New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Madam speaker, could you please call the house back to order?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The house will come to order.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Thank you. Thank you so much. If you could now recognize mister Jacobson for the purpose of introduction.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Jacobson for the purpose of an introduction.

[Jonathan Jacobson (Member, 104th AD)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Thank you for allowing me to interrupt these proceedings. I rise today to recognize a group of outstanding students visiting us from Beacon High School located in the 104th Assembly District. Joining us are 25 students from several academic and extracurricular programs, including government classes, the debate team, and the mock trial team. These students are actively engaged in their school and community, with many participating in athletic civil civic engagement and working towards earning the New York State Seal of Civic Readiness. Several have successfully proposed projects to the Beacon City Council and also the Beacon School Board to address issues in their community. They are accompanied by three dedicated social study educators, Erin Hattelin, Tim Newman, and Matt Stelts, who collectively bring decades of experience guiding students to become better scholars, leaders, and citizens. Also, accompany them is Floris Stadler, who is the Beacon School Board President and my Communications Director. In this chamber, students have the opportunity to see how government and democracy function, to understand their place in that process, and to be inspired to better the world around them. I am proud to welcome these students and educators to the capital and ask that we extend them the privileges of the floor.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On behalf of Mr. Jacobson, the speaker, and all members, we welcome our future leaders from Beacon High School today to our assembly chamber and extend to you the privileges of the floor. We hope you enjoy our proceedings today. Wishing you continued success in your academic and athletic endeavors. Thank you so very much for joining us today. Miss Peebles Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Madam leader, the members have on their desk an a calendar. I'd like to move to advance that a calendar.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On a motion by miss Peoples Stokes, the a calendar is advanced.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Thank you. We shall take it up immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Page three, resolution number one zero three four. Clerk will read. Assembly number one zero three four, mister Hasty, in response to the 02/2027 executive budget submission. An explanation has been requested. Mr. Pretlow.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Absolutely. And thank you, madam speaker. Since receiving the executive budget on January 20, we have worked diligently to evaluate the Governor's proposal. This includes conducting 14 joint public hearings to receive testimony from agency commissioners and directors, as well as stakeholders, including advocates, elected officials, industry leaders, organized labor, nonprofit agencies and members of the public at large. We held separate forums to solicit feedback from economic advisers to reach a consensus on the economic outlook and revenue forecast as we head into the new state fiscal year. All these perspectives have provided guidance to form the budgetary resolution we have before us today. I would like to thank Liz Krueger, Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, for her collaboration and partnership in conducting this year's hearings. I'd also like to extend my thanks and congratulations to Assemblyman Ed Ra, who started this process with us before being elected his new exalted position. I would also like to extend my thanks and congratulations to the new member of the ways ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Assemblyman Phil Palosamo, as he makes the transition into his new role. The budget resolution we will be voting on today prioritizes investments in all New Yorkers, making investments to safeguard the education, health and financial stability for them and their families. This resolution looks to improve the daily lives of people across the state. In service to these priorities, the assembly proposes major investments to put money back in the pockets of everyday New Yorkers. The Assembly financial plan spending for fiscal year twenty six-twenty seven is $266,000,000,000 excluding a $6,000,000,000 increase in federal Medicaid spending for the reactivation of the Essential Plan. From relief for New Yorkers struggling with high utility rates to expanding TAP eligibility, to investments in child care and affordable housing, and this one house budget resolution we have before us today will help make our state a more affordable place for our families. We accomplished this goal by providing residential electric consumers with a one time energy rebate payment to ease the sting of rising energy bills. We protect homeowners from increases in their property taxes by providing $1,500,000,000 in additional funding to support financially distressed municipalities that need our support most. The Assembly resolution does not stop there. By right sizing the budgetary needs of the state, we go further by providing affordable child care and enhancing support for our school districts. In addition, we address the class size mandate and provide cost share parity in TANF public assistance to address the cap for adult homeless shelter costs for New York City. The Assembly also invests in families and communities by providing support to address rising costs for everyday needs. Building upon the middle tax cut that we built on last year, this resolution provides an additional 1% tax cut for certain taxpayers with incomes below $323,200 Furthermore, the proposed LIFT New York Tax Credit refunds income taxes for those making up to 150% of the federal poverty level. Together, these personal income tax additions would provide a combined $10,800,000,000 in tax relief for the entire financial plan. Our resolution invests $322,000,000 to expand access to financial aid for students in New York by increasing the income limits and TAP awards and Excelsior awards by $160,000,000 for graduate TAP students, allowing more students to qualify for more assistance. In addition, we proposed New York reinvests in student educational supports, a partnership between the state and private lenders and institutions of higher education to provide lower interest loans to the many students