Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani: Good morning. Twelve weeks ago today, we presented New Yorkers with our preliminary budget. It reflected a straightforward reality. New York City was reckoning with a historic budget gap. The causes were clear and numerous. They included years of mismanagement and under budgeting from the Adams administration. A long-standing relationship between the city and the state, where too often New York City was forced to carry costs it never should have shouldered alone. An unwillingness to ask more of those with the most, asking working people to bear the burden instead. And throughout it all, a refusal to govern with the honesty and transparency that New Yorkers deserve. The accumulation of these failings was stark. When we took office, the deficit was vast, more than $12 billion. While you do not choose the deficit you inherit, you do choose how you respond to it. In the month that followed, we took aggressive steps to tackle the deficit and drove it down to $5.4 billion.
Today, after three more months of painstaking work, I am proud to announce that we have closed the gap entirely, down to zero. It has not been easy, but we have balanced the budget, and we have done so without placing the burden on the backs of working New Yorkers. This budget does not raise property taxes, and it refuses to slash services. We are often told that to govern responsibly we must scale back our ambitions, to provide little and then ask those we serve to expect even less. We disagree. This is what responsible government looks like. Here is how we did it: we scoured for savings and demanded greater efficiency from every part of City government; we partnered with Albany, securing billions in new funding and reversing many of the cost burdens that Andrew Cuomo shifted to the city over his decade as governor; and we taxed the rich, asking those with the most to contribute a little bit more to support those with the least. Through new revenues, savings and a renewed partnership with the state, we pulled New York City back from an existential fiscal brink.
Before I continue, I want to thank our partners who made this possible. First, Governor Kathy Hochul. For years, the relationship between City Hall and Albany has been defined by dysfunction and infighting. Governor Hochul and I, however, share a belief that government works best when we work together on behalf of the people we serve. So, we have worked together, through every step of this process, to protect the fiscal health of our city. Second, I want to thank Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie. They have shown an unwavering commitment to placing our city on firmer financial footing, just the latest example of their longstanding commitment to the five boroughs. Third, I want to thank City Council Speaker Julie Menin and the Council for advocating for our city over the course of this budget process.
And finally, I want to thank the movement that carried us to City Hall, not only for winning an election, but for continuing to demand that the power we won be used to improve the lives of the many, rather than to protect the interests of the few. Thanks to the organizers, labor leaders and New Yorkers who knocked doors, made calls and built a movement, we partnered with Governor Hochul, Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins and Speaker Carl Heastie to secure New York City's first-ever pied-à-terre tax. Together, we are laying the groundwork for long-term stability and fiscal health. This executive budget represents far more than a collection of numbers and investments. It is evidence of a new era of government in our city, one that can balance both ambition and fiscal responsibility. One that can invest in housing, childcare, libraries, parks, schools and climate resiliency, while also cutting waste and finding efficiencies.
One that does not accept austerity as the only answer to adversity, one that refuses to kick structural challenges down the road for someone else to have to solve later, and one that understands that when working people organize, they can fundamentally change what is politically possible. In the years ahead, New York City will tell a story of transformation, one where government lowers costs and leads with ambition, and where the most expensive city in the nation is affordable for the working people who build it every single day. When that story is told, it will begin with this budget. The heights we reach together, the sweeping affordability agenda we enact, will only be attainable thanks to the solid foundation this budget has laid. So now, let's get into how we landed on the specifics of the executive budget, starting with the crisis we inherited. The budget deficit was staggering. Here's what Comptroller Levine had to say when he testified in Albany earlier this year.
[Video of Comptroller Mark Levine from Tin Cup Day plays.]
“In no small part, we are paying the price now for the questionable budget practices of years past. First, chronic under-budgeting of known recurring costs has obscured the true cost of ongoing obligations, making it harder to fully understand, plan for, and reasonably address rising long-term expenses. Second, one-time accounting measures used in the last budget cycle are now exhausted. And third, the absence of systematic annual efficiency reviews has limited the city's ability to tighten operations in a disciplined way ... We're facing our largest budget gap since the Great Recession.”
[Video ends.]
Mayor Mamdani: According to the comptroller's estimates, the gaps the Adams administration left behind were not only more than double what had been publicly projected just months earlier, they were more than three times higher than the pre-COVID 10-year average and exceeded even the deficits we faced during the Great Recession. A major driver of that crisis was under-budgeting for core city services: rental assistance, shelter costs [and] due process cases. Across six major areas alone, more than $7.5 billion in expected costs had simply not been accounted for. Beyond that under-budgeting, the city faced $5.85 billion more in unfunded mandates and unmet obligations over fiscal years 2026 and 2027. We have tackled this crisis with a multifaceted approach. We invested in long-term efficiency instead of short-term gimmicks to ensure that we never arrive here again.
