of
Authority
Bonds.
Transportation, Economic Development
and
Government
Oversight
and
Education programs are heavily supported
by Authority Bonds. Proceeds of authority
bonds will fund $946 million in
transportation projects, $1.97 billion in
Education projects and $1.04 billion in
Economic Development and Government
Oversight projects.
State Personal Income Tax (PIT) Revenue
Bonds will finance $800 million of
Economic Development initiatives to
support the following programs: SIP,
Economic Development Projects for the
Buffalo area, AMD, CEFAP, the Regional
Economic Growth Program, the New
York State Economic Development
Program, high technology and other
business investment programs. State PIT
Revenue Bonds will also fund $1.9 billion
for Education, $164 million for
Environmental,
$454
million
for
Transportation, $127 million for Health
Care and $885 million for State Facilities
and Equipment Bonds. The remaining
Overview 48
$956 million in 2010-11 will be financed
by other revenue credits. (see Table 28)
Executive SFY 2010-11 proposal for
State-supported Debt Outstanding
Total amount of state-supported debt
outstanding will total $53.5 billion and
increase
of
$3.06 billion
over
SFY 2009-10 (see Table 29). This is offset
by $2.8 billion in debt retirements and
$5.9 billion in state-supported debt
issuances. NYS state-supported debt will
be issued through the following financing
programs: $606 million in General
Obligation Bonds (which includes
Environment
and
Transportation)
financing; $4.36 billion Revenue Bonds
(Economic Development and Housing,
Education, Environment, Health and
Mental Hygiene, State Facilities and
Equipment,
and
Transportation);
$932 million in Other Revenue (which
includes Education, Health and Mental
Hygiene and Transportation).
Table 29
Projected Debt Outstanding
($ in Thousands)
Projected
SFY 2009-10 SFY 2010-11
General Obligation
$3,399,091
$3,644,235
LGAC
3,638,940
3,436,468
PA Debt -Other
Lease-Purchase &
Contractual Obligation
(Revenue Bonds)
Total State-supported
Debt
$43,413,353 $46,434,047
$50,451,384 $53,514,750
Other State Obligations:
Tobacco
All Other
Total State-related Debt
$3,256,805
$1,123,039
$2,929,550
$1,037,852
$54,831,228 $57,482,152
Transportation and Education, which
make up 30 percent and 28 percent of
debt outstanding, dominate the State’s
obligations. The remaining obligations by
function of debt outstanding are
12 percent in State Facilities and
Equipment, six percent in LGAC, nine
percent in Health and Mental Hygiene,
five percent in Environment, 10 percent
in Economic Development and Housing,
five percent in Tobacco and two percent
in other areas. (see Figure 19)
Overview 49
New York State-Supported Debt Outstanding
by Function
New York State-Supported Debt Outstanding by Function
Debt Outstanding by Function 2010-11
$53.5 Billion as reported in the
Executive Budget 2010-11 Financial Plan
($ in Thousands)
Education
28%
Economic Development & Housing
Economic
Development &
Housing
10%
State Facilities &
Equipment
12%
Environment
5%
Environment
2,760,369
Health & Mental Hygiene
4,701,677
Transportation
Health & Mental State Facilities
Hygiene
9%
Education
LGAC
6%
Transportation
30%
$5,613,157
15,841,736
& Equipment
LGAC
Total State-Supported
6,346,942
14,814,401
3,436,468
$53,514,750
Figure 19
New York State-Supported Debt Outstanding
Under Statutory Debt Reform
New Debt Outstanding
$ 50,000
SFY 2000-01 through SFY 2014-15
($ in Millions)
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
(Actual) (Actual) (Actual) (Actual) (Actual) (Actual) (Actual) (Actual) (Actual)
Actual/ Recommended Cap
Figure 20
Overview 50
Cap under the 2000 Debt Reform (4% of personal income)
General Obligation Bond (GO) Financing
General Obligation Bonds are issued with
the full faith and credit of the State by
voter authorization. Only 5 percent of
total State-supported debt outstanding is
GO bond debt. The $3.64 billion in
outstanding GO bonds represents:
$77.5 million in Economic Development
and
Housing;
$1.44
billion
in
Environment, and $2.13 billion in
Transportation. For SFY 2010-11 the State
will pay $503 million in GO debt service
and will issue $606 million in bonds.
General obligation bonds are the only
debt obligations that the State is required
to pay for by law.
and equipment bonds, including for
software development.
Table 30
Revenue Bonds
State-supported Debt Outstanding
($ in Thousands)
SFY 2010-11
Revenue:
Education
Environment
Transportation
Economic Development & Housing
Health Care
State Facilities & Equipment
Other Revenue:
Education - SUNY Dorms
Revenue Bonds
Personal Income Tax (PIT) Revenue
Bonds are backed by 25 percent of
Income Tax revenues. The following
programs are supported by Revenue
Bonds:
Education,
Environment,
Transportation, Economic Development
and Housing, Health Care, and State
Facilities and Equipment. (see Table 30)
Specifically Education supports SUNY,
CUNY,
Expanding
our
Children’s
Education and Learning (EXCEL), NYS
Office of Science and Technology, and
Academic
Research
(NYSTAR);
Environment supports State Revolving
Fund, State Superfund, West Valley and
other
environmental
projects;
Transportation supports the CHIPs
program to aid local transportation
projects; Economic Development and
Housing, Health Care, capital projects for
the Division of Military and Naval Affairs
$8,615,263
1,184,881
2,605,991
4,583,374
960,446
3,512,404
1,089,100
Health & Mental Hygiene
Health Income
Mental Health Services
LGAC - Sales Tax
Transportation - Dedicated Highway
Total All Revenue Bonds
299,760
3,397,471
3,436,468
7,752,200
$37,437,358
Other Revenue Bonds are backed by a
separate dedicated revenue stream
relating to the projects that they fund, for
example SUNY Dormitories would be
backed by student fees.
Service Contract and Lease-Purchase
Agreements
The State enters into Service Contract and
Lease-Purchase Agreements with Public
Benefit Corporations, Municipalities and
Other entities.
A lease-purchase agreement is a title asset
that will revert back to the State at the end
of the lease. Examples of these assets are:
Capital
Lease-Purchase
Agreements
(electronic
data
processing
or
telecommunications equipment) and Real
Overview 51
Property
Capital
Agreements.
Lease-Purchase
Table 31
Service Contract & Lease-Purchase Agreements
State-supported Debt Outstanding
($ in Thousands)
Economic Development & Housing
Education
Environment
Health & Mental Hygiene
State Facilties & Equipment
Transportation
Total
SFY 2010-11
$952,286
5,110,038
137,781
44,000
2,834,539
3,354,515
$12,433,159
These debt financings enable Hospitals,
Schools and other facilities to purchase
new technical equipment and other assets
that would be too costly for them to
purchase outright. (see Table 31)
State-related Debt
The Executive defines State-related debt
to include the following debt obligations
in addition to State-supported debt:
Contingent
Contractual
Obligation
(Tobacco
Settlement
Financing
Corporation, DASNY/MCFFA Secured
Hospital Program), Moral Obligation
(Housing
Finance
Agency
Moral
Obligation Bonds, MCFFA Nursing
Homes and Hospitals), State Guaranteed
Debt (Job Development Authority) and
State Funded Debt (MBAA Prior Year
School Aid Claims).
Contingent Contractual Obligations are
agreements by the State to fund the debt
service payments related to a bonded
debt issuance only in the case that debt
service payments can’t be made.
Moral Obligation bonds are issued by an
authority to finance a revenue-producing
Overview 52
project. The debt is secured by project
revenues with statutory provisions
morally committing the State.
State Guaranteed debt is public authority
debt that finances or guarantees loans
which
encourages
economic
development throughout the State and is
limited to only $750 million outstanding.
Currently,
State
Guaranteed
debt
outstanding is $23.2 million.
State Funded debt was created to enable
the State to purchase delinquent tax liens
from NYS Municipalities through the
Municipal Bond Bank Agency (MBBA).
Currently, State funded debt outstanding
is $395.8 million. (see Table 32)
Table 32
State-related Debt Outstanding
(Other State Debt Obligations in addition to
State-supported)
($ in Thousands)
SFY 2010-11
Contingent Contractual
DASNY/MCFFA Secured Hospitals Prg.
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp.
$586,390
2,929,550
Moral Obligation
HFA Moral Obligation Bonds
MCFFA Nursing Homes & Hospitals
29,987
2,480
State Guaranteed
Job Development Authority (JDA)
23,220
State Funded
MBBA Prior Year School Aid Claims
Total
395,775
$3,967,402
The Executive began reporting State
related
debt
in
their
proposed
SFY 2006-07 Executive Budget.
The
Executive also reports State-related debt
in the Annual Information Statement
(which is certified by the Comptroller).
The use of State-related debt surfaced in
SFY 2003-04 with the issuance of the
Tobacco Bonds. (see Figure 21)
New York State-Related Debt Outstanding History
New York State Debt Outstanding
SFY 1997-98 through SFY 2010-11
($ in Millions)
New York State-Related Debt Outstanding
SFY 1997-98 through 2010-11
$ 60,000
StateOther State
Supported Debt Obligations
($ in Millions)
StateRelated
50,000
40,000
30,000
`
20,000
10,000
0
1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Estimate Estimate
State-supported
Other State Debt Obligations
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
$34,247
$35,842
$36,797
$36,958
$36,977
$39,037
$40,316
$40,701
$41,177
$42,654
$44,408
$46,978
$50,451
$53,514
$2,752
$1,898
$1,787
$1,705
$1,626
$1,494
$5,948
$6,288
$6,043
$5,735
$5,170
$5,122
$4,380
$3,967
$36,999
$37,740
$38,584
$38,663
$38,603
$40,531
$46,264
$46,989
$47,220
$48,389
$49,579
$52,100
$54,831
$57,482
Figure 21
American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (ARRA)
New York State Credit Rating
The Executive has reported that New York
State has maintained a favorable credit
rating for its general obligation bonds.
(see Table 33) A favorable rating by credit
rating agencies lowers State borrowing
costs and allows for greater access to
financial markets.
Table 33
State of New York General Obligation
Credit Ratings
(as of January 2008)
Rating
Outlook
Fitch
AA-
Stable
Moody's Investor Service
Aa3
Stable
Standard and Poor's Ratings
Services
AA
Source: NYS DOB, Fitch, Moody's and S&P
Stable
The federal government initiated several
bond programs through the ARRA in
order to address the extraordinary
pressing circumstances that were brought
about during the 2008 banking crisis.
Specifically, ARRA was crafted to open
other access routes to the financial
markets for States and their municipalities
to issue debt in order to relieve the
pressure and lack of liquidity on the taxexempt market and lower borrowing
costs. The programs that the State has
incorporated into their bond issuing
practices are the Building America Bond
(BAB) Program and the Qualified School
Construction Bonds (QSCB) program.
The BAB program enables States and
municipalities to issue competitively in
the conventional taxable corporate debt
markets, which are more attractive to
Overview 53
pension funds and non-profit investors.
The US Treasury Department will pay a
35 percent subsidy on the interest
payments to the States. NYS has issued
$1.6 billion in taxable bonds under the
BAB program in SFY 2009-10 which the
Executive projects will result in
approximately $300 million in savings,
after the federal subsidy.
The QSCB program was created to
alleviate allocations of national bond
volume cap for schools. This program
enables State and local governments to
finance public school construction
projects and other eligible costs for public
school with interest-free borrowings.
Essentially this tax credit bond program
allows state and local governments to
issues bonds without interest cost because
it gives investors a Federal tax credit
instead of periodic interest payments. The
federal program for QSCB’s divides the
$11 billion national bond volume
authorization for 2009 among states and
100 largest school districts based on
Federal school funding. New York has
been allocated $192 million of QSCB
capacity for 2009. The State sold
$58 million in QSCB bonds for EXCEL
projects, which resulted in a debt service
savings of approximately $20 million. The
State will sell the remaining $134 million
balance of the 2009 allocation during the
2010-11 fiscal year.