who will no longer be eligible to finance their higher education through federal loans. The resolution recognizes the burden felt by all households who pay a utility bill. Electric and gas costs are rising nationwide and New York is no exception. The Assembly proposal includes actions to provide both immediate and long term relief to New Yorkers, rebate checks of 500 for taxpayers with incomes below $150,000 and $300 for those with incomes between $150,000 and $300,000 under our Protect Our Wallets Energy Rebate Plan. These checks would be issued to taxpayers in the current year. In addition, all increases, including those under existing utility rate cases, would be halted for two years while a study is conducted to evaluate the major causes of these price increases and the best approach for reducing ratepayer costs while continuing needy investments in our state's power infrastructure. The Assembly also provides $1,000,000,000 in additional investments under the Sustainable Future Program, investing funds to continue the expansion of programs that make clean energy more affordable and accessible. The Assembly budget invests $1,000,000,000 in funding to support capital needs of healthcare facilities and includes five seventeen million dollars over the executive's proposal to support the operating needs of financially distressed hospitals and nursing homes. We also include $1,200,000,000 in investments to hospitals and nursing home rates through the MCO tax and provide other increases in areas such as children's behavioral health, certified home health agencies and early intervention programs. Funding is also included to fully restore the capital rate add ons for hospitals and nursing homes. Today's budget resolution provides a total of $2,100,000,000 in education funding over the current school year, which is $9.00 $6,000,000 over the executive's proposal. The Assembly includes changes to the Foundation Aid Formula to increase reimbursement for English language learners, adds reimbursement to homelessness and foster youth and provides a minimum aid of at least 2% over the prior year. We also include $600,000,000 to aid the implementation of New York City's class size mandate. In addition to accepting the proposed expansion of pre K funding three through four year olds, the assembly provides an additional $20,900,000 to increase the reimbursement rate to at least $10,000 per child for three ks outside of New York City. The Assembly Resolution provides $100,000,000 to establish a new Learning Empowerment and Development Summer Youth Program with income eligibility up to 400% of the federal poverty level, increasing the number of children who can benefit from the early workforce experience, as well as an additional $100,000,000 to create 40,000 additional after school slots statewide. The Assembly budget resolution invests in our direct care workforce by including $238,000,000 to raise the targeted inflationary increases for human service workers from 1.7 to 4% and targets 2.3% of that increase to support staff salaries. The resolution prioritizes preserving and maintaining affordable housing by providing $750,000,000 in capital for each NYCHA and Mitchell Lama programs, as well as $225,000,000 for other public housing authorities and $250,000,000 for New York Housing for the Future and creates a new affordable homeownership and rental unit statewide. We provide an additional $200,000,000 to the Housing Access Voucher Program pilot to ensure affordable housing is accessible for more low income renters. The Assembly also includes $50,000,000 to assist lower income households seeking to purchase a home with down payment assistance. The Assembly Resolution increases funding to the EPF by $75,000,000,000 for a total of $500,000,000 to provide additional funds for essential environmental protection programs. We invested an additional $200,000,000 for a total of $700,000,000 for clean water infrastructure and included a new $50,000,000 program to allocate funding to cities as well as provide parameters for $50,000,000 in rural water infrastructure funds proposed by the Bud executive. The Assembly provides an additional $150,000,000 in local aid to municipalities for chips, paved New York and state touring routes. We also include $15,000,000 to support fare free buses in each of the five boroughs of New York City, as well as increase the operating assistance for upstate transit. The Assembly One House Resolution includes a package of revenue proposals totaling $3,600,000,000 in state fiscal year twenty six-twenty seven and $2,700,000,000 in twenty seven-twenty eight, above the executive. Three of these proposals are increasing corporate income tax for companies with base incomes in excess of $10,000,000 or more, increasing the personal income tax rate for the highest earning brackets over $5,000,000 and establishing a tiered excise tax on crypto mining facilities that consume extreme amounts of electricity that would ensure the top earners, be it individual or a large corporation, pay their fair share to the state. In turn, the additional revenue generated would be used to assist working and middle class families, as well as certain small businesses across the state. Some of the tax relief provisions contained in the Assembly One House includes providing one time power rebate checks totaling $2,600,000,000 to residential electricity consumers under certain income thresholds, repealing the excise tax on medical cannabis, providing New York City renters tax credit, and increasing the current small business subtraction modification. Through these proposals, the Assembly Majority demonstrates our continued commitment to addressing the cost of living concerns that have negatively impacted many in our communities. The investments made in this budget resolution will help families making public service more robust and helping New Yorkers keep more money in their pockets. Madam Speaker, I don't assume there should be any questions after that dissertation that I just gave you, But, I'm pretty sure that mister Palmisano may have a couple of questions.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: We will start. Mister Palmisano.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Thank you, mister Pralow. And, I will say it's I look forward to working with you. I enjoyed working with you on at the budget hearings and look forward to our discussions, which I know are always cordial. Thank you very much for that very detailed and thorough explanation of your one house budget. I do have some questions. I know some I mentioned in the committee, just for everyone who might have not been in there. One question you said, you mentioned Mr.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Pretlow, will you