First, let's talk about how we met our $1.77 billion savings goal. We launched an unprecedented citywide savings initiative. For the first time in New York City history, we directed every city agency to appoint a chief savings officer. They were tasked with achieving aggressive savings targets: 1.5 percent in fiscal year 2026 and 2.5 percent in fiscal year 2027. And they delivered. Together, agencies identified $1.47 billion in savings initiatives over two years, alongside more than $300 million in vacancy reductions. Let's break those numbers down. CSOs have identified savings of $94 million through procurement reform. From DOE to DEP to DYCD, we are terminating consultant contracts and bringing work in-house. This administration will both demand public excellence and give the public sector the opportunity to deliver it. From the NYPD to DCWP, we are saving $28 million by modernizing technology and reducing costs for software licenses. From OTI to DSNY, we are saving $24 million by eliminating unused space and consolidating agency leases. And across every agency, CSOs took a hard look at inefficiencies, overtime, and unused programs and identified an additional $368 million more in savings. And we are saving $947 million by improving financial management, claiming owed revenue, and accurately estimating expenses.
Throughout this process, we are making a clear choice: wherever possible, we are investing in the capacity of public workers to deliver excellent public services. But our work has never only been about short-term savings. Our CSOs are going to continue to perform this work, even beyond this budget. This is part of our commitment to enduring fiscal responsibility and stability for the city that we love. In finding long-term savings, we are doing what past administrations refused to do: address the systemic issues in the programs that are central to the purpose of government — programs that we deeply believe in. By identifying these issues, we will save an additional $1.2 billion in this budget and more over the years to come. One of the clearest examples is special education. For decades in this city, special education students and their families have faced impossible barriers just to access the services they deserve. Our school system has made important changes in recent years to right this wrong by improving services. And our administration is committed to building upon that critical work.
That is why we are increasing our investments to improve access to services for special education students of all ages. Yet the work cannot stop there. When families cannot access the special education services they need, they sometimes turn to the private school network instead, entering into litigation against the city over the cost incurred. Over the past decades, the cost of these cases, known as due process cases, have skyrocketed to a projected $1.5 billion for this year alone. Payments have more than tripled from 2015 to 2025. For too long, our city has accepted this dynamic as the status quo, paying out settlements instead of fixing the underlying problem: the chronic shortage of adequate services available to special education students. This is not only an abdication of our responsibility to our students, it is also enormously costly. We are committed to addressing this issue head on. We are investing in special education services across the five boroughs so that families can get the support they need inside the public school system. We are also making changes to how these cases are managed. That means better outcomes for families, fewer unnecessary lawsuits and long-term savings for our city.
We expect this investment will generate $149 million in annual savings. Thanks to these changes, we will bend the steep curve on the costs incurred by these cases for the first time in many years. Our administration believes deeply in the state law capping class sizes, and I am proud to have voted for this mandate during my time in the state Assembly. That is why we are making an additional investment of $122 million to hire 1,000 more teachers. And that is why we are adding $1.5 billion, for a total of $7.6 billion, to SCA's current five-year capital plan. We are committed to working with Albany and our partners in labor as we invest in school construction, teacher hiring, and long-term planning. And we have asked Albany to extend the deadline to meet this mandate. This extension will generate approximately $500 million in savings in the upcoming fiscal year. But more importantly, it will allow us to implement an achievable plan that better serves both our students and our teachers. Make no mistake, we are fully committed to fulfilling the state mandate in a meaningful way, on a realistic timeline that New Yorkers can actually trust. Smaller class sizes are better for our children and better for our educators. We don't believe in empty promises. We want to do this right.
We are also working to stabilize the CityFHEPS program for the long term. CityFHEPS is a lifeline for thousands of New Yorkers leaving the shelter system and seeking stable housing. And yet through a combination of factors, including the soaring costs of the housing market and how much the program has grown, the cost of CityFHEPS has more than tripled over the past three fiscal years, as you can see on the chart. As the stewards of CityFHEPS, and as an administration that firmly believes in its purpose, we want to protect it by placing it on firm financial footing. That is why we are pursuing reforms that protect the program's future. As we do this work, we will help voucher holders transition to long-term financial stability and seek efficiencies in the shelter budget. These measures are projected to save $519 million in fiscal year 2027.
And while we have reduced inefficiencies and identified savings, we know that's only part of the battle. We need to increase revenue to support our city's growth. I am proud that together, we have answered a call New Yorkers have rallied around for years. We will tax the rich. Make no mistake, this is the kind of progress that arrives too rarely, and it is the kind of progress that can only be won by a movement of New Yorkers — those who canvassed their neighbors, those who dialed endless numbers, those who believed government can truly change the status quo. The new pied-à-terre tax applies to non-resident New Yorkers who own a second home worth more than $5 million. It will generate $500 million in annual revenue. This was made possible thanks to Governor Hochul's leadership. And here in New York City, we will work with Speaker Menin and the City Council on their proposal to reduce the Unincorporated Business Tax credit, which overwhelmingly benefits millionaires. That partnership will raise an additional $68 million in annual revenue. These are common-sense measures. Working New Yorkers cannot be asked to sacrifice as we sit in the wealthiest city in the wealthiest country in the history of the world. I want to again thank Governor Hochul, Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins and Speaker Heastie for their commitment to our city.