Overview 54
ECONOMY
The National Economy
The Executive acknowledges that the
national recession is over, with the U.S
economy growing 2.2 percent in the third
quarter of 2009. The Executive states that
this growth was mainly driven by the
Federal
stimulus
programs
and
acknowledges that U.S. overall economic
growth was also helped by developing
nations emerging from their own
recession. Furthermore, the Executive
posits that credit conditions and ongoing
corrections in the housing market will
dampen
household
and
business
spending in 2010.
third consecutive yearly decline. In 2010,
the Executive forecasts corporate profits to
increase 12.7 percent led by the financial
sector.
Inflation
The Executive expects prices, as
measured by the Consumer Price Index
(CPI), to grow 2.2 percent in 2010,
following a 0.3 percent decline in 2009.
The Executive indicates that with the
recession over there is heightened
probability that rising energy prices will
spill over into core prices.
Investment
The
Executive
estimates
that
nonresidential
investment
spending
declined 18.1 percent in 2009 due
primarily to prohibitive credit market
conditions and the significant pullback in
household
spending.
Nonresidential
investment spending is forecast to fall
another 1.2 percent in 2010.
Employment
Employment is expected to be flat in
2010, after falling 3.7 percent in 2009
(see Table 34). The Executive expects that
the unemployment rate will average
9.8 percent in 2010 as labor market
conditions improve and workers who had
left rejoin the labor force.
Corporate Profits
The Executive estimates that corporate
profits decreased 5.1 percent in 2009, the
Overview 55
Table 34
EXECUTIVE COMPARED TO MAJOR FORECASTERS
(Percent Change)
U.S. Real GDP
Division of the Budget
Blue Chip Consensus
Moody's Economy.com
Global Insight
Macroeconomic Advisers
U.S. Nonfarm Employment
Division of the Budget
Moody's Economy.com
Global Insight
Macroeconomic Advisers
U.S. Personal Income
Division of the Budget
Moody's Economy.com
Global Insight
Macroeconomic Advisers
S&P 500
Division of the Budget
Moody's Economy.com
Global Insight
New York State Employment
Division of the Budget
Moody's Economy.com
New York State Wages
Division of the Budget
Moody's Economy.com
Actual
2008
Estimate
2009
Forecast
2010
Forecast
2011
Forecast
2012
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
(2.5)
(2.5)
(2.5)
(2.5)
(2.5)
2.8
2.8
2.3
2.6
3.4
3.3
3.1
3.8
2.7
4.3
3.6
N/A
5.1
3.8
N/A
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(3.7)
(3.7)
(3.7)
(3.7)
0.0
(0.7)
(0.5)
0.1
1.5
1.7
1.5
2.7
2.1
3.3
2.9
N/A
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
(1.4)
(1.4)
(1.4)
(1.4)
4.2
2.3
3.8
3.7
4.6
4.5
3.9
5.5
6.0
5.7
5.3
N/A
(17.3)
(17.3)
(17.3)
(22.5)
(22.4)
(22.5)
24.9
24.1
22.3
6.0
6.6
7.1
4.1
5.2
6.4
0.7
0.7
(2.6)
(2.1)
(0.4)
(0.8)
0.8
1.1
0.8
2.7
2.0
2.2
(6.1)
(5.4)
3.8
2.7
3.1
2.2
5.6
5.4
Note: Division of Budget numbers are as reported in the Executive Budget 2010-11 released on January 19, 2010.
Sources: Division of the Budget, Executive Budget 2010-11, January 19, 2010; Blue Chip Economic Indicators, January 2010;
Moody's Economy.com, Precis U.S. Macro and NYS Regional Forecast, January 2010, <http://www.economy.com>;
Macroeconomic Advisers December 2009 Base Forecast; Global Insight, U.S. Executive Summary, January 2010,
<http://www.globalinsight.com>.
Overview 56
The New York State Economy
The forecast contained in the Executive
Budget indicates that the State economy
peaked in August 2008, eight months
after the national economy. The Executive
anticipates that the State economy will
likely start to recover from the recession
in the first quarter of 2010.
Employment
According to the Executive, total State
nonfarm employment is estimated to have
declined 2.6 percent in 2009, faring
1.1 percentage points better than the
nation’s 3.7 percent decline. The
Executive forecasts that New York State
employment will fall further by
0.4 percent in 2010, while national
employment will remain flat (see Figure
22). In 2011, the Executive forecasts total
New York State employment will grow
0.8 percent, compared to growth of
1.5 percent in the nation.
NYS and U.S. Growth Comparison
(Executive Budget forecasts for 2010)
% 6
4.1
4
3.8
2
0.0
0
(0.4)
(2)
Employment
U.S.
Wages
New York State
Source: NYS Division of Budget, 2010-11 New York
State Executive Budget, January 2010.
Wages
The Executive estimates that New York
State wages declined 6.1 percent in 2009,
while
national
wages
declined
3.3 percent. The Executive estimates that
the decline in State wages for 2009 was
heavily influenced by the 31.3 percent
decline in 2009 total bonus wages led by
a record decline in finance and insurance
sector bonuses for the 2008-09 bonus
season. The Executive forecasts that
New York State wages will grow
3.8 percent in 2010 and 3.1 percent in
2011. The Executive also projects that
some employers may shift the payment of
bonus wages from the first quarter of
2011 to the final quarter of 2010 in
anticipation of rising marginal federal tax
rates as a result of the expiration of the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs
and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
of 2003.
Capital Gains
The Executive estimates that capital gains
for New York State fell 35.1 percent to
$36.4 billion in 2009 after falling
52.6 percent in 2008. Capital gains have
declined by about seventy percent from
2007 to 2009. Capital gains are
forecasted by the Executive to grow
58.7 percent in 2010 to $57.7 billion due
to the anticipated rise in the gains tax rate
in 2011 and stabilizing economic
conditions.
Figure 22
Overview 57
Risks
The Executive acknowledges several risks
to the forecasts presented in the budget.
The uncertainty surrounding the current
environment, particularly around the
financial market and other volatile
components such as capital gains and
bonuses presents particular risk for the
New York State outlook.
Overview 58
EXECUTIVE TAX REVENUE FORECAST
SFY 2009-10 Estimate
SFY 2010-11 Outlook
The Executive estimates that All Funds tax
collections in SFY 2009-10 will total
$59.839 billion, a decline of 0.8 percent
or $498 million. The majority of the
decline in revenue reflects the severe toll
that the recession has had on personal
income tax, real estate transfer tax and
estate tax revenues. The tax revenue base
would have declined by $6.3 billion or
10.5 percent, after adjusting for law
changes enacted in the previous year.
All Funds tax receipts are expected to
increase by $ 3.374 billion, or an increase
of 5.6 percent, to $63.2 billion. The
increase in revenues can be attributed to
the full year impact from the temporary
tax increases enacted in 2009 and the
revenue increases proposed with this
budget.
The Executive’s current estimate is
$456 million higher than their Mid-Year
Financial Plan Update released in
November. However, the upward
revision is almost entirely due to shifting
the payment of $500 million in personal
income tax refunds into the upcoming
fiscal year.
The Executive is proposing revenue
actions that would increase total tax
collections by $1.028 billion in
SFY 2010-11. When combined with fees
and other non-tax revenue actions, the
Executive is proposing total actions of
$1.4 billion in SFY 2010-11. The
proposed revenue actions will increase to
a net $1.8 billion by 2012-13, consisting
of $2.0 billion in revenue enhancements
and approximately $200 million in tax
reductions.
Table 35
Executive Tax Forecast Summary
State Fiscal Years 2009-10 and 2010-11
($ in Millions)
2008-09 2009-10 Percent 2010-11
Actual Estimate Growth Forecast
Personal Income Tax
$23,196 $23,001
User Taxes
8,361
8,229
Business Taxes
5,556
5,688
Other
1,188
953
General Fund Taxes
38,302 37,871
Non-General Fund Taxes $22,036 $21,968
All Fund Taxes
$60,338 $59,839
Percent
Growth
-0.8% $24,649
-1.6%
8,635
2.4%
5,710
-19.8%
933
-1.1% 39,927
-0.3% $23,286
7.2%
4.9%
0.4%
-2.1%
5.4%
6.0%
-0.8% $63,213
5.6%
Overview 59
Table 36
Executive Revenue Estimates: Total Tax Collections SFY 2008-09 & SFY 2009-10
($ in Millions)
2008-09
2009-10
Percent
Actual
Estimate
Change
Growth
Personal Income Tax
Gross Receipts
Withholding
Estimated Payments
Vouchers
IT 370s
Final Payments
Delinquencies
Total Refunds
Prior Year Refunds
Current Refunds
Previous Refunds
State/City Offsets
Collections
User Taxes and Fees
Sales and Use Tax
Motor Fuel Tax
Cigarette Tax
Motor Vehicle Fees
Highway Use
Alcoholic Beverage Tax
Alcoholic Beverage Fees
Auto Rental Tax
Taxi Surcharge
Business Taxes
Corporate Franchise
Utility Tax
Insurance Tax
Bank Tax
Petroleum Business Tax
Other
Real Property Gains
Estate and Gift
Real Estate Transfer
Pari Mutuel
Other
MTA Payroll Tax
Total Taxes
Overview 60
$36,840
44,011
27,686
12,690
7,889
4,801
2,686
949
7,171
4,543
1,750
403
475
36,840
14,004
10,985
504
1,340
723
141
206
44
61
N/A
7,604
3,220
863
1,181
1,233
1,107
1,890
0
1,165
701
22
1
N/A
$60,338
35,230
41,817
29,198
9,517
7,398
2,119
1,836
1,266
6,587
4,938
1,250
474
(75)
35,230
13,994
10,668
501
1,335
982
140
223
52
79
14
7,824
2,962
968
1,412
1,363
1,119
1,408
932
455
20
1
1,383
$59,839
($1,610)
(2,194)
1,512
(3,173)
(491)
(2,682)
(850)
317
(584)
395
(500)
71
(550)
(1,610)
(10)
(317)
(3)
(5)
259
(1)
17
8
18
14
220
(258)
105
231
130
12
(482)
0
(233)
(246)
(2)
0
1,383
($499)
-4.4%
-5.0%
5.5%
-25.0%
-6.2%
-55.9%
-31.6%
33.4%
-8.1%
8.7%
-28.6%
17.6%
-115.8%
-4.4%
-0.1%
-2.9%
-0.6%
-0.4%
35.8%
-0.7%
8.3%
18.2%
29.5%
N/A
2.9%
-8.0%
12.2%
19.6%
10.5%
1.1%
-25.5%
0.0%
-20.0%
-35.1%
-9.1%
0.0%
N/A
-0.8%
Table 37
Executive Revenue Estimates: Total Tax Collections SFY 2009-10 & SFY 2010-11
($ in Millions)
2009-10
2010-11
Percent
Estimate
Forecast
Change
Growth
Personal Income Tax
Gross Receipts
Withholding
Estimated Payments
Vouchers
IT 370s
Final Payments
Delinquencies
Total Refunds
Prior Year Refunds
Current Refunds
Previous Refunds
State/City Offsets
Collections
User Taxes and Fees
Sales and Use Tax
Motor Fuel Tax
Cigarette Tax
Motor Vehicle Fees
Highway Use
Alcoholic Beverage Tax
Alcoholic Beverage Fees
Auto Rental Tax
Taxi Surcharge
Soft Drink/Syrup Excise Tax
Business Taxes
Corporate Franchise
Utility Tax
Insurance Tax
Bank Tax
Petroleum Business Tax
Other
Estate and Gift
Real Estate Transfer
Pari Mutuel
Other
MTA Payroll Tax
Total Taxes
35,230
41,817
29,198
9,517
7,398
2,119
1,836
1,266
6,587
4,938
1,250
474
(75)
35,230
13,994
10,668
501
1,335
982
140
223
52
79
14
N/A
7,824
2,962
968
1,412
1,363
1,119
1,408
932
455
20
1
1,383
$59,839
37,143
45,218
30,715
11,294
8,294
3,000
1,893
1,316
8,075
5,493
1,750
444
388
37,143
15,403
11,066
503
1,526
1,176
134
229
139
95
85
450
7,759
3,276
922
1,400
1,076
1,085
1,425
910
492
20
3
1,483
63,213
1,913
3,401
1,517
1,777
896
881
57
50
1,488
555
500
(30)
463
1,913
1,409
398
2
191
194
(6)
6
87
16
71
450
(65)
314
(46)
(12)
(287)
(34)
17
(22)
37
0
2
100
$3,374
5.4%
8.1%
5.2%
18.7%
12.1%
41.6%
3.1%
3.9%
22.6%
11.2%
40.0%
-6.3%
-617.3%
5.4%
10.1%
3.7%
0.4%
14.3%
19.8%
-4.3%
2.7%
167.3%
20.3%
507.1%
N/A
-0.8%
10.6%
-4.8%
-0.8%
-21.1%
-3.0%
1.2%
-2.4%
8.1%
0.0%
200.0%
7.2%
5.6%
Overview 61
EXECUTIVE TAX REVENUE PROPOSALS
The Executive Budget provides for over
$1.8 billion in tax and fee increases when
fully effective. Increases for SFY 2010-11
total $1.4 billion.
