Reports

In June 2011, New York City projected a balanced budget for FY 2012 but a large budget gap of $4.6 billion in FY 2013, and even larger gaps in subsequent years. On February 2, 2012, the City issued a revised financial plan (the “February Plan”). The City has closed the FY 2013 budget gap and narrowed the outyear gaps to $3 billion in FY 2014 and about $3.5 billion in subsequent years. Most of the improvement comes from freeing up reserves (nearly $5 billion), proceeds from the anticipated sale of taxi medallions ($1 billion) and savings from agency actions.

An era of tight budgets has sparked renewed interest in reducing government costs and identifying ways for State agencies to function more cost effectively. To help identify opportunities to achieve more efficient State operations, the Office of the State Comptroller has prepared this statistical overview of overtime use by State agencies over the past five years.

As Chief Fiscal Officer for the State of New York, the Comptroller annually examines the Executive Budget proposal and the Enacted Budget, as well as issues monthly reports on the State’s cash position. This report provides an analysis of the State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2012-13 Executive Budget.

Local Finance Law requires the State Comptroller to report on private bond sales conducted by local government entities from the effective date of the Act through June 30, 2011. Because these private sales may be economically beneficial to local governments, OSC recommends that the expiration provision on the statutory private sale cap of $5 million be repealed.

On November 18, 2011, New York City issued a revised financial plan covering fiscal years 2012 through 2015 (the “November Plan”). Mostly as a result of unplanned spending in the uniformed agencies, the out-year budget gaps have grown by half a billion dollars to $5 billion in FY 2013 and about $5.5 billion in both FY 2014 and FY 2015.

The Office of the State Comptroller maintains extensive data on receipts and disbursements, which reflect the flow of revenues and expenditures through the State’s Central Accounting System (CAS).

This Report on Estimated Receipts and Disbursements for State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2011-12 through SFY 2013-14, issued pursuant to Chapter 1 of the Laws of 2007, is intended to facilitate continuing discussion of the State’s economic condition and the State Budget.

New York State’s population increased by 2.1 percent between 2000 and 2010 – the fifth slowest rate of growth among all states nationwide. Gains or losses in population cause a shift in the local tax base, drive adjustments in State and federal revenue allocations, and influence the demand for municipal services and infrastructure.

The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the New York State and Local Retirement System (the System or NYSLRS) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011.

New York State has shown resilience in challenging times. While New Yorkers have been hit hard by the Great Recession, our past investments in infrastructure, facilities for culture, education and recreation, a well-educated workforce, innovative businesses, progressive human services organizations, and a world-leading financial sector provide a sound foundation for a return to prosperity.

The recession greatly weakened the finances of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), and for nearly two years the MTA has been attempting to stabilize its finances by reducing waste, cutting services, and raising fares and tolls.

The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the State of New York for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011.

Along with technological advances comes the responsibility to protect confidential information adequately so that it cannot be accessed by unauthorized individuals. Failure to do so can come at a considerable financial cost.

On June 29, 2011, New York City adopted a $65.9 billion budget ($46.5 billion in City funds) for FY 2012, which began on July 1, 2011. While the budget is balanced, it relies on $5.1 billion in nonrecurring resources, including the FY 2011 surplus and a drawdown from the Retiree Health Benefits Trust. These resources will have to be replaced in subsequent years, and even though the City’s economy is slowly improving, the June 2011 financial plan (the “June Plan”) projects budget gaps that average $4.8 billion during fiscal years 2013 through 2015.

New York’s 57 counties (excluding New York City), 61 cities, 932 towns, and 556 villages reported spending nearly $2.6 billion to maintain 187,000 highway lane miles in 2009. Highway maintenance is one of the largest categories of expense for local governments, representing 7.6 percent of total local government expenditures.

Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs) are public benefit corporations created by an act of the State Legislature on behalf of one or more local governments. IDAs are intended to advance the job opportunities, health, general prosperity and economic welfare of the people of the State of New York, and to improve their recreation opportunities, prosperity and standard of living.

New York City’s May 2011 financial plan (the “May Plan”) projects a surplus of $3.2 billion for FY 2011, resulting largely from a drawdown in reserves, higher revenues due to an improving economy, and agency cost-reduction actions. The City intends to transfer the surplus to FY 2012 to help balance that year’s budget.

For many years, budgets in New York State, in addition to being enacted after the start of the fiscal year, have been characterized by overly optimistic revenue estimates, unrealistic spending targets, and excessive reliance on temporary or non-recurring revenues.

Real property tax assessment is an important function of local governments. In 2009, New York’s city, county, town and village assessing units spent nearly $132 million and employed roughly 1,350 certified assessors, tax directors and assessment appraisers.

New York’s counties, cities, towns, and villages frequently utilize local development corporations (LDCs) and other private entities for economic development and other activities. These LDCs and similar private entities are exempt from many of the constitutional and statutory provisions that guide the operations and financial transactions conducted by local governments, increasing the risk of waste, fraud, or abuse of taxpayer dollars or assets.