We are working with Albany to deliver critical new gap-closing funding, $352 million in additional direct aid to our city, $3.2 billion through state authorizations of savings measures, including pension restructuring and class-size flexibility, and $500 million in new revenues, which come from taxing the rich. Through this budget, we have taken a critical step in the recalibration of our city's relationship with the state. Under past administrations, costs shifted from the state to New York City. This budget reverses a number of those shifts. If you look at the screen, you can see some specifics of these restorations, as well as the year in which the cost was initially shifted to New York City. They reflect our shared vision of a politics where the city and the state are not at odds, and where we harness the mighty resources at our disposal to improve the lives of those we serve. Yet, building an affordable New York is not just about balancing budgets; it's about making it possible for families to stay in this city and build a future here.
Nowhere is that commitment clearer from Governor Hochul than the historic $1.2 billion investment we made in free childcare for three-year-olds and, for the first time in New York City history, two-year-olds, on day eight of this administration. More families will be able to afford to stay in the city they love. More parents will continue to be able to be a part of our workforce. And our economy will be stronger as a result. At every step of this process, we made a choice to balance the budget without a property tax increase, without slashing services, without drawing down the Rainy Day Fund and Retiree Health Benefits Trust fund. In fact, we are doing one better. We have pored through our city's budget for savings and efficiencies, identifying an additional $1.2 billion the prior administration set aside from prior payables. And we will use that funding to restore the Retiree Health Benefit Trust and the Rainy Day Fund. And we are restructuring pension payments in a way that not only creates additional immediate savings for the city but protects retirees and preserves benefits. As this chart shows, New York City's pension funding rate exceeds the national average. Our city pays nearly $10 billion in pension contributions annually. We propose restructuring a portion of these contributions, the unfunded pension liability, to create consistent annual payments and ensure long-term stability. This will result in savings for years to come, including $1.64 billion in fiscal year 2027. Let me be very clear: this restructuring has no impact on retirees and their benefits, or current employees and their future benefits.
Now, let's talk about what this executive budget actually looks like. The investments we're making, the needs we're meeting, the city we're running. The fiscal year 2027 executive budget is balanced at $124.7 billion. This marks $2.3 billion less than the fiscal year 2027 preliminary budget. You can see the breakdowns in funding here: out of $17.3 billion allocated to new spending in fiscal years 2026 and 2027, just 8 percent is supporting new programs and investments. The vast majority of new spending, the other 92 percent, is addressing agency cliffs and core needs. This budget does more than just close a deficit. It confronts the affordability crisis that hurts New Yorkers every day.
[Crosstalk.]
Balancing the books means little if working people still can't afford their rent, childcare, groceries or the cost of staying in the city they love. We are investing with a clear purpose to lower costs and make this city livable for the people who build it each and every day. Now, for those who have followed budgets in past years, you know the term “budget dance.” It describes a long-standing dysfunction in this process — one where our parks, libraries, CUNY systems, cultural institutions and transit programs have to fight for every single dollar in their share of the budget every single year. The year after that, they have to do it all again. And the year after that, too.
We know that negotiations with the City Council are only just beginning, and we look forward to them. And we want to ease that burden on these agencies by transforming what were a number of one-time investments into long-term commitments. Traditional politics would decree that in a moment like this, when a crisis is so stark, when a budget gap is so wide, that the first things cut should be parks, libraries and cultural institutions. And yet we know that these services live at the heart of our city, that they give meaning to millions of New Yorkers' lives. Rather than cutting funding to these services, we will do the opposite and raise the baseline of what they can expect. Because we reject politics as usual, and we reject a budgeting process that systematically erodes the bedrock of our city. Our investments in the next generation begin with universal childcare.
In addition to our historic push to make childcare free for all, we are dedicating $2.3 million to the first-ever childcare pilot program for municipal workers, or as we like to call it, the “Little Apple.” We are also investing $40 million in increased contract rates for the childcare providers without whom there is no vision for universal childcare. For the woman who leaned over to me at the Liberty Game and asked for exactly this, this is your moment. Childcare providers have been reimbursed at the same rate since 2021, while costs for basics like rent, utilities, insurance and food have skyrocketed. Every single day, these providers make it possible for parents to remain in the workforce, for families to stay afloat and for our city to function. As we transform the childcare landscape in our city, we are making a commitment not just to families, but also to those who look after New York's cutest. And we are proud to make this investment, even amidst challenging fiscal conditions. Beyond childcare, we are allocating $17.3 million to expand New York City Reads and Solves so that we can improve our children's literacy and math skills K-12. We are also continuing to fund City Hall's top priority: keeping every New Yorker safe.