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Oh, absolutely. Yields

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: questions. Sorry

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: about that.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The chair yields for questions.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Norber')]: Sorry.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Thank you. I'm a little new at this event.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: He's nervous. Don't worry about it.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: You're right, but we'll get it. One one thank you for yielding, mister Preitlow. One one number you threw out there was for all funds. You mentioned $266,000,000,000 In committee, they mentioned $272,000,000,000 Is there can you explain the discrepancy of that? Yes.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: This is the we had a we received the waiver of this 1331, and that will give us an additional $6,000,000,000 in our budget. The governor's proposal did not include that.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Okay, fair enough. As far as, you might not have the percentages yet, but how does this increase above the governor's proposed budget for all funds and over last year's budget then?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: It's a 1.2% above the executive's budget or 3.5% year over year. Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: How about for state operating funds? How does that compare to the governor's budget and how does that compare to last year's?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Our spending is estimated at $161,600,000,000 which is an increase of $2,700,000,000 or 1.7% over the executive's estimate and $12,700,000,000 or 8.6% over fiscal year twenty five-twenty six.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Okay. Over the last five years, our budget has increased nearly $80,000,000,000 It seems to a number of us that we're spending a lot more money than we should be. Do you believe a state spending cap would really help us meet or make our state financial plan more transparent and fiscally stable to address affordability and competitiveness?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, don't know if a state spending cap is what we're looking at. I mean the goal of government is to help people and to make life more affordable. In many cases that means the state may have to spend additional funds.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: In the event of an unforeseen shock to the economy, maybe caused by recession or anything, do you believe there's enough funds to cover the level of spending commitments proposed in your budget?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes. I

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: want to ask you about out year budget gaps. Do you know what the out year budget gaps are with your proposed budget for next several years? The course of

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: the financial plan, the executive estimates a cumulative budget gap of 27,900,000,000 our estimate is 2,900,000,000.0 above the executive.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: So, the governor's was 27.9 and yours is little over 30.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Ours is 30.3.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Okay. Fair enough. Could you so that's cumulative. Could you give me what the breakdown is for the next couple of years for each year too, please?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: The twenty seven-twenty eight budget gap is estimated at $7,700,000,000 The 2829 is estimated at $10,500,000,000 The 2930 budget is estimated at 12,400,000,000.0.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Okay. On the reserve funds, do you know what the totals are for the economic certainty fund, rainy day reserve fund and the tax stabilization fund?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: That I'm not 100% sure. Let me check on that one. The reserve for economic uncertainty is $3,847,000,000 that's what the executive is proposing.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: And do you know what the

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: And that was exactly the same.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Okay. And then with the rainy day reserve fund tax stabilization

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: fund? That's takes tax stabilization is 1,600,000,000.0, which is the same as the assembly. And the rainy day fund is 9,100,000,000.0 which is the exact same as the do you know what

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: percent Thank you, Mr. Prelo. Do you know what percentage of state operating funds spending this equates to?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I have to get back to you on that, I'm not sure.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: That's fair enough. Okay. Then I won't ask the next question because that would be another question. How long would that I was going to ask how long would it take for the reserves to equal 15% of total state funds. You can get back

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: to me

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: on that one since you don't have the

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: other answer. Yes, I will.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: I want to ask about debt if I could. How much does your budget proposal increase estimated outstanding debt for the fiscal year 2027?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: For fiscal year twenty six-twenty seven, the Assembly is projecting $59,700,000,000 Okay, but that's an increase over the executive or you want the Yes, assembly increase over the executive? Over the executive, it's $1,900,000,000