Personal Income Tax
•
Require certain S corporation gains
from acquisition, liquidation, and
installment sales of assets to be treated
as New York source income by
nonresident shareholders to the extent
that the business was conducted in
New York;
•
Make
termination
payments,
covenants not to compete and other
compensation for past services taxable
to nonresidents unless specifically
exempt under Federal law;
•
Equalize maximum bio-fuel and QETC
facilities, operations and training
credit caps for corporations and
unincorporated businesses;
•
Recognize legally performed same sex
marriages for purposes of determining
marital filing status;
•
Reduce the ability of certain resident
trusts to avoid tax through the use of
nonresident trustees;
•
Create a school property tax circuit
breaker credit, which would take
effect when the State ends its fiscal
year with a surplus as determined by
the Commissioner of Tax and Finance
and the Director of the Division of
Budget;
Overview 62
•
Eliminate STAR exemptions for
residences worth $1.5 million or
more;
•
Limit the STAR personal income tax
rate reduction benefit for New York
City residents to the first $250,000 of
income; and
•
Decrease the STAR exemption “floor”
from 89 percent to 82 percent.
Business Taxes
•
Make technical corrections to Part S-1
of Chapter 57 of 2009 (2009-10
Enacted Budget) to clarify that the
State Legislature intended to make
Empire
Zones
decertification
provisions applicable to tax year
2008;
•
Authorize the Commissioner of the
Division of Housing and Community
Renewal to allocate an additional
$4 million in State Low-Income
Housing Tax Credits to developers of
qualifying affordable housing projects
in New York;
•
Provide an additional film tax credit
allocation for calendar years 2010
through 2014 at $420 million per year
or $2.1 billion over this period;
•
Create a new set of economic
development incentives to replace the
expiring Empire Zones Program,
intended to provide sustained job
creation, investment, and research and
development expenditures in New
York State;
•
•
Introduce study language requiring the
Department of Taxation and Finance
to provide recommendations to
reform State and Local taxes on
telecommunications by December 1,
2010; and
•
Impose a new excise tax of $7.68 per
gallon for beverage syrups and $1.28
per gallon for bottled soft drinks,
powders, or base products;
•
Mirror federal requirements by
requiring certain financial institutions
to also file information returns with
the state annually regarding amounts
of credit/debit card settlements and
third party network transactions;
•
Authorizes cities to increase the local
utility gross receipts tax from
one percent to three percent.
•
Impose a three percent tax on the
market value of natural gas severed
from a gas pool in the Marcellus or
Utica Shale formation using a
horizontal well;
•
Increase the cigarette tax by $1 per
pack, from $2.75 a pack to $3.75. The
proportion of the cigarette tax
dedicated to HCRA will be increased
to 75 percent to ensure that all of the
additional revenue is used to fund
health care;
•
Maintain the New York Estate Tax
Unified Credit amount currently
allowed independent of Federal estate
tax law in effect on the date of death;
•
Extends the estate tax marital
deduction to partners in same-sex
marriages;
•
Extend certain pari-mutuel tax rates
and
authorization
for
account
wagering for a period of one year;
•
Authorizes and imposes an admissions
tax on professional combative sports
matches or exhibitions (i.e. mixed
martial arts) at a rate of 8.5 percent
with no cap, and a three percent tax
on receipts from broadcast rights not
to exceed $50,000;
•
Make permanent the authorization to
operate Quick Draw. The Quick Draw
game authorization expires on
May 31, 2010;
Extend Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) and
related bank tax provisions for one
year.
Other Actions
•
•
Authorize the use of statistical
sampling techniques for certain sales
tax audits;
Narrow the affiliate nexus provisions
by excluding as a basis for sales tax
vendor status an affiliate’s control over
the seller;
•
Allow the sale of wine in grocery,
convenience, and drug stores upon
payment of a franchise fee;
•
Expand the base of the mortgage
recording tax to include the financing
of cooperatives;
Overview 63
•
Eliminate restrictions on the Quick
Draw game related to the hours of
operation, food sales, and the size of
establishments;
•
Eliminate the restriction on the
number of hours per day the Video
Lottery Terminals may be operated;
and
•
Eliminate the sunset of the Video
Lottery Gaming program.
STAR Program
The Executive proposes several changes
to the STAR program, which are
contained in the Education, Labor and
Family Assistance Budget Article VII Bill.
These changes are expected to generate
$213 million in General Fund savings in
SFY 2010-11, increasing to $267 million
in SFY 2012-13.
•
Eliminate STAR eligibility for homes
valued at $1.5 million;
•
Increase the allowable annual STAR
base exemption (“floor”) adjustment
from 89 percent to 82 percent; and
•
Limit the benefit for taxpayers with
incomes above $250,000 from the
New York City STAR PIT tax table
reductions. The NYC tax rate for
taxpayers with incomes above
$250,000 would be increased from
3.2 percent to 3.4 percent.
Overview 64
Table 38
Recommended Legislation
(Dollar Amounts in Thousands)
I. Tax and Assessment Actions
Impose Severance Tax on Certain Natural Gas Producers - 9/11/10
Increase Cigarette Excise Tax (Includes $8M required transfer to NYG) - 6/2/10
Impose a New Excise Tax on Beverage Syrups and Soft Drinks - 9/1/10
Expand HCRA Surcharge to Physician Services - 10/1/10
Increase Hospital Assessment - 4/1/10
Increase Home Care Assessment - 4/1/10
Increase Nursing Home Assessment - 4/1/10
Tax and Assessment Actions - Subtotal
Annual
Annual
Revenue
Revenue
SFY 2010-11 SFY 2012-13
$0
$218,000
$465,000
$24,600
$130,200
$17,600
$67,800
$923,200
$3,000
$211,000
$1,000,000
$98,500
$142,000
$19,200
$73,950
$1,547,650
$0
$0
$2,000
$5,000
$30,000
$0
$30,000
$12,000
$25,000
$44,000
New or Increased Fees - Subtotal
$1,000
$41,000
$42,000
$17,072
$54,000
$71,072
IV. Tax Enforcement Action
Require Informational Returns for Credit and Debit Cards - 4/1/10
Allow the Use of Statistical Sampling for Certain Sales Tax Audits - 4/1/10
Improve Non-Voluntary Tax Collections - 4/1/10
Tax Enforcement Actions - Subtotal
$0
$8,000
$221,000
$229,000
$35,000
$12,000
$221,000
$268,000
V. Other Revenue Actions
Eliminate Quick Draw Restrictions - 4/1/10
Extend VLT Hours of Operation - 4/1/10
Extend Married Tax Filing Provisions to Same Sex Couples - 1/1/10
Narrow Affiliate Nexus Provisions - 6/1/10
Allow the Sale of Wine in Grocery Stores - 10/1/10
Legalize Mixed Martial Arts in New York - 8/1/10
Collect Surplus Funds from Workers Compensation Insurance Carriers - Immediately
Other Revenue Actions - Subtotal
$33,000
$45,000
$0
($5,000)
$93,000
$2,100
$23,600
$191,700
$54,000
$45,000
$0
($5,000)
$9,000
$2,100
$0
$105,100
II. Loophole Closing Action
Define Flow-Through Entities for QETC and Biofuel Credit Claims - 1/1/10
Treat Compensation For Past Services as Taxable for Non Residents - 1/1/10
Treat S-Corp Gains and Installment Income as Taxable to Non Residents - Various
Close Resident Trust Loophole - 1/1/10
Loophole Closing Actions - Subtotal
III. New or Increased Fees
Establish Early Intervention Parental Fees - 3/1/10
Increase Certain Civil Court Filing Fees - 7/1/10
Overview 65
Recommended Legislation - Continued
(Dollar Amounts in Thousands)
Annual
Annual
Revenue
Revenue
SFY 2010-11 SFY 2012-13
VI. New or Expanded Tax Credits
Expand the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program - 1/1/10
Extend and Expand the Film Tax Credit - 4/1/10
Create Excelsior Jobs Program - 7/1/10
New or Expanded Tax Credits - Subtotal
VII. Technical Corrections and Extenders
Extend Major Provisions of the Bank Tax and Temporary GLB Provisions - 1/1/10
Extend the Pari-Mutuel Tax - 4/1/10
Make Technical Corrections to the 2009-10 Enacted Budget Empire Zones Program
Changes - 1/1/08
Make Technical Corrections to the 2009-10 Enforcement Provisions - Various
Amend theTax on Medallion Taxicab Rides - 6/1/10
Technical Corrections and Extenders - Subtotal
VIII. New or Increased Fines
Deploy Speed Enforcement Cameras - 4/1/10
New or Increased Fines - Subtotal
ALL REVENUE ACTIONS - GRAND TOTAL
Overview 66
($4,000)
$0
$0
($4,000)
($4,000)
($168,100)
($50,000)
($222,100)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$32,900
$32,900
$1,444,800
$53,800
$53,800
$1,867,522
EXECUTIVE MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS
Forecast
VLT payment and $200 million in sweeps
from the Battery Park City Authority.
SFY 2009-10 Estimate
The Executive estimates that total
miscellaneous receipts in SFY 2009-10
will total $22.133 billion, a growth of
10.3 percent or $2.069 billion. The
majority of the increase in miscellaneous
receipts reflects increased State University
Income from increased tuition and fees
and increased Lottery revenues from the
franchise fee for operating VLTs at
Aqueduct Racetrack.
The Executive’s current estimate is
$748 million higher than their Mid-Year
Financial Plan Update released in
November. The upward revision is
partially attributable to the $200 million
SFY 2010-11 Outlook
All Funds tax miscellaneous receipts are
expected to decrease by $592 million or
2.7 percent to $21.541 billion. The
decrease in revenues can be attributed to
the loss of one-time revenue sources.
Special revenue, capital projects and debt
service receipts are all expected to be
relatively flat. The only major change is
expected in general fund miscellaneous
receipts, which are forecast to decrease
$604 million or 17.2 percent due to the
loss of one-time revenue sources.
