The Partnership for New York City, The Citizens Budget Commission and the Empire Center are known as fiscal hawks. They are concerned about how much the city spends — especially the way the budget has increased at three times the rate of inflation in recent years, now topping $106 billion.They are always looking for ways to make officials acknowledge the cost of new programs and limit budget maneuvering.But the groups are divided on whether to support two fiscal reforms that are headed for a voter referendum this fall after Mayor Eric Adams convened a commission to tweak the City Charter.One new proposal would require earlier estimates of the financial impact of new legislation. The other would require an annual assessment of the condition of the city’s infrastructure in order to inform future planning. Budget watchdogs interviewed by THE CITY see the proposals as Band-Aids unlikely to make a major impact on what they say is increasingly casual city spending.“Disappointingly, the commission failed to propose changes that address the very real problems of de facto budgeting through legislation and the executive’s massive low-ball budgeting for planned programs,” said Andrew Rein, president of the CBC.Without backing from good government groups, the mayor could be hard pressed to generate voter enthusiasm to approve the proposed changes in November in the face of a determined campaign by Council members to defeat them.Adams’s creation of the commission was widely understood as an attempt to weaken the City Council.The Charter Revision Commission meeting at Queens Borough Hall was sparsely attended, June 5, 2024. Credit: Katie Honan/THE CITYThe maneuvering over whether to change the charter, essentially the city’s constitution, began this spring when the Council suggested a ballot proposal that would have given it the power to approve many more mayoral appointees. The mayor then assembled his own charter commission, which effectively preempted the Council’s effort. Recognizing the fraught politics involved, the fiscal hawks and Comptroller Brad Lander decided to use the opportunity to lobby the commission to make changes that would strengthen budget accountability.The fiscal groups are especially worried about the Council’s unprecedented drastic expansion last year of eligibility for the CityFHEPS housing voucher program, overriding a mayoral veto, with what they regard as little regard for a significant impact on city spending.“This was done more or less even as the budget process was unfolding in the spring of 2023,” said E.J. McMahon, founder of the Empire Center. “The Council deliberately never bothered to approve the additional line-item appropriation this undoubtedly costly program would require.”With or without the new Adams charter proposals, both the CBC and the Empire Center argue that the Council’s ability to legislate spending without budgeting for it is a loophole that needs to be closed. Their concern is that having done so once, the Council will continue to expand programs in the same way.“Once they get in the habit this could mushroom,” said McMahon of the Empire Center.Not EnoughA spokesperson for the Council, Julie Argos, countered these groups misunderstand the process.“When eligibility for a program like CityFHEPS is legislated, it is not paired with a requirement to spend a certain amount and agencies typically do not serve the entire universe of eligible people,” said Argos. “Any true commitment to fiscal responsibility would scrutinize the reality that the mayor and city agencies constantly make policy decisions with significant fiscal and human costs, often without any public input, transparency, or financial impact statements.”Both the CBC and the Empire Center lay part of the blame at the mayor for also underestimating the costs of programs.Instead of dealing with unconstricted new spending mandates, the commission proposed changes in the fiscal impact statements that are required for legislation. Under the change, the Council would be required to provide its estimate before holding a hearing on the bill, update it before a final vote and publish an estimate from the mayor’s budget office before acting — but the ballot question does not set any specific timeframe.During the debate over expanding housing vouchers, the Council released its cost estimate only the day before the final vote. It is routine for the Council’s staff to provide fiscal impact statements only at the last minute as a bill goes to a final vote.Even Adams’ modest proposed change has riled the Council.“Requiring the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget to submit estimates for every single bill before we can hold a public hearing will grind government to a halt,” Finance Chair Justin Brannan said in a statement. “I promise you New Yorkers don’t want to codify OMB supremacy.”Councilmember Justin Brannan (D-Brooklyn) responds at City Hall to the mayor’s executive budget, April 24, 2024. Credit: Ben Fractenberg/THE CITYThe fiscal hawks don’t see it that way.Through it would have liked stronger measures, the Partnership will back the proposal“It is worth supporting because we go through a public hearing and no one knows if a new proposal costs anything,” said CEO Kathryn Wylde. “We don’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good.”The CBC wanted the charter to be amended so that major new programs — those costing over $100 million a year — would only go into effect if the Council and the mayor identified or added money to the budget. The group has not yet taken a position on whether it will support the fiscal impact statement change.McMahon is more direct.“The very best you could say is that we are going to have more and better fiscal impact estimates. The hesitation to endorse it is that you are encouraging them to propose baloney in the future,” he said.The commission insists the proposals will make a difference.“That we were able to get something on fiscal responsibility to me is a win for the residents of New York,” said Carlo Scissura, the construction trade group executive who chaired the commission. “If it passes, it opens an opportunity for New Yorkers to see what the impact is financially on any legislation.”The lack of stronger budget changes has also earned the ire of Lander, the comptroller who announced this week he is going to run against Adams in the 2025 mayoral election.He has asked the commission to change the charter to specify targets for budget reserves, savings and debt service limits. Instead, the commission change would require more information about the repair needs and state of its infrastructure in an annual report called the Statement of Needs.Lander couldn’t have been harsher in his assessment, which was released before he announced his campaign for mayor Monday.The proposal “is meaningless, does not advance transparency, and fails to improve the city’s capital planning process in any way,” he said in a statement. “The proposals released by the Charter Revision Commission are meaningless in their impact, a cynical effort to distract New Yorkers, and an affront to the tenets of good government.”Correction: An earlier version of this article mistakenly attributed a statement to Andrew Rein of the Citizens Budget Committee that was made by E.J. McMahon of the Empire Center. DONATE to THE CITY The post Mayor’s Proposed Charter Changes Miss Mark on Need for Fiscal Restraint, Say Watchdogs appeared first on THE CITY - NYC News.First published by THE CITY – NYC News.