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: And what's the total outstanding?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: It's excluded from the cap. Outstanding debt for fiscal year twenty six-twenty seven, dollars 61,600,000,000.0.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Okay. One point of clarification if I could ask. In the committee, when we were asking outstanding debt above the governors, I believe the answer was 12,000,000,000. Can we just clarify that? I thought you said mentioned 1,000,000,000. Is it 12? That

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: was 2520 fiscal year 2526.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: Okay. Alright.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Let's if we can go to taxes a little bit, please. Know, Mr. Prelo, I know you and I would say that in the consensus meeting, and those economists talked about the growing uncertainty surrounding New York's fiscal outlook, and really re warned on the overreliance of high income earners and the volatility of the financial sector revenues.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: Yes.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: But again here I think we have a budget that's addressed going after both high income earners in the financial sector, the volatile market. Given these warning signs, why does this budget continue this trend with these policies really would make it less affordable and less competitive with the warning signs being provided to us?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, we understand the concerns regarding the potential migration or out migration of high income earners due to the proposed increases in personal income tax rates at the highest level. But because of HR1, these same individuals are experiencing around a $51,000 tax deduction. We think that it's fair that they help pay some of the hardships that put upon these residents of New York to help us keep us all afloat.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: We we know there are people leaving the state. Our share of millionaires are shrinking compared to states like Florida and Texas. What is the backup plan if next year we face even a worse excess with our most successful taxpayers and businesses leaving?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well according to the preliminary tax data from tax and finance, the number of millionaire tax filers has increased from 99,404 in 2024. That's the last year we have available. And

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: I know it's raising the rate in a couple of different places from 10.3 to 10.75% for incomes between 5 and 25,000,000, and for 10.9 to 11.75 for those over 25,000,000 to 100,000,000.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: I guess my question is, with this worry about people leaving, wouldn't you rather have 10.3% of 10,000,000 than 10.75% of zero? Wouldn't you rather have 10.9% of 30,000,000 versus 11.75% of zero? Isn't that the risk we run with these increases of this percentage of tax?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yeah, is what you're considering at risk. We don't think that's going to come to fruition. Since COVID, the number of millionaires in New York has increased. Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: On the corporate tax rate, is that something you think how's that do we know how many businesses are impacted by the corporate tax rate increase?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, that's with businesses with a net gross income of over $10,000,000 it's

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: roughly 8,000.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: It's around about 8,000. 8,000? Yeah. Which is 2.5%.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Relative to the tax increases on our financial firms, and you remember in the budget hearing the city controller and there was another representative from the city, forgetting and I should remember, they both stressed the concerns about the financial sector, the financial industry, and those individuals leaving, but yet this budget has increased taxes on the financial sector for New York City. Is that really a wise move when we see these financial sectors already leaving for states like Texas and Florida?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well based on our studies, it's a risk that we're willing to take.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: All right. I would like to talk a little bit about the manufacturing. I know that we're decoupling from the federal tax, and we heard from manufacturers that their concern about being decoupled is that will risk their investment in capital, that could risk some of their investment in job creation and possibly staying here. Is that a worry that you have by decoupling or are you just confident that these manufacturers despite their warnings are going to stay put here in New York State and not invest here?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Our proposal is really revenue neutral. We're not taking too much Well,