Table 39
Executive Miscellaneous Receipts Forecast Summary
State Fiscal Years 2009-10 and 2010-11
($ in Millions)
2008-09 2009-10 Percent 2010-11
Actual Estimate Growth Forecast
Special Revenue
Capital Projects
Debt Service
General Fund
Total
$13,089 $14,349
3,459
3,022
844
817
3,105
3,508
20,060 22,133
9.6% $14,261
14.5%
3,597
-3.2%
779
13.0%
2,904
10.3% 21,541
Percent
Growth
-0.6%
4.0%
-4.7%
-17.2%
-2.7%
Overview 67
Table 40
Executive Miscellaneous Receipts Estimates: SFY 2008-09 & SFY 2009-10
($ in Millions)
2008-09 2009-10
Percent
Actual Estimate
Change Growth
Special Revenue
HCRA
State University
Lottery
Medicaid
Industry Assessments
All other
Capital Projects
Authority Bond Proceeds
State park Fees
Environmental Revenues
All Other
Debt Service
Mental Hygiene Patient Receipts
SUNY Dormitory Fees
Health Patient Receipts
All Other
General Fund
Licenses, Fees, etc.
Abandoned Property
Reimbursements
Investment Income
Other Transactions
Total
Overview 68
$13,089
3,614
2,958
2,732
562
868
2,355
$3,022
2,759
24
37
202
$844
298
419
108
19
$3,105
562
698
253
104
1,488
$20,060
14,349
3,891
3,367
3,019
687
912
2,473
3,459
3,195
24
24
216
817
352
338
98
29
3,508
598
550
272
25
2,064
22,133
1,260
277
409
287
125
44
118
437
436
0
(13)
14
(27)
54
(81)
(10)
10
403
36
(148)
19
(79)
576
$2,073
9.6%
7.7%
13.8%
10.5%
22.2%
5.1%
5.0%
14.5%
15.8%
0.0%
-35.1%
6.9%
-3.2%
18.1%
-19.3%
-9.3%
52.6%
13.0%
6.4%
-21.2%
7.3%
-76.0%
38.7%
10.3%
Table 41
Executive Miscellaneous Receipts Estimates: SFY 2009-10 & SFY 2010-11
($ in Millions)
2009-10 2010-11
Percent
Estimate Estimate
Change Growth
Special Revenue
HCRA
State University
Lottery
Medicaid
Industry Assessments
All other
Capital Projects
Authority Bond Proceeds
State park Fees
Environmental Revenues
All Other
Debt Service
Mental Hygiene Patient Receipts
SUNY Dormitory Fees
Health Patient Receipts
All Other
General Fund
Licenses, Fees, etc.
Abandoned Property
Reimbursements
Investment Income
Other Transactions
Total
14,349
3,891
3,367
3,019
687
912
2,473
$3,459
3,195
24
24
216
$817
352
338
98
29
$3,508
598
550
272
25
2,064
$22,133
14,261
3,779
3,531
3,026
915
886
2,124
3,597
3,305
24
24
244
779
298
341
98
42
2,904
665
550
222
60
1,407
21,541
(88)
(112)
164
7
228
(26)
(349)
138
110
0
0
28
(38)
(54)
3
0
13
(604)
68
0
(50)
35
(657)
-$592
-0.6%
-2.9%
4.9%
0.2%
33.2%
-2.9%
-14.1%
4.0%
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
13.0%
-4.7%
-15.3%
0.9%
0.0%
44.8%
-17.2%
11.3%
0.0%
-18.4%
140.0%
-31.8%
-2.7%
Overview 69
EXECUTIVE MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS
Proposals
The Executive Budget provides for actions
that will increase All Funds miscellaneous
receipts by $417 million in SFY 2010-11
to total $21.541 billion.
Health
•
Expand the 9.63 percent HCRA
Surcharge to outpatient surgical and
radiological
services
effective
October 1, 2010;
•
Increase
Hospital
Inpatient
Assessment from 0.35 percent to
0.75 percent, effective April 1, 2010;
•
Increase Home Care Assessment from
0.35 percent to 0.7 percent, effective
April 1, 2010;
•
Increase Nursing Home Assessment
from 6 percent to 7 percent, effective
April 1, 2010, this would not be
reimbursable by Medicaid;
•
Establish Early Intervention Parental
Fees, ranging from $45 to $540 per
child
per
quarter,
effective
March 1, 2011.
Judiciary
•
Increase Certain Civil Court Filing
Fees, effective July 1, 2010.
Lottery
•
Eliminate Quick Draw Restrictions,
effective April 1, 2010;
Overview 70
•
Extend VLT Hours of Operation,
effective April 1, 2010.
Workers Compensation
•
Collect Surplus Funds from Workers
Compensation Insurance Carriers,
effective immediately.
State Police
•
Deploy Speed Enforcement Cameras
in forty designated highway work
zones and ten additional locations,
effective April 1, 2010.
APPROPRIATION BUDGET BILLS
A. 9700/S.6600
Public Protection and General Government
A. 9701/S.6601
Legislature and Judiciary
A. 9702/S.6602
Debt Service
A. 9703/S.6603
Education, Labor and Family Assistance
A. 9704/S.6604
Health and Mental Hygiene
A. 9705/S.6605
Transportation, Economic Development
and Environmental Conservation
A. 9711/S.6611
Deficiency Appropriations for State Fiscal Year 2009-10
A. 9712/S.6612
Deficiency Appropriations for State Fiscal Year 2009-10
Overview 71
NON-APPROPRIATION BUDGET BILLS
Section 22 of the State Finance Law requires the Executive Budget to include a list of proposed legislation submitted pursuant to
Article VII of the State Constitution. In addition to the major appropriation bills, the following Article VII bills have been
submitted that set forth the policy initiatives contained in the Executive Budget.
A.9700 - PUBLIC PROTECTION AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT
PART
A
Overview 72
B
C
D
DESCRIPTION
Merge the operation of the Crime
Victims Board (CVB), Office for
the Prevention of Domestic
Violence (OPDV), and the Division
of Probation and Correctional
Services (DPCA) into the Division
of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS)
Create the Department of Homeland
Security and Emergency Services
SUMMARY
This part would consolidate the operations of CVB, OPDV, and DPCA into DCJS. Each
agency would be restructured and become a specialized office under the authority of the
Commissioner of DCJS. In addition to administratively restructuring CVB, OPDV, and
DPCA, this part would change the manner in which crime victim compensation claims are
determined.
This proposal would merge the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of Cyber
Security and Critical Infrastructure Coordination, the State Emergency Management
Office, the Office of Fire Prevention and Control, the 911 Board currently within the
Department of State, and the State Interoperable Communications Office currently located
in the Office For Technology into a single Department of Homeland Security and
Emergency Services, each operating as a distinct office under a single commissioner. It
would expand the membership of the Disaster Preparedness Commission to include
additional commissioners and assume the duties of the former Civil Defense Commission,
and it would create an intrastate municipal aid program to be utilized in a situation when
local government responders are shared during a disaster. The Fire Safe Cigarette
Program would stay within the Department of State.
Establish the Rape Crisis Program
This part would remove oversight of the Rape Crisis Program from DOH and instead
within the Division of Criminal
establish the program under the authority of DCJS. DCJS would assume the responsibility
Justice Services (DCJS) and remove to promulgate rules and regulations for the approval of rape crisis programs that provide
the administration of such program training and certification for rape crisis counselors.
from the Department of Health
(DOH)
Remove certain responsibilities
This part would require probation departments to prepare a pre-sentence investigation in
from local probation departments
misdemeanor cases only when a term of imprisonment in excess of 180 days is imposed.
and change the method of
distribution for state probation aid
to localities
E
Overview 73
F
G
H
I
J
It would also remove a requirement that a pre-sentence investigation be completed in
every youthful offender case and instead only require such investigation in cases when a
sentence of imprisonment in excess of 180 days or probation is imposed. This part would
expand the Probation Detainer Warrant Pilot Project, increasing the ability of probation
officers instead of judges to issue warrants. It would also require probationers granted
permission to travel outside the state to sign a waiver of extradition as a condition of
probation. It would change the manner in which state probation aid is distributed to
counties from a reimbursement model to a grant program.
Create Office of Indigent Defense
This part would create the Office of Indigent Defense within the Division of Criminal
and change method for distributing Justice Services. Such office would be governed by the Indigent Defense Board and be
state public defense funding
responsible for examining and evaluating existing public defense services and making
recommendations to the Board to enhance the provision of indigent defense services. This
part would also repeal the existing formula for distributing state funding to counties from
the Indigent Legal Services Fund and instead provide for an annual distribution to New
York City of $40 million and authorize the Indigent Defense Board to distribute the
remaining funds to counties.
Authorize counties to create offices This part would authorize counties to create offices of conflict defender to represent
of conflict defender as part of a plan indigent defendants when the office of public defender is unable to represent such
to provide representation to indigent defendants due to a conflict of interest.
defendants
Expand the category of offenders
This part would expand the category of offenders required to provide a DNA sample for
that must submit a DNA sample
inclusion in the State DNA Databank to all persons convicted of a felony or misdemeanor
defined in the penal law, youthful offenders, and persons required to register as sex
offenders. It also would designate the criminal justice agency responsible for collecting
DNA samples from offenders and make it a class A misdemeanor for failure of an
individual to provide a DNA sample.
Authorize the use of photoThis part would authorize the Division of State Police (DSP), Division of Criminal Justice
monitoring equipment to enforce
Services (DCJS), and any agency, division, or authority designated by the DSP to establish
speed limits
a program for the operation of photo-monitoring devices and the imposition of liability on
vehicle owners for speed limit violations in work zones and designated stretches of
highways.
Reduce the number of Parole Board This part would reduce the maximum number of Parole Board members from nineteen to
members
thirteen. It also would reduce the term of office for each member of the Parole Board from
six to five years.
Alter the segregation rules for
This part would amend the segregation rules for inmates housed in local jails by allowing
certain local jail inmates, expand
juvenile inmates under the age of nineteen to be housed with adult inmates up to twenty-
use of video conferencing in
criminal proceedings, and permit
inmates to voluntarily work for nonprofits
K
L
M
Overview 74
N
O
P
Increase filing fees for civil
proceedings commenced and
pending in court
Provide authority for towns and
villages to consolidate justice courts
Require the Office of Court
Administration to make public local
fiscal impact of its actions that
affect localities
Authorize local governments to
finance public safety
communications systems through
the Municipal Bond Bank Agency
Merge the State Employment
Relations Board (SERB) into the
Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB)
Repeal mandatory centralized
contract fees
Q
Transfer workers’ compensation
assessment moneys
R
Authorize Workers’ Compensation
Board to pursue funds
one years of age. It would also expand the use of video conferencing in criminal
proceedings and remove the requirement that the defendant consent to such video
conferencing. This part would further authorize local correctional facilities to house men
and women receiving medical treatment in a facility infirmary together, provided that
proper separation is maintained according to rules and regulations promulgated by the
State Commission of Correction. Finally, this part would permit inmates to leave a
correctional facility under guard to voluntarily perform work for nonprofit organizations.
This part would increase various filings fees (index number, motion and cross motion, and
first paper filing fees) for actions in courts across the state. Funds so received would
increase General Fund revenue.
This part would permit two or more municipalities to share court facilities and two or more
contiguous municipalities to more easily consolidate their justice courts.
This part would require the Chief Administrative Judge to make a public accounting of the
expected impact on local governments of any regulation that requires a locality to create a
program or to implement a higher level of service.
This part would add local public safety communications bonds to the list of municipal
bonds that may be purchased and pooled by the Municipal Bond Bank Agency for the
purpose of funding local public safety communications systems.
This part would abolish SERB and transfer its responsibilities for providing labor
mediation for the private sector to PERB.
This part would repeal the section of law that requires contractors to include a surcharge
on the purchase price charged to entities using centralized contracts and remit such fees to
the Department of Taxation and Finance quarterly.