First, we are committed to devising and implementing new solutions to address domestic violence and the mental health crisis, as well as to deliver on community-based violence prevention. That is why we are investing more than $40 million in the new Office of Community Safety annually, beginning in fiscal year 2027. Our budget also allocates $26 million toward an expansion of hate crime prevention efforts under the Office to Prevent Hate Crimes, meeting our campaign pledge to increase hate crime prevention funding by more than 800 percent. And it invests another $9 million annually, starting in fiscal year 2027, for new FDNY civilian staff. We are committed to pairing safety with justice, which is why we are also investing in Right to Counsel and expanding the CCRB's capacity to investigate additional complaints. This budget makes investments in New Yorkers' lives in ways that they will feel every day – on their way to school and work, when they cross the street, and when they throw out their trash. We are making our streets safer by installing pedestrian alerts on 3,000 heavy-duty vehicles across our city fleet, and investing in Sammy's Law, because too many children are losing their lives in this city just to get from one side of the street to the other. And we are taking the first steps toward fulfilling our promise to fully containerize all trash citywide by 2031, with $14.8 million in fiscal year 2027, growing to $162.2 million in fiscal year 2030. This budget also lays out a comprehensive agenda that advances worker justice and protects those who keep our city running. We are going to invest in DCWP's capacity to perform enforcement, we are providing small business owners with legal assistance, and we will support hardworking taxi drivers and street vendors. Finally, this expense budget invests tens of millions of dollars in building a healthier city and supporting New Yorkers' well-being. We are going to support our seniors, stand steadfast alongside survivors of domestic and gender-based violence and invest more than $47 million annually to improve New Yorkers' access to mental health care. And as we all follow the Hantavirus outbreak, we are protecting our disease testing and surveillance capacities with a sustained city investment of $11.3 million annually.
As we come to the end of this presentation, I want to speak briefly about the investments New Yorkers can expect from our capital plan. This is a high-level breakdown of our $117.1 billion five-year capital plan. This chart shows a breakdown in the funding that our administration has added to the Five-Year Capital Plan. As you'll see again, the largest addition has been made to housing. At the heart of our affordability crisis is the simple fact that too many people cannot afford to live in New York City. That is why we are investing an additional $4 billion in HPD capital funds over the next five years, and $500 million more in fiscal year 2031, to build and preserve affordable housing across the five boroughs. These funds will go toward the deeply affordable housing that working-class New Yorkers need most. The Capital Plan also makes transformative investments in NYCHA, housing that is so often forgotten in plans like these. We're investing an additional $500 million in fiscal year 2028 for comprehensive NYCHA renovations. And we're allocating $256 million from this fiscal year to fiscal year 2028 in tandem with funds from the expense budget to restore vacant units so more families can move into safe, stable homes. This investment is historic. It is the most city capital funding ever dedicated to vacant unit turnover. And it is part of a larger, similarly historic commitment to NYCHA. This capital plan includes a total of $5.6 billion for NYCHA, the most city capital to NYCHA in recent decades.
Now, let's run the numbers. You can see here, we have a $25 million and $50 million revision on the assessments on our revenues. You can see here an increase in $150 million in revenues from tax audits that we implemented. This is the $68 million from the Unincorporated Business Tax that we will partner with Speaker Menin and the Council on. This is the reduction in revenue by not utilizing the property tax increase. This is the $500 million that comes from the pied-à-terre tax. This is the unrestricted aid that we are receiving, $117 million this year, then baseline to $161 million next year from Albany. This is non-tax revenue in the first year. We are looking at — oh, sorry, $117 [million]. This is a combination of federal and city [funding]. This then comes into the state assistance at $256 and $166 [million]. These are the non-tax revenues that we're seeing from across the city. Then, if you go into the expense changes, you'll see changes in expenses of $1.2 billion and $2 billion in these two fiscal years. You see an additional pension cost of $5 million in this year [and] savings of $240 million the next year. This is from the proposal to restructure city pension liabilities. As you can see, $652 million this year saved, $1.6 billion next year saved and then it continues in the out years. These are about $515 million savings in fringe for this fiscal year and the next. This is the $1.2 billion that I referred to earlier with regards to CityFHEPS due process cases and class size. As part of the proposed restructuring of the city's pension liabilities, H+H would see additional savings. This is the reinvestment of that savings back into the city budget. This is the assessment of the additional cost to the city budget from changes in pension policy at the state level. These are savings that we will see from the state, $101 growing to $362 million above that in the next year. Savings from debt service at $213 [million], additional cost of $16 [million] in the year after. This is the savings from the in-year reserve. This is the investment back into the Retiree Health Benefit Trust Fund so that there is no utilization of that trust fund. Here, however, you can see a savings as in the preliminary budget — this was going to be the time of investment. That is now not required. This is the prior year expenses and receivables I referred to earlier, $1.2 billion and then $400 in the next fiscal year. All of these things together come out to a fully balanced budget for our executive plan. Now to the next slide.