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: by decoupling, we're not giving it upfront tax relief for expensing. And I think under our current law, we do it over five years and I get over five years, but if we're competing with states that aren't decoupling, is that going put us at an economic disadvantage with those businesses?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I don't believe so.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: You don't believe so? That's fair enough. I'd like to switch to one other tax real quick. You have the nicotine tobacco alternative tax, and I know you're trying to understand the rationale when, you know, this is used to help people not smoke. We know we spend over $7,200,000,000 in smoking related on Medicaid. What's the rationale to go after this? We know people smoke 1,500,000 New Yorkers, it will be won't this disincentivize those individuals to try to quit smoking or make them go back when we're increasing the price of a pack almost to a pack of cigarettes?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, this was a proposal by the governor and we're accepting that proposal. Is a lot of talk about these packets that you are referring to that cause various forms of mouth cancer, gum cancer and lip cancer. And there is always this move to get away from nicotine. Nicotine, if you look it up in your dictionary, you'll see that it is actually a poison and it's used to kill weeds and other things. We're trying to get people away from nicotine.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: I understand that. I think the harm reduction factor should play into us we're and we don't have to debate all that, but I'm just concerned that this is going to make it harder for people to quit smoking, given the incentive to not use a product that doesn't do less damage. So, I definitely want to switch to another area real quick if I could on the energy side real quick. We saw I mean, I see in your budget you have the rebate checks. I mean, that was something we proposed also, but we proposed more than that. You saw the annual report that came out from NYSERDA that said it would increase home heating costs by over $4,000 for New Yorkers, particularly Upstate, increase the price of a gallon of gas, 2.23 a gallon, increase diesel 2.41 a gallon, increase utility costs for small and medium sized businesses 46%, increased delivery truck cost operations by 60%. Isn't there more this budget should do to address this? There are no pauses in the CLCPA or any of the green mandates, is that correct?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Okay. Well, are putting a moratorium on rate increases.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Wouldn't it be better to kind of go a bit mean, a freeze is nice, but wouldn't it be better to go there's $2,400,000,000 in reserves. I know some of our colleagues on the other side have brought this up too. $2,400,000,000 which is part of our plan. $2,400,000,000 in reserves that NYSERDA is sitting on that's already been collected from the ratepayer. That's something we can get provide immediate ratepayer relief for them that. Also, I know you're talking about freezing rates, but wouldn't it also be good to stop the collection of sales, taxes, fees, and assessments and surcharge which can constitute 20% of a bill? Wouldn't it be good to do those things to provide direct immediate relief? Because don't New Yorkers want direct immediate ratepay relief now versus subsidizing some of the DV purchase, subsidizing someone's heat pump?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We have a moratorium. We are putting a moratorium in place and that's checked on the rates and we are trying to find a way to reduce the costs. You are right, rates are going up. I personally don't necessarily agree with NYSERDA's report, but this is their business so they very well may be right. But there are other factors that are causing our rates to go up. Gasoline now hit $2.5 a gallon because of international incidents. Everything is becoming less and less affordable.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: I understand. I appreciate the effort, but I think there's a lot more we should be able to do a lot more. I think there's some things that we agree on with even your side and some of these things we should look going forward. I definitely want to talk about migration real quick too. We talk about the taxes, we talk about the financial sector. The day of our revenue meeting, there was a study that said that one third of New Yorkers were looking to lead in the next five years. They cited 40% said cost of living, 21% said quality of life, 15% said taxes. Is there any concern again on your part with the plans that you're putting forth, the tax on the financial sector industry, the tax on high end we're putting more reliance on them. Are you not concerned, especially that alarming poll that says maybe one third of New Yorkers might leave? Is that something that you're concerned about at all?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, no, you say that one third of New Yorkers want to leave, I can almost guarantee you that they'll be replaced by other New Yorkers, the new New Yorkers. Our population has actually grown contrary to popular belief. A lot of people that are leaving are lower income people that find a city less affordable. You talk about affordability and everything, but everyone wants to sell their house for more than they paid for it. Everybody wants to make a profit and the laws of economics take place here, supply and demand. The supply of housing in New York is low. The demand is high, so the price is high. I don't know. Are you maybe suggesting that we make New York less desirable and that would make the demand lower and lower prices? I don't think so. I think that you want to make New York more desirable.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: I just want to see our major tax generators, tax earners leaving the state that provides these great programs for the people that we want to serve. If I could pivot real quick to corrections for a second, if I may. We know the correction staffing crisis that we're facing

[Brian D. Miller (Member)]: Yes.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Our state correctional facility. We know the national guards in there. When we're looking at ways to and I know there's some funding in there for recruitment. There's one provision that I've been having a hard time wrapping my arms around why we're not including in our one house budget. It's something this house has passed unanimously several years to governors vetoed, the death gamble which would protect the pension for our brave men and women working inside our correctional facilities if something were to happen to them. Why did you not include the death gamble in this budget? Because the governor has always said didn't

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: put any retirement bills in the Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: And also there's another one we passed and I know it's on the same subject. I think the senate included something on this as well. With the New York last year, we passed twenty year retirement in state reinstatement for NY New York Police Department, City Police Department, and the federal the fire department. We had legislation that would have done the same for New York City corrections officers and sanitation workers, and given the fact that we've seen a tremendous decline in New York City corrections officers at one point in 2021, there's 7,200 of them now in January 25, less than 5,000, We could have put that twenty year retirement to Governor Vito. Wouldn't it be good to put that in there to make sure? Because otherwise, those individuals are going to recruit, are going to go to the police and fire because they got the twenty year, and then those that are there are going to leave and go to those because they have the twenty year. So that's just going to cause more of a problem, isn't it? Shouldn't we be looking at maybe have more discussions on that moving forward? I guess I could ask you, can we have more discussions on that moving forward? We could