This part would require workers’ compensation carriers to remit to the State surplus
money collected by the carriers in excess of the amount actually billed them by the
Workers’ Compensation Board.
This part would allow the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) to borrow further from
the Uninsured Employer’s Fund, enforce judgments against defaulted employers, and
provide other mechanisms to allow the Board to recognize certain insurance products that
provide benefits for injured workers.
S
T
U
V
W
Overview 75
X
Y
Z
AA
BB
Grant joint Division of Budget
(DOB) and Office of State
Comptroller (OSC) appointment
authority for the Statewide
Financial System project
Authorize New York State Health
Insurance Program (NYSHIP) SelfInsurance
Require Medicare Part B
contributions
Authorize pension amortization
Merge the Office of Real Property
Services and the Department of
Taxation and Finance and eliminate
the State Board of Real Property
Services
Require publication of a report of
assessment data and allow
electronic filing of real property
transfer forms
Change the State’s reassessment aid
program
Reduce funding from Aid and
Incentives for Municipalities (AIM)
program
Decrease State aid to municipalities
in which a video lottery gaming
facility is located
Impose four-year moratorium on
new programs imposing certain
costs on localities
This part would allow DOB and OSC to jointly assign and appoint officers and employees
to a joint project to develop, implement, and maintain a single statewide financial system
for use by OSC and all State agencies and for those appointments to be titled members of
the civil service system, treated as a single independent department for those purposes.
This part would allow NYSHIP to operate as a self-insured plan.
This part would require state employees and retirees to contribute ten percent for
individual and twenty-five percent for dependent premiums for Medicare Part B.
This part would provide State and local governments the option to amortize a portion of
their pension contribution costs over six years.
This part would eliminate the Office of Real Property Services and create an Office of
Real Property Tax Services within the Department of Taxation and Finance to assume its
functions. It would also eliminate the State Board of Real Property Services and divide its
duties among the Department of Taxation and Finance, the Tax Appeals Tribunal, and the
State Civil Service Commission.
This part would require assessors to annually provide a report containing certain
assessment data for publication on the State Board of Real Property Services’ website and
in the local assessment office. This part would also allow real property transfer forms to be
filed electronically.
This part would change the State’s reassessment aid program by requiring assessing units
to agree to an approved multiyear reevaluation plan. Such plan would be required to be at
least four years in duration and include a reassessment at least once every four years and
inventory data collection at least once every six years.
This part would authorize decreases in AIM funding based on the municipality’s reliance
on AIM. This part would also eliminate AIM funding for New York City.
This part would authorize a ten percent decrease in funding received by municipalities in
which a video lottery gaming facility is located.
This part would prohibit for four years new legislation imposing costs on localities if the
annual net cost to any single local government is over $10,000 or if the aggregate annual
net cost to all local governments in the State is over $1 million. This part would also
require any bill that proposes to substantially affect the revenue or expenses of local
CC
DD
EE
FF
Overview 76
GG
HH
II
governments to contain a fiscal note stating the estimated annual cost and the source of
such estimate.
Modify public bidding requirements This part would exempt school districts and the City of Yonkers Educational Construction
(Wicks law)
Fund from the public bidding requirements contained in the Wicks Law. It would make
permanent the New York City School Construction Authority requirements relating to
bidding on public works projects.
Set interest rates on judgments
This part would change the rate of interest applied to judgments against government
against governmental entities
entities from not more than nine percent to a floating rate.
Provide mechanisms for local
This part would allow multiple counties to share one director of weights and measures and
governments to restructure and
would allow a county treasurer to serve as the tax collecting officer for a city, town,
share services
village, or school district. This part would also allow a fire company or a fire district to
apply for a five-year waiver to the current membership residency requirement.
Make changes to the procurement
This part would increase the competitive bidding thresholds for local governments’ public
process for local governments and
works and service contracts, allow local governments to require electronic bidding, allow
the State.
reverse auctions, allow contracts to be awarded based on best value, allow piggybacking
on certain federal and state contracts, and allow local governments to advertise for bids in
the statewide procurement opportunities newsletter rather than their official newspaper.
This part would also allow the State to use electronic bidding and reverse auctions and
would increase the State’s threshold for using short-term construction contracts done by
special order.
Make changes to the structure and
This part would eliminate commissioner compensation for commissioner-run special
operation of commissioner-run
districts, transfer the duties of sanitary districts from commissioners to town boards, and
special districts
provide a mechanism for town boards and citizens through a petition to abolish the offices
of commissioners of a special district.
Provide local governments with
This part would authorize municipal police departments to charge fees for accident reports,
options to raise revenues
allow local governments to make deposits in credit unions, allow certain local
governments to charge fees for ambulance and emergency medical services, authorize
local governments to charge for the provision of extra police protection at certain events,
and allow cities and villages to increase their gross receipts tax on certain utilities.
Authorize the New York City
This part would authorize TFA to issue QSBCs, which are federal subsidy bonds, without
Transitional Finance Authority
regard to the Authority’s cap on sinking fund bonds for the purposes of school
(TFA) to issue Qualified School
construction.
Construction bonds (QSCBs) as
sinking fund bonds
JJ
Authorize sweeps, transfers, and
modifications to debt provisions
This part would provide the statutory authorization necessary for the administration of
funds and accounts included in the SFY 2010-11 Financial Plan. Specifically, it would: (1)
authorize temporary loans and the deposits of certain revenues to specific funds and
accounts; (2) authorize the transfers and deposits of funds to and across various accounts;
(3) continue or extend various provisions of laws related to capital projects; and (4)
authorize modifications to various debt provisions.
Overview 77
A.9703 - EDUCATION, LABOR AND FAMILY ASSISTANCE
DESCRIPTION
Amend the Education Law to adjust
the planned phase-in of Foundation
Aid, implement a Gap Elimination
Adjustment, modify and extend the
Contract for Excellence program,
require reporting on mandates to
school districts, authorize regional
transportation services, and make
other changes
B
Amend the Education Law to
reduce the number of plans, reports,
and applications required of school
districts
Amend the Education Law to
conform state aid category titles
Eliminate the New York State
Theatre Institute (NYSTI) and the
Empire State Plaza Performing Arts
Center Corporation (the Egg)
reporting requirements and budget
submission
Overview 78
PART
A
C
D
SUMMARY
This part would require that all current Contract for Excellence school districts continue in
the program unless all schools in the district are reported as “In Good Standing” and
require Contract districts for the 2010-11 school year to maintain spending on menu
options at 2009-10 levels minus the net reduction of the district’s Gap Elimination
Assessment, require the board of regents to provide a cost-benefit analysis of any proposed
legislation, rule, or regulation, or policy directive that contains a mandate, authorize school
districts to provide regional transportation services, clarify contingency budget limits,
extend the phase-in schedule for Foundation Aid to the 2016-17 school year, make other
formula changes, and implement a Gap Elimination Adjustment within formula-based
aids. This part would also authorize school districts to make withdrawals from their
Employee Benefits Accrued Liability Reserve funds in order to maintain educational
programming during the 2010-11 school year in an amount limited to the lesser of excess
funds as determined by the State Comptroller or the school district’s Gap Elimination
Adjustment, decrease funding for aid to public libraries, modify the preschool special
education program by limiting the growth in the county share to two percent per year,
modify special education transition processes, and modify reimbursement levels for
special education summer school.
This part would require the Commissioner of Education to eliminate duplicative reporting
requirements and to reduce the number of plans, reports, and applications required of
school districts by establishing unified electronic data collection systems.
This part would rename state aid categories for special education and make conforming
changes to that effect in the Education Law.
This part would eliminate NYSTI’s and the Egg’s requirements to submit annual budget
requests and annual reports.
Modify various flexibility
provisions for the state and city
universities of New York State
This part would: authorize the State University of New York (SUNY) and the City
University of New York (CUNY) boards of trustees to implement differential tuition rates
by campus or program; authorize SUNY and CUNY boards of trustees to increase tuition
up to 2.5 times the five-year rolling average of the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI);
authorize SUNY and CUNY to receive and disburse revenues from tuition, fees, and other
sources without an appropriation; authorize SUNY to lease land and to enter into
public/private partnerships subject to the approval of a new State University Asset
Maximization Review Board; authorize the SUNY board of trustees to accept gifts of real
property; authorize SUNY, SUNY health care facilities, and CUNY to purchase goods and
services without prior approval by any State agency; authorize not-for-profit organizations
affiliated with SUNY to participate in centralized contracts maintained by the Office of
General Services; authorize SUNY health care facilities to participate in managed care
networks and other joint and cooperative arrangements with public, not-for-profit, or
business entities; indemnify SUNY and CUNY students who are enrolled in required
clinical or internship programs; and increase SUNY and CUNY master plan cycles with
the Board of Regents from four years to eight years. The State University Construction
Fund (SUCF) would be authorized to establish guidelines for procurements that are
consistent with the standards that apply to public authorities, determine their staffing and
services/equipment needs, utilize alternative construction delivery methods, and increase
the threshold from $50,000 to $250,000 for projects that require a performance bond. The
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) would be authorized to
finance/construct facilities on behalf of campus affiliated not-for-profits, foundations, and
corporations, finance/construct community college dormitories on their behalf, and allow
the City University Construction Fund and DASNY to utilize alternative construction
delivery methods for CUNY projects. This part would also allow medical, dental, and
optometric residents and interns who provide services at SUNY health care facilities to opt
into the State and Local Employees’ Retirement System, but would not allow them to
participate in the Optional Retirement Program or the Teachers’ Retirement System.
Finally, this part would require managed care programs to create a report for the Governor
and Legislature detailing to whom they are providing services at the College of
Optometry.
F
Modify the Tuition Assistance
Program (TAP) to create academic
progress standards
This part would modify the TAP Program by creating academic progress standards for
non-remedial students receiving TAP awards as a measure of determining academic
eligibility.
Overview 79
E
G
H
I
J
Overview 80
K
L
M
N
O
Modify the Tuition Assistance
Program (TAP) eligibility
requirements relating to students in
default on New York State and
federal loans
Eliminate the Tuition Assistance
Program (TAP) eligibility for
graduate students
Modify the Tuition Assistance
Program (TAP) award schedules for
financially independent students
under age twenty-two and married
students without children
Reduce the Tuition Assistance
Program (TAP) awards for students
attending certain two year
institutions
Provide the Tuition Assistance
Program (TAP) awards to students
attending certain higher education
institutions
Reduce all the Tuition Assistance
Programs (TAP) awards by $75
Modify the Tuition Assistance
Program (TAP) program to include
all private pension and annuity
income in award calculations
Extend the Patricia K. McGee
Nursing Faculty Scholarship and
Nursing Faculty Loan Forgiveness
programs
Extend the Regents Physician Loan
Forgiveness Program
This part would modify TAP eligibility requirements to prohibit students in default on
New York State and federal student loans not guaranteed by the Higher Education
Services Corporation from receiving TAP awards until the student cures the default.
This part would eliminate TAP eligibility for graduate students.
This part would modify the TAP award schedules and increase TAP awards for financially
independent students under age twenty-two without children from $3,025 to $5,000 and
decrease TAP awards for married students without children from $5,000 to $3,025.
This part would reduce the maximum TAP award for students attending two year degreegranting institutions that do not offer four year degrees from $5,000 to $4,000.
This part would provide TAP awards to students attending not-for-profit New York State
higher education institutions that are not under the State Education Department’s direct
supervision but are eligible for funds under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
that are accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education, that have
students who are eligible to receive Pell grants, and that provide instruction of at least
three years.
This part would reduce each TAP award by $75 or by the actual award when it is less than
$75 for the 2010-11 academic year and each academic year thereafter.
This part would modity the TAP program to include the first $20,000 of private pension
income of those fifty-nine and a half years and older in TAP award calculations.
This part would extend the Patricia K. McGee Nursing Faculty Scholarship and Nursing
Faculty Loan Forgiveness programs from June 30, 2010, until June 30, 2015.
