Mayor Adams threw cold water Tuesday on the idea that he could back off some of his proposed city budget cuts in light of his administration securing $1 billion in migrant crisis aid from the state.
The mayor has for months argued that the city’s ballooning migrant crisis tab necessitates budget belt-tightening across the municipal government.
So when Gov. Hochul announced last week that this year’s state budget will include $1 billion to offset the city’s costs on housing and providing services for migrants, some local elected Democrats voiced hope that Adams would reconsider cuts he included in his most recent city spending proposal for the 2024 fiscal year.
In a Brooklyn press conference Tuesday morning, Adams all but slammed the door on that suggestion, arguing the $1 billion in state funding isn’t enough to avert city budget austerity.
“I don’t know if people are aware of what we say is the financial impact on the city — $4.3 billion,” Adams said, referencing the amount of money his team projects the city will spend on migrant-related costs by July 2024. “So because we are getting a billion, which is coming in layers from the state, do we go back and just spend wildly again? No. The city must be efficient without layoffs and without cuts to services.”
As of the end of March, the city had spent $817 million on shelter, food and services for more than 50,000 mostly Latin American migrants who have arrived in New York since last spring, according to Adams’ office. Adams’ administration estimates the total will hit $1.4 billion by July 1. So far, the city has only received $8 million in aid from the federal government, though much more is likely to be allocated in coming weeks.
Against that backdrop, Adams last month unveiled an executive budget blueprint for the 2024 fiscal year that included various city spending reductions, including for the city’s three library systems. Embattled agencies like the Human Resources Administration, which has struggled to fulfill its basic duty of processing applications for food stamps and cash assistance, were not spared from Adams’ proposed executive budget cost-cutting.
The mayor has argued that if the city doesn’t spend cautiously now, it will likely be forced to enact more drastic cuts in future years.
City Council Democrats, including Speaker Adrienne Adams, have pushed back against the mayor’s budget vision and vowed to fight to reverse the cuts before a final spending plan must be adopted by July 1. They’ve argued the city can afford to maintain current social safety net spending while also accommodating migrants, pointing to better-than-expected tax revenue projections.
Brooklyn Councilman Lincoln Restler, a Democrat who co-chairs the chamber’s Progressive Caucus, expressed dismay over Adams’ reluctance to scale back his proposed cuts despite the state aid — and questioned his usage of the word “wildly.”
“Preventing cuts to essential services isn’t spending wildly,” Restler said. “It’s delivering what New Yorkers desperately need and deserve, including funding our schools, mental health services and affordable housing.”
At his press conference, Adams countered that the migrant crisis isn’t the only fiscal challenge on the city government’s horizon.
“We have to really acknowledge the turbulent forecast that’s in the future. Wall Street is not doing well. We are seeing real challenges that the city is facing,” the mayor told reporters. “We’re going to be smart, prudent protectors of New York City taxpayers’ dollars.”
The mayor also took issue with his budget proposals being described as “cuts.”
He said the trims he has baked into his spending plans are mostly based on Programs to Eliminate the Gap, or PEGs. Those efforts are designed to shave costs without disrupting services, he said.
“When I ran for office, if you go look at the tapes, you’ll see the tapes stating that I’m going to find efficiencies in government, and we’re going to do PEGs,” he said. “The New York City public heard me say it, they heard others talk, and they said, ‘Nope, we like the plan that Mayor Adams the candidate is running,’ and that was the right thing to do.”