For fiscal years 26 and 27, you can see that the tax total is about $84.4 billion, grows to $88 billion in the next fiscal year. When you add in additional funds from the city, we're looking at $91.6 billion for this fiscal year, $94.8 billion for the next. Then when you add that with other grants from multiple levels of government, we're coming out to $124.3 billion, and for next year, $124.7 billion. Then, when you're coming down into expenditures, you can see Personal Service, $60.3 billion in this fiscal year, $60.7 billion in the next fiscal year. You add that to OTPS, $60.8 billion for this year, $57.6 billion for the next year, and you find the same total of $124.394 billion, $124.7 billion for the budgets of this fiscal year and the next fiscal year. If a budget is nothing more than a series of choices, I believe deeply in the choices that this executive budget reflects. Over the past three months, we have made the choice to search for every efficiency and savings we could find. We made the choice to forge a new relationship with Albany, one built around collaboration instead of contention. We made the choice to tax the rich and to reject the false inevitability of austerity. For too long, New Yorkers have been told that ambition must give way to austerity, that government can either be fiscally responsible or invest in people, but never both. This budget proves otherwise. Together, we have stabilized our city's finances. We have laid the foundation for a future where we can continue to deliver the affordability agenda New Yorkers deserve. That future seemed very far away a few months ago. Today, my friends, it is within reach. Thank you.
Question: Do you see this as a win, I guess? I know that Governor Hochul didn't quite give you all of the money, but she did allow you to postpone payments, and you didn't get quite the tax that you were originally proposing, but do you see this as a win of you being able to get this money from the state and then separately? I just had a question about the UBT tax.
Mayor Mamdani: Yes, I see this as a win, not just for our administration, but for the city of New York, a win to ensure that the city is back on firm financial footing, and it's doing so by taxing the rich, by creating a fairer relationship with Albany, by finally accounting for the mismanagement we'd seen in prior years and [by] embarking on a new chapter of an approach to budgeting that is honest and that is actually building for long-term stability. And I do want to thank Governor Hochul for her partnership in that. It is a partnership that reflects a commitment to the long-term health and vitality of the city. I'll pass it over to Sherif for additional details on UBT.
Question: Just to kind of go into more detail, who exactly is this tax targeting and how will it work?
Sherif Soliman, Director, Mayor's Office of Management and Budget: Sure. So, the unincorporated business tax is charged to pass-through entities, so those can be like partnerships, for example. About 24,000 payers of the unincorporated business tax also get a personal income tax credit. This proposal will begin to phase out that credit, 23 percent to 15 percent, and really impact primarily those who have more than $1 million in income from that tax.
Question: I know there was talk about replenishing the reserves. It looks like the general reserve still has the bare minimum of $100 million in it, and I was just wondering, if that's true [and] if I'm reading that correctly, what was the reason for keeping it so low? It used to be much higher. And do you have any thoughts on how that might affect credit ratings? I know some of the reserves were replenished, but it looks like this one was not.
Mayor Mamdani: We are confident about the fiscal picture that we are putting forward regarding our city; not only that we've been able to tackle under-budgeting of immense proportions in the prior administration, but [we are] also doing so while replenishing, as you said, not just the Rainy Day Fund but also the Retiree Health Benefit Trust Fund. I'll pass it over now to my team for additional details.
First Deputy Mayor Dean Fuleihan: So, we did restore the two permanent multi-year reserve funds, the Rainy Day Fund and the Retiree Health Benefit Trust Fund. And that's the clear focus, and that's what credit agencies are going to look to. The general reserve is a reserve fund within the fiscal year, and by the end of the fiscal year, it normally goes to zero. The history of that fund has actually been there. It has gone from $100 to $300 [million] for most of the city's history. It was at over a billion dollars, and in FY28 and every one of the out years, we restore it back to over $1 billion.
Question: [Inaudible.]
First Deputy Mayor Fuleihan: Look, we made priorities on what funds should be taken care of and what was the most important things for us to do to show financial stability. That's the Retiree Health Benefit Trust Fund and the Rainy Day Funds, because those are permanent reserves and reestablishing those should very much help our credit worthiness.
Question: On CityFHEPS, you mentioned what this means for people who are looking at renewals this year or the coming years, the people that may be holding vouchers and want to get into the program. Does that mean that you're not allowing any new people? And then could you give us some details on the pied-à-terre tax? What value are you guys basing that on, what does it look like as of today?
