Ballot Question #4: City Budget

Vote yes on Question 4 to lay the groundwork for greater fiscal stability, shield aspects of the budget from politics and improve budgeting by ensuring timely revenue estimates and budget revisions.
City and State law prevent the City from saving money in good times to spend in lean times. This proposal would ensure that when the State law terminates, the City can begin putting money away. In this way, during a recession or emergency, the City can stabilize its finances using savings rather than by raising taxes or cutting essential services -- which can worsen an economic downturn.
The proposal would also insulate Borough Presidents and the Public Advocate, counterweights to the Mayor, from budget cuts. In the past, independent officials who have disagreed with mayors have faced proposed budget cuts. Cuts could be made in times of fiscal necessity.
Finally, under current law the Council virtually finalizes a budget before it sees the final estimate from the Mayor of the upcoming year's tax revenues. This proposal will require an earlier revenue estimate. It will also require more timely submission of budget changes so budgets aren't "cleaned up" at the end of the year.

New Yorkers should vote “yes” on Ballot Question 4 because it will modify the City Charter to allow New York City to create and use a Rainy Day Fund (RDF). An RDF can help protect New Yorkers from harmful service cuts or tax increases during a recession, when New Yorkers need services more and pocketbooks are strained.
The Charter requires the City to balance its budget under strict accounting rules. While these rules help the City to manage its budget well, the Charter prevents the City from using money saved up from prior years to pay for services during “rainy days.” Question 4 would keep the balanced budget requirement, and allow the City to use funds set aside in an RDF—essentially a savings account—during a recession or severe emergency to protect New Yorkers. Most states and many localities have RDFs because they are important and useful fiscal management tools.
CBC supports Question 4, despite concerns about other changes included in the ballot question that would guarantee minimum budgets for certain agencies, since the substantial benefits of an RDF outweigh these concerns.

Citizens Union recommends a yes vote on question 4. Question 4 establishes minimum budgets for the Public Advocate and Borough Presidents, and requires earlier submission of revenue estimates by the mayor, two long-standing Citizens Union recommendations. Question 4 also allows the City to create a rainy-day fund, and requires that mayoral changes to the City’s financial plan necessitating a budget modification be submitted to the City Council within 30 days.

The independence of Public Advocate and Borough Presidents have always been in tension with the Mayor and City Council who set their budgets. In 2009, the Public Advocate saw a budget cut of 40% after opposing the Mayor and Council's self serving extension of term limits. Similarly, Borough Presidents who stood with the community against the Council and the Mayor on controversial rezonings have also seen their budget targeted for cuts. This question would set a minimum budget for these offices with annual increases tied to the growth of the city budget or inflation to free the Public Advocate and Borough Presidents from the looming threat of retaliation by the City Council and Mayor.
For Question 4 on the City Budget for an independent Public Advocate and Borough Presidents, vote YES.

Question 4 is meant to protect budgets of certain elected officials from being manipulated or slashed for reasons outside of legitimate budgeting policy. It is crucial that the budgets of elected officials, especially those acting in a watchdog or oversight capacity, are not susceptible to potential political retaliation. Question 4 guarantees budget stability and more importantly, ensures that certain elected officials and agencies have the tools necessary to sufficiently address the City’s most pressing needs.

I can't believe NYC does not already have a rainy day fund.
Never too late to have one.

New York Immigration Coalition Position: Support
These proposals improve the City’s budget process by creating a “Rainy Day Fund” so the City can set aside money in good years that will be available during economic downturns; protecting the budgets of the Public Advocate and the five borough presidents from political interference; and giving the City Council more time to analyze the Mayor’s budget and budget modifications in order to provide effective oversight.

We recommend a “yes” vote on this ballot item. This ballot item takes a key step toward a Rainy Day fund, which is a good idea for the future fiscal health of the city. It also adds checks and balances on Mayoral power, by giving the public and the City Council more transparency with regard to the city budgeting process.
It also guarantees budgets for the Public Advocate and Borough Presidents, who have been elected by their constituents. If New Yorkers have problems with the Public Advocate office, they should amend the Charter to eliminate it, rather than have it fiscally restrained at the whim of other city officials.

Concepts addresses in this ballot proposal, while broadly related, would be better considered separately?

We ask that you vote no.
The availability of the “rainy day fund” will: (1) disincentivize tax cuts when the city government is collecting more tax revenues than it needs; (2) ease pressure to cut wasteful spending as a response to fiscal burdens; and (3) threaten to establish a slush fund to shore up irresponsible spending programs.
The Public Advocate and Borough Presidents should not be guaranteed budgets. They are extraneous positions created by the 1989 Charter Revision Commission with limited powers and have yet to justify their continued existence. The public is entitled to properly assess the offices’ roles and curtail their budgets as desired (not as fiscally necessary).

There is already a 'slush fund' existing. How much more money do you want to put in reserves and spend for what--who will make the decision to address unexpected financial hardships, the same people who created hardships?