This part would extend the Regents Loan Forgiveness Program until the end of the 201011 academic year.
P
Q
R
S
Eliminate the Scholarships for
Academic Excellence Program and
the Math and Science Teaching
Incentive Program
Modify the community college
chargeback provision
Extend current social worker and
mental health professional licensing
exemptions
Modify the New York Higher
Education Loan Program
(NYHELPs)
Overview 81
T
Impose additional requirements on
recipients of loan forgiveness
program
U
Expand State University of New
York (SUNY) Optional Retirement
Program investment choices
Eliminate STAR exemption for
properties worth $1.5 million or
more
Lower the STAR “floor” adjustment
from eighty-nine percent to eightytwo percent
V
W
This part would eliminate the Scholarships for Academic Excellence program and the
Math and Science Teaching Incentive Programs in the 2010-11 academic year and
thereafter.
This part would prohibit community colleges whose undergraduate students are enrolled in
a two-year program of study leading to a baccalaureate degree from charging nonresidents an amount sufficient to cover their portion of the local sponsor’s share of
operating costs.
This part would extend social worker and mental health professional licensing exemptions
for the Department of Mental Hygiene, the Office of Children and Family Services, and
local government programs from June 1, 2010, until June 1, 2014.
This part would modify NYHELPs to include an economic hardship forbearance that
would be implemented by regulations promulgated by the Higher Education Services
Corporation (HESC), allow for the discharge of loans by order of a bankruptcy court and
for borrowers who die while on active military duty, require cosigners to successfully
complete a financial literacy course, conform provisions for wage garnishment to federal
law, require borrowers and cosigners to electronically sign loan documents, prohibit
otherwise eligible borrowers/cosigners from obtaining a loan if the student for whom the
loan is for is in default on a student loan, require applicants for professional license to
report to the State Education Department when they are in default on a NYHELPs loan,
and allow HESC to receive data from the Department of Taxation and Finance.
This part would require that indigent legal service attorneys who are beneficiaries of the
loan forgiveness program under the District Attorney and Legal Services Attorney Loan
Forgiveness program be residents of New York State and would grandfather in certain
other district attorney applicants.
This part would authorize SUNY to offer employees who participate in the Optional
Retirement Program the choice of investing in alternative mutual funds.
This part would eliminate the STAR exemption for all properties with a market value of
$1.5 million or more.
This part would lower from eighty-nine to eighty-two percent the “floor” adjustment
amount, which is used to limit the percentage by which a STAR tax exemption may be
reduced. This would allow an assessing unit’s STAR exemption to be reduced by up to
eighteen percent rather than eleven percent.
X
Y
Restructure New York City
Personal Income Tax STAR
Authorize the use of an electronic
benefit transfer system for the foster
care and adoption programs
Overview 82
Z
Create the Kinship Guardianship
Assistance Program
AA
Narrow instances of court-ordered
child protective investigations
BB
Expand the use of electronic
appearances in Family Court
proceedings
Clarify the scope and fiscal
responsibility associated with the
Safe Harbour for Exploited
Children Act
CC
DD
Authorize child care unions to
collect payments from nonunionized home-based child care
providers
EE
Modify county planning
requirements
This part would limit the New York City Personal Income Tax STAR benefit to the first
$250,000 of income.
This part would authorize local social services districts to make payments to foster and
adoptive parents using debit cards and direct deposits. The Office of Children and Family
Services (OCFS) would be provided regulatory authority to establish guidelines for the use
of such payment methods. OCFS would also be authorized to establish other methods of
payment through regulation.
This part would establish the payment of subsidies to kinship guardians and set forth
eligibility standards for approved foster parents to become subsidized kinship guardians.
Children eligible for placement must have been in foster care with the kinship foster parent
who is applying for subsidized guardianship for at least six months. The State share for
payments would be made through the existing Foster Care Block Grant.
This part would direct that a Family Court judge may order a child protective investigation
only when there is reasonable cause to suspect abuse or neglect. Judges would not be
authorized to order that an investigation be completed within a shorter timeframe than is
otherwise required by current law.
This part would expand the ability of the Family Court to permit certain witnesses, parties,
and interested persons to attend or testify at any proceeding by electronic means, including
by telephone and audio-visual apparatus.
This part would make amendments to the Safe Harbor Act of 2008. These would include:
narrowing the definition of sexually exploited child; adding that a long-term safe house
may be operated by a Temporary Independent Living Program; providing for notification
of parents or guardians; expanding the circumstances when a juvenile delinquent may be
considered a severely trafficked person; and establishing that the services provided would
be put forward only to the extent funds are appropriated.
This part would authorize the deduction and transfer of payments to child care unions from
home-based child care providers who opt not to become members. The payment would be
for services rendered by the union on behalf of all home-based providers. The union
would be responsible for financing any technological changes necessary to implement the
payment. For providers receiving child care subsidies from local social services districts,
the payment would be deducted from the amount of the subsidy. The union would
indemnify the State for any and all liability that may arise from action take to comply with
this provision.
This part would reduce requirements associated with each county’s required multi-year
consolidated services plans. These plans include information regarding adult, child, and
family services such as foster care, PINS diversion, and preventive and adoption services.
FF
GG
HH
Overview 83
II
JJ
KK
Authorize the State to withhold
payments to local districts that have
failed to reimburse Office of
Children and Family Services
(OCFS) for costs associated with
youth facilities
Modify the scheduled public
assistance grant increase
Authorize the Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) federal costof-living adjustment pass-through
Authorize the State to administer
additional State payments for
Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) recipients and other eligible
individuals
Transfer the administration of the
Nutrition Outreach and Public
Education Program
Authorize the Office of Temporary
and Disability Assistance (OTDA)
to receive wage reporting data
Such changes would include eliminating annual implementation reports, removing the
requirement to hold public hearings, and removing certain information from the plan.
This part would authorize OCFS to withhold payments due to local social services districts
in order to offset youth facility payments overdue by sixty days or more. OCFS, subject to
the approval of the Director of the Budget, would be authorized to adjust facility per-diem
rates reflecting changes in federal funds.
This part would reduce from ten percent to five percent the statutory July 2010 public
assistance grant increase and make a similar reduction for the next three years. The full
thirty percent grant increase enacted in 2009 would be implemented by July 2013 rather
than July 2011. The State would continue to be responsible for the local share of the
increase through State Fiscal Year 2013-2014.
This part would increase SSI rates to pass through to the recipient a federal cost of living
adjustment for individuals receiving SSI who reside in residential care, family care, or
enhanced residential care settings.
This part would authorize the Commissioner of the Office of Temporary Disability
Assistance to administer directly or indirectly the additional state payment for individuals
eligible for the federal SSI benefits, make changes to the eligibility criteria for the
additional state payment, and provide definitions for certain terms.
This part would transfer the administration of the Nutrition Outreach and Public Education
Program from the Department of Health to the Office of Temporary and Disability
Assistance.
This part would authorize OTDA to receive wage information for former recipients of
public assistance from the Department of Taxation and Finance for a period of three years
and six months after they leave public assistance. OTDA would not be authorized to utilize
wage data to recover public assistance.
A.9704 - HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE
Overview 84
PART
A
DESCRIPTION
Modify certain Public Health and
Aging Programs
B
Modify Medicaid Reimbursement
structures, propose pharmacy
changes, modify Health Care
Reform Act (HCRA) allocations,
and modify public health insurance
coverage and responsibility
C
Revise long term care
reimbursement and service
provision
D
Reinstate Superintendent of
Insurance prior approval of health
insurance rate adjustments
E
Authorize facility directors to act as
representative payees
Repeal reporting requirements
regarding underserved populations
F
SUMMARY
This part would modify the Early Intervention program, including implementing fees for
parents and requiring certain providers to bill Medicaid, restructure, consolidate, and
eliminate certain programs in the Department of Health and State Office for the Aging,
make changes to the General Public Health Work program, and eliminate the Elderly
Pharmaceutical Insurance Coverage (EPIC) Part D drug coverage.
This part would discontinue the 2010 trend factor for certain health care providers,
increase the hospital assessment, modify the indigent care reimbursement methodology,
implement measures to limit preventable hospital readmissions, implement certain
pharmacy changes, modify and eliminate several HCRA allocations, implement provisions
to accelerate cost recoveries, expand Child Health Plus benefits, modify eligibility
provisions for the Medicaid, Child Health Plus, and Family Health Plus Buy-In programs,
increase the number of Transitional Care Units, increase penalties for Medicaid fraud,
make technical budget changes, and extend expiring laws.
This part would increase the nursing home and home and personal care assessment, extend
nursing home rebasing, and postpone the implementation of regional pricing
reimbursement methodology, carve out prescription drugs from the nursing home
reimbursement rate, cap personal care service utilization, implement episodic
reimbursement for Certified Home Health Agencies, make certain changes to the Long
Term Home Health Care program, establish a number of Long Term Care demonstration
programs, expand the nursing home program, and make changes to the Managed Long
Term Care program.
This part would reinstate prior approval by the Superintendent of Insurance of health
insurance rate adjustments made by the health maintenance organizations, not-for-profit
insurers, and commercial insurers authorized to write accident and health insurance, and
raise the minimum medical loss ratio to eighty-five percent across the board.
This part would permit mental hygiene facility directors to act as representative payees in
accordance with applicable federal laws and regulations.
This part would eliminate the requirement that the Office of Mental Health submit a report
on mental health services to traditionally underserved populations.
G
H
I
J
K
Overview 85
L
M
N
Authorize video teleconferencing
for certain Sex Offender
Management and Treatment Act
(SOMTA) proceedings
Extend the Community Mental
Health Support and Workforce
Reinvestment Program and reduce
number of beds
Authorize certain Medicaid
recoveries
Address payments to family-care
homes and community residential
facilities
Require Office of Alcohol and
Substance Abuse Services
(OASAS) certification of hospitals
and Article 28 detoxification
services
Transfer the Alcohol and Drug
Rehabilitation Program from the
Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) to the Office of Alcoholism
and Substance Abuse Services
(OASAS)
Eliminate Unified Service planning
and funding
Defer Human Services cost of
living adjustment (COLA)
This part would authorize the use of video teleconferencing during certain SOMTA
proceedings, except for trials, unless good cause is shown and the parties consent.
This part would authorize the Office of Mental Health to reduce inpatient capacity by no
more than 250 beds in 2010-11 with limited notice and no reinvestment provisions; some
of these beds would become Transitional Placement Beds. This part would also extend the
Community Mental Health Support and Workforce Reinvestment Program for one year.
This part would allow the Office of Mental Health to recover certain Medicaid income
from community residences and family based treatment programs.
This part would remove the limits placed on certain payments for individuals living in
family care homes and community residential facilities, increase the number of days for
respite services from ten to fourteen, and authorize greater flexibility regarding how these
payments are made.
This part would require OASAS certification of chemical dependence crisis services if a
hospital or other Article 28 facility provides 2,000 patient days per year or more than ten
percent of total patient days per year of such services.
This part would transfer oversight of the Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation Program
(known as the Drinking Driver Program or DDP) from DMV to OASAS.
This part would eliminate the statutory designation of “Unified Services” and eliminate the
ability of certain counties to receive funding for creating Unified Services Plans. The five
counties impacted would be Rensselaer, Rockland, Warren, Washington, and Westchester.
This part would eliminate the Human Services COLA for the 2010-11 fiscal year and
authorize an additional year through March 31, 2014, for certain programs within the
following agencies: Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, Office
of Mental Health, Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services, Department of
Health, State Office for the Aging, and Office of Children and Family Services.