Mayor Mamdani: So, we are working with Albany on the administration of that tax. It'll be a tax that the city administers, and that is an agreement on the premise of it raising $500 million on an annual basis. That's half a billion dollars that goes towards closing what was the city's fiscal deficit that we have now brought down to zero. When it comes to CityFHEPS, I want to be very clear that it's an invaluable tool to help homeless New Yorkers who are getting out of shelter, and the proposals that we've put forward will not cut vouchers. I'll pass it over to my team for sharing additional details.
Director Soliman: As the mayor said, the proposal does not seek to cut vouchers. It seeks to introduce some management protocols into the program. So, for example, legal rent, just comparing that against state data, looking at rent reasonableness, reducing broker fees, things like that. So, it's not being cut, and we're not creating wait lists, so vouchers will continue to be issued.
Question: On the pied-à-terre tax, how can you assume that you're going to get $500 million if the details haven't been worked out?
Director Soliman: We have a commitment with the state to be able to have a revenue target of the $500 million. How we get there has a number of components to it. These are still active discussions that we're having with our partners in the state, and we will have a final product soon that does generate the $500 million per year.
Question: Can you walk us through the elements of the savings plan that require state approval versus those that don't? It seems like the UBT change doesn't require state approval.
Mayor Mamdani: No, it doesn't.
Question: Can you walk us through what is required to achieve the pension amortization? Does it require not only state legislative sign-off but also the approval of the pension funds themselves?
Mayor Mamdani: Yes, that's correct. To give you a sense of what requires state authorization, broadly, it is the pension restructuring [and] additional actions, but then also the final portion of it is class-size flexibility. I'll pass it to Sherif to speak a little bit more specifically about the pension restructuring and the approvals. As you said, just to be clear, it requires the approval both of the state and then also of the pension boards.
Director Soliman: Absolutely. As the mayor said, there are certain things that require authorization. Obviously, the pied-à-terre is one of them. We have the pension restructuring, which first has to be done in state law, [and] then [is] subject to approval by each of the five retirement systems. That is a procedure that is needed after the state law is enacted. There are other things, as the mayor mentioned, like class-size, that need to be also done in state law. The balance is pretty much direct aid beyond that to make up the $4 billion.
First Deputy Mayor Fuleihan: The pension authorization, the original, as the mayor showed, we have a fund that's — with all five funds, [is] about 86 percent fully funded. This pension, the pension restructuring, is to take the remainder to get to 100 percent. We're still paying over $8.7 billion in FY27 for pensions. This is taking what was put in state law in 2010, which was to get New York City to [a] 100 percent fully funded system. But what that state law had done, it back- ended the payments. It made the payments grow considerably in the out years. What we are doing is a level payment every single year through 2037 to get to 100 percent.
Question: Mayor or Sherif, whoever can speak to this, the contracts that you've mentioned, you've mentioned renegotiating some but also terminating some. Could you give a few examples, maybe of the largest contracts that have been terminated and where work is going to be brought in-house?
Mayor Mamdani: I can just tell you that broadly this is not specific to any one agency. We found that whether we were speaking of DOE or even of DYCD, there were a number of contracts of multi-million-dollar value where not only could the same work be done in-house, but it could also be done at a savings to the city. And this is a critical part of our approach to the stewarding of this budget: is that we are looking for ways to both increase the opportunity for our incredible public service workers to perform that public excellence and for it to be done at savings to the city. I'll pass it to Sherif for any additional details.
Director Soliman: Yes, and we can cover a lot of this in the technical briefing as well, but the mayor mentioned DYCD. That was a contract that was canceled for insourcing. There's also renegotiation of contracts. So, in DOT, for example, looking at one of the camera maintenance programs, for example, that was a $6 million savings. So, it is a variety of options, both renegotiation and terminating by insourcing.
Question: Mr. Mayor, the members of the business community, including the Partnership for the Homeless [and] the Partnership for New York City, have argued that the budget could reduce the number of employees in the city and the number of businesses. And you also have businessmen like Steve Ross, Ken Griffin and others who said they may take their business elsewhere. How worried are you about these warnings and these threats that in the long run could reduce the city's tax base and cause you future problems in the years ahead?
Mayor Mamdani: I've been very clear that I think we live in the greatest city in the world. And I think what makes this city great comes also from the people who keep it running each and every day. And there were many who put forward proposals to balance this budget by slashing services, by laying off city workers. That is not our vision for how to steward this budget. Our vision for stewarding this budget is one that invests back in those same working people because we know that the same city that is the wealthiest city in the wealthiest country in the history of the world is also a city where one in four New Yorkers are living in poverty. And so many New Yorkers look to these kinds of programs for relief. We talk about the investments we're making.
It's not just investments in libraries and parks and cultural institutions. It's also investments in public housing, investments in additional elevator mechanics to ensure that a senior doesn't have to walk up so many flights of stairs just to get home, and investments in turning over a vacant unit. Because in a city where the most pressing crisis is that of housing, the easiest thing to do should be to find a new tenant for a vacant unit. And these are the kinds of investments that we're proud of.
