NYC Council’s bid to block budget cuts boosted by report showing city actually has $2B surplus over Adams’ projection
The Big Apple has $2.2 billion more than what Mayor Eric Adams forecast would be available through next fiscal year, according to a new study.
The projected surplus – outlined in a report by the city’s Independent Budget Office – gives the City Council much-needed ammo as it attempts to recover cuts to libraries and other services while negotiating a budget deal with the Adams administration.
The IBO report estimates the city’s surplus is $5.1 billion for the fiscal year ending June 30, or $1.1 billion more than the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget predicts.
The nonpartisan, publicly-funded office also predicts an extra $1.1 billion for the city next fiscal year.
“The new IBO analysis just further confirms what we’ve been saying all along: we have what we need to restore all of the unnecessary cuts that were made — and then some,” said Councilman Justin Brannan (D-Brooklyn), who chairs the Finance Committee.
Brannan and other Council leaders have insisted for months that they found $6 billion in taxpayer dollars — including $3.35 billion in tax revenue and $2 billion in unfilled positions Adams hasn’t accounted for – which could be used to thwart spending cuts proposed by the mayor to public libraries, 3K programs, cultural organizations and other services.
But City Hall spokesman Noah Levine disputed the IBO’s findings, saying even if the additional surplus estimate is correct, the mayor’s planned cuts are still needed to close a $7.2 billion budget gap for the next fiscal year.
“We disagree with IBO’s approach, as the funding they identify as ‘surplus’ may be needed to fill budget holes and meet critical needs,” he said. “Pulling these dollars out of agency budgets could jeopardize programs and services.”
The report also estimates migrant costs for the Big Apple will be $3.3 billion less than what Adams is projecting over the next two fiscal years.
Levine said the Adams administration also disputes these findings.