A.9705 - TRANSPORTATION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
PART
A
B
C
Overview 86
D
E
F
G
DESCRIPTION
Provide the annual authorization for
the CHIPs and Marchiselli
Programs
Consolidate the Department of
Transportation (DOT) Accident
Damage Account into the Dedicated
Highway and Bridge Trust Fund
(DHBTF)
Establish a waiver process for the
installation of pollution control
devices on certain diesel vehicles
Restrict the powers of Industrial
Development Agencies (IDAs)
relating to the portion of the
Mortgage Recording Tax dedicated
to transit systems
Extend the Department of
Transportation (DOT) Single Audit
Program
Prevent Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA)
employees who are injured on
leased New York City property
from recovering from both workers’
compensation and tort actions
Extend the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA)
owner-controlled insurance
programs to all capital projects
SUMMARY
This part would authorize $363.097 million in capital for CHIPs and $39.7 million for the
Marchiselli Program for State Fiscal Year 2010-11.
This part would direct the deposit of certain penalties and forfeitures, currently paid into
the DOT Accident Damage Recovery Account, into the DHBTF Special Obligation
Reserve and Payment Account.
This part would authorize the Department of Environmental Conservation to establish a
waiver process for diesel vehicles that are to be retired on or before December 31, 2013,
from the requirement to install best available retrofit pollution control devices.
This part would eliminate the ability of an IDA to extend its tax exempt status to projects
in order to provide an exemption to the portion of the Mortgage Recording Tax that is
dedicated to transit systems.
This part would extend for one year, until December 31, 2011, the DOT Single Audit
Program, which requires municipalities and public authorities that are subject to a single
audit of federal aid to prepare and have audited a schedule of State transportation
assistance expended, provided that the total of such assistance exceeds $100,000 in a fiscal
year.
This part would deem the MTA the owner of any lands that it may lease or license from
the City of New York, eliminate liability on behalf of New York City as the property
owner, and limit the injured worker’s recovery to workers’ compensation.
This part would extend the MTA’s authority to provide owner-controlled insurance to
contractors for bridge, tunnel, and omnibus facilities. Currently the MTA may only extend
owner-controlled insurance to contractors for subway and commuter rail capital projects.
H
Authorize the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA) to
test the use of electronic and reverse
bidding
I
Eliminate Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA)
liability for injuries arising from
certain conduct
Modify motor vehicle accident
reporting provisions
J
K
Overview 87
L
M
N
O
Permit the Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) to use the United
States Postal Service (USPS)
address file
Consolidate the State’s economic
development agencies
Extend the Higher Education
Capital Matching Grant Program
Provide access to capital to support
the growth of small businesses
Establish the New Technology Seed
Fund
This part would create a pilot program to test electronic and reverse bidding for MTA
contracts, allow the MTA to receive bids electronically, and provide that the online posting
of bids would constitute public openings and readings of bids. The MTA would also be
authorized to use reverse bidding, allowing bidders to submit new bids if they are not the
lowest bid. The pilot program would be in existence until December 31, 2014.
This part would bar a plaintiff from recovering for personal injuries incurred as a result of
MTA conduct when it is established the plaintiff also acted with wanton disregard for his
or her own personal safety or well-being.
This part would repeal the law requiring motor vehicle operators involved in fatal,
personal injury, or property damage accidents when damage to the property of one person
exceeds $1,000 to file accident reports with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Police
officers would not be precluded from reporting any accident resulting in damage to the
property of any one person in excess of $3,000, while continuing to be required to report
accidents involving injury.
This part would authorize the DMV to notify individuals by mail of revocations,
suspensions, fines, or other DMV orders using the current address provided by the USPS.
This part would transfer the previous functions of the Urban Development Corporation
and the Department of Economic Development into a newly created Job Development
Corporation. It would also set forth the structure for the new corporation and provide that
existing civil service and collective bargaining rights and benefits be maintained under
such transfer.
This part would extend the Higher Education Capital Matching Grant Program from
March 31, 2010, until March 31, 2011.
This part would create a $25 million revolving loan fund that would provide micro-loans
of less than $25,000 and other loans not to exceed $125,000 to small businesses,
particularly those owned by minorities and women who have had difficulty accessing
capital. State funds would be limited to fifty percent or less of the total loan amount.
This part would establish a $25 million New Technology Seed Fund to make investments,
through qualified intermediaries, in startup and early-stage small businesses in New York
who have developed cutting edge breakthroughs in emerging technologies.
P
Q
R
S
Overview 88
T
U
V
W
Make permanent the general loan
powers of the New York State
Urban Development Corporation
(UDC)
Authorize support for the New York
City Empowerment Zone, the New
Technology Seed Fund, and
Governors Island
Modify Equine Drug Testing
Program
This part would make permanent the general loan powers of the UDC, which otherwise
would expire on July 1, 2010.
This part would authorize the New York State Urban Development Corporation to transfer
$46.4 million in excess funds as follows: $29.4 million to the New York City
Empowerment Zone, $10 million to the New Technology Seed Fund, and $7 million to the
Governors Island Preservation and Education Corporation.
This part would remove the exclusive placement of the equine drug testing program at
Cornell College of Veterinary Medicine and permit competitive bidding among qualified
State University of New York colleges.
Make changes to Tribal State
This part would remove the requirement that money that comes to the State from revenue
Compact provisions regarding
received from Native American casinos be appropriated to municipalities in western New
revenue and distribution
York State by the Legislature and change the distribution of funds to the Niagara Falls
Underground Railroad Heritage Commission.
Eliminate the State’s Role in Dog
This part would transfer the responsibility of dog licensing from the State to
Licensing
municipalities. It would eliminate the New York State Animal Population Control
Program and state-level provisions relating to purebred licensing. It would also authorize
municipalities to waive or impose various licensing or related fees.
Allow Cornell University to enter
This part would allow Cornell University, as a statutory college, to enter into MOUs with
into memoranda of understanding
state agencies for the purposes of procuring services and technical assistance from Cornell
(MOUs) with state agencies
or providing funds to Cornell that are related to its land grant mission.
Authorize financing of certain
This part would make the Department of Health expenses relating to the Department of
Department of Health expenses with Health Public Service Education program eligible expenses for purposes of cable
revenues generated from an
television assessment revenue.
assessment on cable television
companies
Authorize professional mixed
This part would authorize the State Athletic Commission to license participants in MMA
martial arts (MMA) competitions in and promulgate rules and regulations to govern the conduct of the sport. It would also
the State
make provisions for the State to tax gross receipts from ticket sales and broadcasting rights
related to professional MMA events held in the State.
X
Y
Z
AA
Overview 89
BB
CC
DD
EE
Extend for one year the authority of
the Secretary of State to provide
expedited handling of documents
filed or issued by the Division of
Corporations
Extend for one year the distribution
formula for the Community
Services Block Grant Program
This part would extend from March 31, 2010, to March 31, 2011, the ability of the
Secretary of State to charge $75 for same-day expedited handling of document requests
and $150 for two-hour expedited handling of document requests.
Modify the classification of not-forprofit corporations
Include the New York City Housing
Development Corporation
(NYCHDC) under the State bond
issuance charge
Authorize transfer of monies from
New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) to the General Fund
Authorize New York State Energy
Research and Development
Authority (NYSERDA) to finance a
portion of its Research,
Development, and Demonstration
program and Policy and Planning
program
Modify the Waste Tire Management
and Recycling Fee
This part would redefine all existing Type C not-for-profit corporations as Type B not-forprofit corporations and eliminate the Type C classification.
This part would include the NYCHDC on the list of public benefit corporations that must
pay to the State a bond issuance charge upon all issued bonds.
This part would extend from September 31, 2010, to September 31, 2011, the statutory
formula for the distribution of funds through the Department of State of the federal
Community Services Block Grant Program.
This part would authorize NYSERDA to make an annual transfer of $913,000 to the
General Fund for debt service expenses related to the West Valley.
This part would authorize NYSERDA to finance part of its Research, Development, and
Demonstration program and its Policy and Planning program. Appropriation language
would include a sub-allocation to the Department of Conservation.
This part would eliminate the sunset of the Waste Tire Management and Recycling Fee,
expand the authorized purposes of the Waste Tire Management and Recycling Fund, and
rename the fund the “Waste Management and Cleanup Fund.”
Modify public notice and reporting This part would modify the Department of Conservation’s public notice requirements,
requirements and forest fire mutual including newspaper publication requirements and web postings, revise certain annual
aid provisions for the Department of reporting requirements, and authorize mutual aid and assistance pursuant to forest fire
Environmental Conservation
protection compacts.
FF
GG
HH
Reduce the amount of Real Estate
Transfer Tax revenue deposited into
the Environmental Protection Fund
Reduce the authorized
reimbursement rate paid to
governmental entities
that voluntarily enforce the
provisions of the Navigation Law
Expand the use of funds in the
Snowmobile Trail Development and
Maintenance Fund to include all
recreational activities on State lands
This part would amend the Tax Law to reduce the amount of Real Estate Transfer Tax
(RETT) revenue that is deposited into the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) from
$199 million to $132 million.
This part would reduce the authorized reimbursement rate paid to governmental entities
that voluntarily enforce the Navigation Law from seventy-five percent to fifty percent.
This part would authorize the Commissioners of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation and Environmental Conservation to use funds from the Snowmobile Trail
Development and Maintenance Fund to develop and maintain recreational activities on any
State lands.
Overview 90
A.9710 - REVENUE
PART
A
B
C
D
E
Overview 91
F
G
H
I
J
DESCRIPTION
Impose a Natural Gas Severance tax
Increase excise tax on cigarettes
SUMMARY
This part would impose a three percent tax on certain natural gas production.
This part would increase the excise tax on cigarettes by $1, to $3.75 per pack, effective
June 2, 2010.
Impose an excise tax on syrups or
This part would impose an excise tax on syrups or simple syrups at a rate of $7.68 per
simple syrups, bottled soft drinks, or gallon, on bottled soft drinks at a rate of $1.28 per gallon, and on powders or base
powders or base products
products at a rate of $1.28 per gallon of liquid yield. This would equate to a tax of one
cent per ounce.
Make technical amendments to
This part would equalize the tax treatment of corporations and unincorporated businesses
certain tax credits
with respect to the calculation of the maximum allowable biofuel production and
Qualified Emerging Technology Company tax credits.
Modify the definition of “nonresident This part would make termination payments, non-compete covenants, and other
taxable income” to include
compensation for past services to nonresidents taxable unless specifically exempt under
termination payments, non-compete
federal law.
covenants, and other compensation
for past services
Amend the definition of New York
This part would require certain S corporation gains from acquisition, liquidation, and
source income for certain S
installment sales of assets to be treated as New York source income by nonresident
corporation shareholders
shareholders to the extent that the business was conducted in New York.
Amend the definition of “resident
This part would amend the definition of “resident trusts” in the personal income tax to
trusts”
reduce tax avoidance opportunities through the use of nonresident trustees.
Require informational returns from
This part would conform State law to mirror federal law by requiring certain financial
certain financial firms
institutions to file information returns with the State annually regarding amounts of
credit/debit card settlements and third party network transactions.
Authorize statistical sampling
This part would authorize the use of statistical sampling techniques for sales tax audit
techniques
purposes in certain circumstances.
Modify the administration of the Tax This part would: (1) eliminate taxpayer opt-out from electronic filing as automatic
Department's Electronic Filing and
grounds for abatement of the penalty imposed on tax return preparers for failure to
Electronic Payment Programs
electronically file tax returns and other tax documents when required by law to do so; (2)
authorize the Commissioner to establish correction periods for electronic filings and
payments that are not accepted for processing; and (3) prohibit tax return preparers and
software companies from charging separately for electronic filing of New York tax
documents.
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
Overview 92
R
S
T
U
V
W
Authorize the Department of
Taxation and Finance to use
alternative means of communication
Modify the Offer in Compromise
Program
Require telecommunications tax
report
Eliminate Quick Draw restrictions
This part would authorize the Department of Taxation and Finance to use alternative
means of communication when providing tax bills, notices, and other tax documents to
addressees in an attempt to reduce mailing costs.