And we also believe that when you make the quality of life of this city better, when you deliver the highest quality of public service [and] when you keep New Yorkers safe at what are now record levels, you also create the environment for others to choose this city as their home. And we look to every business leader and prospective business leader to keep considering this city as a part of their future, because it is how we made this city a part of our present.
Question: So basically, [inaudible] is you’re not really worried about these cuts because you think that what you’re doing to improve the city will attract other people and other businesses, so whatever these businessmen are threatening isn’t going to hurt your [inaudible].
Mayor Mamdani: We want everyone to stay in this city, and we also want others to join them here in this city. We want every New Yorker to succeed, and when it comes to business owners, we want them to create good-paying jobs and to strengthen our economy. And everyone that you mentioned is a part of that vision. And we also know that to ensure that others can make that choice, we have to deliver them the best quality of public service. This is doing that.
Question: The pied-à-terre tax, those $500 million dollars, do you know where that will be invested, and if not, have you considered anything about the free buses proposal? I know that you were very keen on that. However, the governor, who is a very good ally for the city is very reluctant on that. Very reluctant. Have you had any progress with her as to whether that could be included in this executive budget or perhaps are you looking at the next executive budget? Because she did tell me in an interview that she’s considered it for the future.
Mayor Mamdani: I continue to believe in the importance of making our buses not only fast, but also free. And that will continue to be a part of not just our long-term vision, but even our medium-term vision here in New York City. The pied-à-terre tax, the $500 million it will raise on an annual basis, that will go back to closing the deficit to ensure that we can continue to deliver essential services in this city.
Question: Can you expand on how this increase would actually address and fight antisemitism, which is the majority of hate crimes? And also, how much of this investment is new city programs to be more effective in that?
Mayor Mamdani: Broadly, what I would say is that these are investments and programs that have been found to be effective. And too often, the only response offered to a hate crime is exactly that. It's a response to the hate crime. We want to also do the work of preventing those hate crimes. And as we've seen, Jewish New Yorkers constitute a minority of New Yorkers across the five boroughs and yet constitute a majority of New Yorkers who face hate crimes in this city. And the work we want to do is not just going to be responsive, but preventive. And this will also be done alongside the work of the Mayor's Office to Combat Antisemitism, which is embarking on a listening tour to create the first-ever municipal approach to fighting antisemitism in this city.
[Crosstalk.]
Question: Mayor, you said you're taxing the rich this year, but your main two proposals during the campaign — income tax hikes and corporate taxes — they're not happening. So, is this executive budget kind of an admission that that's not happening this year? And looking ahead, is this now a 2027 priority? And then there's some technical questions beyond that.
Mayor Mamdani: I don't know how else to describe a tax on secondary homes of non-resident New Yorkers worth more than $5 million than as a tax on the rich. And I think as you make clear in the question, wealth is measured in many different ways. In income, in profit, also in property. And this is a tax that is on the very kind of properties that developers have told local legislators they will not even oftentimes be filled with anyone in them — that they will not have an impact on city services, to quote those developers. And yet what we've seen is a reluctance to pass this legislation into actual practice. I say that because the idea of a pied-à-terre tax has been one that has been floated for many, many years and has never quite crossed the finish line. And it is thanks to Governor Hochul's leadership, thanks to New Yorkers across the five boroughs who have made clear their vision for a city and for a fair tax system that we're now able to put that vision into actual practice. I'll pass it over to our budget team for your specific questions.
Question: Are you giving up on the corporate business [tax] increases?
Mayor Mamdani: I think this in some ways is not too different from the prior question, which is the fact that I've been very open and honest about my vision, whether it be fast and free buses or whether it be higher personal income taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers or the most profitable corporations. This budget is a reflection of that vision in its tax on the rich and in its provision of services for working New Yorkers.
Question: And Sherif or the first deputy mayor, was I seeing it right there that city tax revenues are down in FY26 and 27? What's kind of causing those decreases?
Director Soliman: So, what you see is pretty much flat when we look at FY26 revenues. Collections are pretty much coming in on target. What you see in FY27 is also flat. And the movements there, we're seeing higher property taxes in terms of the forecast, but also lower PIT and some other takedowns — sales tax, for example. So, the combinations of those taxes offset. And, clearly, we're watching very closely what happens in terms of oil prices and what that means in terms of consumer sentiment and also inflation. But that is where the tax forecast is for now.
Question: So, you're expecting like half a billion in savings next fiscal year and more than $700 million in the fiscal year after that. I'm wondering if you can share any details about the nature of the delay. Like, will the city have to hit — right now, the law says you have to be at 60 percent. Next year we're supposed to be 80 percent. Like, what is the target for next year of any? What is your understanding of what the delay consists of?