This part would modify the Offer in Compromise Program of the Department of Taxation
and Finance by adopting standards for providing assistance to taxpayers.
This part would require the Department of Taxation and Finance to provide
recommendations to modify State and local taxes on telecommunications services.
This part would eliminate the sunset of Quick Draw and eliminate certain restrictions on
the game.
Eliminate restrictions on Video
This part would extend the hours of VLT operation, repeal the sunset date for the VLT
Lottery Terminal (VLT) operations
program, and make technical corrections.
Subject cooperatives to the mortgage This part would expand the base of the mortgage recording tax to include sales of
recording tax
cooperatives.
Establish a Property Tax Circuit
This part would establish a School Tax Circuit Breaker Reserve Fund into which General
Breaker Reserve Fund and a School
Fund surpluses would be deposited. It would also create a School Tax Circuit Breaker
Tax Circuit Breaker Tax Credit
Tax Credit to be paid to certain residential property owners. The credit amount would be
based upon the recipients’ income and the funds available in the School Tax Circuit
Breaker Reserve Fund in the given year.
Allow tax treatment of marriages
This part would amend the Tax Law and the Administrative Code of the City of New
recognized by New York State but
York to allow that marriages recognized in New York but not recognized by the federal
not by federal law
government receive the same treatment as other marriages under the Tax Law.
Narrow the affiliate nexus provisions This part would narrow the affiliate nexus provisions by excluding as a basis for sales tax
under the Sales Tax
vendor-status an affiliate’s control over the seller.
Allow the sale of wine in grocery and This part would authorize the sale of wine in grocery and drug stores that currently
drug stores, impose a franchise fee
qualify for a license to sell beer upon payment of a franchise fee and authorize liquor
for such privileges, and grant greater stores to sell products complementary to their business. It would also create a medallion
autonomy to liquor store owners
system that would provide existing store owners with an additional license and authorize
certain transactions between liquor stores and other retail establishments.
Expand the low income housing tax
This part would increase the aggregate amount of low-income housing tax credits that the
credit
Commissioner of Housing and Community Renewal may allocate by $4 million.
Extend the Film Tax Credit
This part would extend the film production tax credit, provide $2.1 billion in additional
tax credit allocations over tax years 2010-14, and impose various restrictions.
Establish the Excelsior Jobs Program This part would make certain businesses in targeted industries that create and maintain at
least fifty net new jobs in New York for five years eligible for the three tax credits, each
of which would be fully refundable:
•
Overview 93
X
Make Empire Zones technical
corrections
Y
Extend State Gramm-Leach-Bliley
provisions
Z
Make technical corrections to 200910 tax enforcement legislation
AA
Extend Pari-Mutuel Tax Rates
BB
Maintain current estate tax
CC
Modify the taxicab surcharge
Excelsior Jobs Tax Credit would be a refundable tax credit between $2,500 and
$10,000 per new job created for up to five years;
• Excelsior Investment Tax Credit would be a refundable tax credit of two percent
of qualified investments;
• Excelsior Research and Development Tax Credit would be a refundable tax credit
equal to ten percent of the program participant’s federal research and
development tax credit, for research and development activities performed in New
York State.
This part would make technical corrections to clarify that the Empire Zones
decertification provisions are applicable to tax year 2008 and to ensure that qualified
investment projects remain eligible to receive the investment tax credit beyond the sunset
date of June 31, 2010.
This part would extend for one year provisions of the 1985 and 1987 bank tax reforms, as
well as the transitional provisions in New York’s bank tax enacted in response to the
Federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
This part would authorize technical corrections to 2009-10 tax enforcement and sales tax
avoidance and restore the requirement that the industrial development agency agent
statements be submitted to the Department of Taxation and Finance.
This part would extend for one year lower Pari-Mutuel tax rates and rules governing
simulcasting of out-of-state races.
This part would maintain the New York Estate Tax Unified Credit amount currently
allowed independent of federal estate law in effect on the date of death.
This part would modify the imposition and administration of the fifty cent per ride
taxicab surcharge imposed by Article 29-A of the Tax Law by converting it to a quarterly
fee.
A.9713 - OFFICE OF TAXPAYER ACCOUNTABILITY
INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ELIMINATIONS BILL
DESCRIPTION
Eliminate numerous advisory boards, councils,
committees, and task forces, consolidate others,
and revise the functions, powers, and duties of
several such entities
SUMMARY
This bill would repeal numerous provisions establishing various advisory boards,
councils, committees, and task forces. It would also consolidate the operation of several
advisory bodies, shift the duties of certain bodies to state agencies, revise the functions,
powers, and duties of several bodies, and make numerous conforming technical changes.
Overview 94
The advisory bodies affected would include: the advisory council on under age alcohol
consumption; advisory council on alcoholism and substance abuse services; William B.
Hoyt Memorial children and family trust fund advisory board; Office of Children and
Family Services schools board of visitors; child welfare research advisory panel;
statewide wireless network advisory council; advisory council on procurement lobbying;
disability benefits advisory committee on legal advocacy; coordinated children’s service
initiative; interagency task force on human trafficking; block grant advisory councils;
breast and cervical cancer detection and education program advisory council; advisory
council on interactive media and youth violence; advisory council on children’s
environmental health and safety; funeral directing advisory board; special advisory review
panel on Medicaid managed care; medical record access review committees; advisory
council on immunization; ovarian cancer information advisory committee; osteoporosis
advisory council; State palliative care education and training council; prostate and
testicular cancer detection and education advisory council; radiologic technologist
advisory board; spinal cord injury research board; State task force on flame retardant
safety; State toxic mold task force; adult day services workgroup; Brookhaven National
Laboratory local oversight and monitoring committee; controlled substances task force;
environmental laboratory program advisory board; commission on financially distressed
residential health care facilities; State council on home care services; recombinant DNA
advisory council; physician assistants and special assistants advisory council; sharps
technical advisory committee; tick-borne disease institute advisory committee; tick-borne
disease institute research council; advisory committee on mercury pollution; State bird
conservation area advisory committee; falconry advisory board; freshwater wetland
appeals board; State scenic byways advisory board; marine and coastal district of New
York conservation, education, and research board; State invasive species advisory
committee; State oil, gas, and solution mining advisory board; State petroleum bulk
Overview 95
storage advisory council; regional forest practice boards; State forest practice board; solid
waste management board; State environmental board; surf clam/ocean quahog
management advisory board; State animal health issues committee; plant industry
advisory committee; apiary industry advisory committee; advisory council on petroleum
products standards; direct marketing advisory council for statewide activities; Hudson
Valley agricultural advisory council; organic food advisory committee; agricultural
transportation review panel; State heritage areas advisory council; temporary advisory
committee on the restoration and display of New York State's military battle flags and the
New York State military battle flags partnership trust fund; fire fighting and code
enforcement personnel standards and education commission; emergency services council;
manufactured housing advisory council; Long Island Sound coastal advisory commission;
security and fire alarm systems advisory committee; armored car carrier advisory board;
appearance enhancement advisory committee; barbers board; hearing aid dispensing
advisory board; State cemetery board; citizens advisory council; State home inspection
council; New York motor vehicle theft and insurance fraud prevention board; New York
statewide law enforcement telecom committee; board of real estate appraisal; carnival,
fair, and amusement park safety advisory board; coordinating council for services related
to Alzheimer’s; advisory council to the recreation program for the elderly; minority and
women-owned business enterprise advisory board; upstate and downstate New York
tourism councils; task force on the future of off-track betting in New York State; tow
truck advisory board; NORC support service advisory committee; NNORC support
service advisory committee; advisory committee for the aging; public health council; and
the State hospital review and planning council.
A.9714 - OFFICE OF TAXPAYER ACCOUNTABILITY
INTERAGENCY EFFICIENCIES BILL
DESCRIPTION
State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA),
Electronic Submission, and Open Meetings
Law Changes
Overview 96
SUMMARY
This proposal would:
(1)
permit state agencies to allow applicants for permits to make an
affirmation under penalty of perjury in lieu of other types of oaths and
allow such affirmation to be subscribed to electronically;
(2)
allow agencies during the SAPA process in their rule notice to combine
their regulatory analysis, rural impact analysis, and job impact analysis
statements into a single statement limited to four thousand words,
provided that statement includes all of the required elements
of those statements;
(3)
permit the Department of Criminal Justice Services to receive various
types of offender and public safety records electronically; and
(4)
permit public bodies of which a majority of members are appointed by
state agencies to hold their meetings via teleconference or other
communications means by which all members may participate.
A.9715 - ETHICS AND RETIREMENT BILL
DESCRIPTION
Create and authorize State
Government Ethics Commission
B
Designate an Employee Retirement
System Board
Overview 97
PART
A
SUMMARY
This proposal would repeal and reenact the State Lobbying and Legislative Ethics Laws
and amend the Public Officers Law, in order to replace the Commission on Public
Integrity and Legislative Ethics Commission with a single State Government Ethics
Commission, located in the Department of State, to oversee all Executive and Legislative
officers and employees, as well as lobbyists, in relation to financial disclosure, ethical
advisory opinions, and enforcement, open meetings regulations, and campaign finance
enforcement in New York State. The Commission would consist of five members,
serving five year terms, who would have the power to appoint and remove an executive
director and other officers, and who would be appointed by a designating commission to
consist of ten members (four appointed by the Governor, one by the Attorney General,
one by the Comptroller, and one by each of the legislative leaders). The proposed ethics
commission would have expanded powers to randomly audit financial disclosure forms,
levy civil penalties on public officers, and refer criminal charges to the Attorney General
as well as to local district attorneys. Lobbyists would be required to disclose all business
relationships with state officers, including referrals of individuals, and all lobbying
efforts regarding pension funds and the dispersal of public monies; the proposal would
restrict the amount lobbyists could contribute to political candidates over and above
existing individual contribution limits. Legislators who are attorneys would have to
report all clients referred to them by a lobbyist and list all clients whom they represent
before a state body, including any state court. The existing law would be expanded to
prohibit the hiring of a relative of a member or employee of the Legislature if the latter
has prior knowledge of the prospective employment by the legislative entity in which the
legislator or legislative employee works. In addition to its plenary enforcement powers
over violations of campaign finance laws, the commission would also be empowered to
promulgate regulations governing campaign finance, prescribe forms to be used for
disclosure of contributions and expenditures, and otherwise administer such portions of
the election law.
This proposal would create an Employee Retirement System Board, to consist of five
members serving five year terms, to replace the Comptroller as the sole trustee of the
State’s pension fund, with the Comptroller to act instead as custodian of that fund
answerable to the Board. The members of the board would be designated by a
designating commission, four of which would be appointed by the Governor, one by the
C
Create a program of public financing
of elections and otherwise alter
current campaign finance law
D
Establish pension forfeiture for
public officials
Overview 98
Attorney General, one by the Comptroller, and one by each of the legislative leaders.
The board would be prohibited from hiring the services of any outside investment
manager who uses a placement agent to assist in identifying and placing investments.
The proposal would prohibit investment firms who have made political contributions to
members of the board from doing business with the State Retirement Fund.
This part would change New York’s current funding of election campaigns by creating a
system of public finance for certain offices and otherwise imposing a new structure of
campaign financing by limiting and banning certain contributions, expanding reporting
requirements, and increasing the frequency of audits. The enforcement of the campaign
finance laws would be vested in the ethics commission created elsewhere in the
legislation.
This proposal would provide that any current or retired member of the State Retirement
System who is convicted of a felony offense related to the performance or failure to
perform their official duties would be subject to forfeiture of his or her pension and other
retirement rights and benefits, minus contributions to the retirement system, based on an
action in the supreme court filed by the district attorney having jurisdiction over the
offense.