Mayor Mamdani: So, that's an active conversation with our partners in Albany as well as in labor. And we are confident on not only instituting a timeline that yields savings, but frankly, more importantly, instituting a timeline that the city will actually be able to hit. And I'll give you an example. When we came into office, we found an estimate of class size compliance in the capital side that numbered at about $18 billion. In just four months, we have managed to reduce that $18 billion target to $14 billion.
What we're showing is that if you pressure test some of these numbers, if you actually put an emphasis on efficiency and on savings, you are able to drive down a lot of the costs of some of the long-term commitments of the city that prior administrations have cited as a reason that they cannot actually deliver on this. So, I'll pass it over for additional specifics.
First Deputy Mayor Fuleihan: In addition to what the mayor just said, the mayor also pointed out that no matter what the modifications are, we're committing an additional $1.5 billion in capital to the class size commitment in this coming fiscal year and an additional commitment to hire 1,000 more teachers at a number — I believe it's $123 million or $122 million to focus just on class size.
Question: On the due process cases, can you speak at all to how you're achieving those savings? Are you going to fight families more when they file those claims? How are you saving money there?
Mayor Mamdani: Oftentimes, the city's approach to the skyrocketing increase in due process cases has been exclusively a legal approach. What we are going to do is invest significant amounts of additional money into actually providing the kinds of services that the absence of which has driven families to take those legal measures. And we are confident that in that investment, as well as in the stewarding of this program, we will be able to not only yield savings but also deliver better outcomes for families.
Question: The dollar amount of the investment in special ed?
First Deputy Mayor Fuleihan: You'll see $128 million — $150 million, my apologies. Which is to expand programs in special education and also to enhance the efforts at the department to build more capacity.
Question: The $40 million, $44.9 million in funding for the Office of Community Safety. Can you clarify, is that all new funding that wasn't previously going to the office to prevent gun violence or community mental health? Is that all new funding, first off? And then second, what kind of programs is that going to? What expenses is that going to? Will there be funding for new B-HEARD teams, for example? Can you just walk us through some of that funding?
Mayor Mamdani: First, as part of the conversation we were having earlier on the question of one-time versus baseline, a lot of the funding, more than $50 million, that was part of the initial Office of Community Safety budget was one-time funding from the previous budget cycle. We have made the decision to baseline that funding as an annual commitment of the city. We've also made the decision to go beyond that baselining to invest additional millions of dollars into the office. And what you'll see — in some of that, it's the retention of programs that otherwise would have expired. In others, it's investments beyond that which we've already seen. You raised an example of B-HEARD. That is one of the examples where we are investing in expanding the city's capacity because what we've seen time and time again, especially when it comes to B-HEARD, is an underfunding of that program as well as a lack of support, all-encompassing in that term, for the program as well.
Question: What's the new funding amount?
Mayor Mamdani: The new funding amount on top of the baseline funding?
Director Soliman: So, it's around, total, $270 million. In FY26, it was $260 million. There was a drop-off to $207 million in FY27. So, our investment takes that above the $260 million to get to $270 million. We're happy in the technical briefing to go through all of the additions with you.
Question: Most of the questions are already answered. But, Mr. Mayor, on those due process cases, how quickly can you actually expand those special ed services? And how can you do it in time to get the savings as quickly as you're counting them?
Mayor Mamdani: We have made this very clear that this is a top priority to our New York City Public Schools system. It is a top priority, frankly, not because of the savings it will yield, but because of the services it will deliver. We are speaking about students who have been left behind by our city's education policies and thought of purely in the context of legal settlements. It is time to actually deliver them the kind of education that would mean their families don't have to consider going to a private school system to receive them.
Question: Critics who say your pension plan readjustment is actually kicking the can down the road — your response to that? Why, in simple terms, is it not kicking the can down the road?
Mayor Mamdani: It is fiscally prudent to have predictable payments. If you look at the payment schedule that was initially agreed upon from 2010 to 2032, it's a payment that increases every single year, increasing to upwards of $6 billion by the final year before then dropping like a cliff down to $0. What we are proposing is extending that cycle by five years, and that is an extension that would ensure that we would pay the same amount every single year as opposed to what is currently a variable amount increasing year after year. And I will just add one additional thing on the pension, is that we are currently funded at 86 percent across all five pension systems. There is not a question of if we will get to 100. It is simply when, and we are stating 2037 is our proposal. We look forward to working with our partners in labor on that. Thank you.
Question: On CityFHEPS and the reduction in spending, how does that account for the fact that the city is still in litigation with the City Council to expand that program? What happens if you lose that battle in court? What happens if you simply settle it and agree to expand it by a lesser number than the law mandated? If you're reducing the current spending on it, how will you account for what happens?
Mayor Mamdani: I think your question gets to the heart of it, which is the fact that this is an approach for CityFHEPS as it exists today. The conversations continue with the council around the questions of the scope and nature of its expansion. However, at the core of both those conversations and this proposal is a fundamental belief in the purpose of this program and in the place that it has within New York City government.
###