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: have more discussions on that, but there is a cost to municipalities, which is the reason that tier five and then tier six came about. There was a lot of talk about changing it, but we have to also now consider what that is going to be charged to the municipalities that pay their portion of this, and then we have to raise property taxes, which we also don't want to do.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: I agree. I agree. That's definitely got to be part of the discussion, especially when we talk about tier five and six. On that provision, this New York City Council, they did a home rule legislation in support of I just hope that's something we can address because that will help recruitment and retention of the corrections officers in the city. I'd like to talk about one issue on health, donate life. We in the budget last year, we had money put in. There was some money that was removed from the in the one in the governor's budget. We didn't put that money in our budget. Is it and I know it's a strong commitment on your side of aisle and our side of aisle to help with donate life. Is that funding eliminated or are you looking to

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: put No, we money have sum that we put in for the future.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Hopefully then I'd just like to make the pitch for more funds to And as

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: you well know, the governor, all governors always remove all of the legislative ads and then we have to buy them back but we always get them back.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: I agree. One quick thing on the zero emission school buses. I don't want to belabor the point. I hope some of my other colleagues elaborate a little bit more. But I'm really having a hard time. We're asking our school districts to totally convert their entire medium and heavy duty fleets by 2035, a full five years before the state of New York has to convert their fleet. Shouldn't we make the state of New York do it first and show it to be done fiscally responsible? Because when you talk to school super, they're up in arms. They can't do it. They don't have the resources. The grid can't handle it. Isn't that something, the cost, the charging, isn't that something and the money that's in this budget, I know 100,000,000 is nowhere near the cost, what we to pay for that cost. Is that something we should consider I

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: know you know that many school districts, especially upstate, get refunded by the state for their transportation costs which would include purchasing school buses. The state in one way is paying for them in many instances.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: All right. Hoping some of my colleagues pick up on that a little more detail. Mr. Pretlow, it's been an honor and a privilege talking to you. I look forward to more discussions with you when we get to the real budget, hopefully at the end of the month, but who knows. So, I just want to thank you for your time.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: It will be the end of the month.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Yes. Madam Speaker, on the resolution.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Yes, Madam Speaker, my colleagues. First, want to thank Mr. Prelude for his time, their team. I really want to give a shout out to our WAM team. They're great. They're helping us prepare, helping certainly helping me prepare and helping our cops prepare for this discussion. Thank you very much. The good news about this resolution is this is the next step in the budget process and hopefully adopting a fiscally responsible budget on time by April 1. The bad news, and I recognize this is your priorities, your wish list, unfortunately this is more of the same. It moves us in the wrong direction and it sends the wrong message. What is it? It's more taxes. It's more spending. It's more out your budget gaps. It's more debt. It does not address the affordability and quality of life crisis facing New York families and businesses. It will continue to lead to our nation leading out migration of more individuals, families, and businesses leaving the state. Let's just recoup some of the spending stuff. A quarter of $1,000,000,000,000 $272,000,000,000 depending on how you look at it. $9,000,000,000 more than the governor proposed. 13,000,000,000 more than last year. 80,000,000,000 over the past five years. Not fiscally responsible and certainly not fiscally sustainable. I think sometimes this chamber thinks it's our money and we forget it's the people's money. Out year budget gaps of nearly $28,000,000,000 over three years. Outstanding debt nearly 12,000,000,000 above the governor. The taxes already the highest tax rates in the country. We're putting more dependency on fewer and fewer taxpayers who are the most mobile and able to move and are taking their taxable income with them. I mean again 10.3% is our current tax rate. Wouldn't you rather have 10.3% of 10,000,000 versus 10.75% of zero or 10.9% of 30,000,000 versus 11.75% of zero? Because that's what's going happen it's going to end up being zero. Even more or even worse, we're increasing taxes on our businesses by billions of dollars particularly the financial firms in the financial industry. I and many of our colleagues are very concerned about the negative impact these policies can have on New York financial markets and the broader financial services sector that anchors so much of our state's economy and tax base. It's increasing taxes on the very industry that drives investment, capital formation, and thousands of high paying jobs. It will undermine our competitors and it is a formula that motivates and makes it easier for these firms to expand and relocate in other states like Florida and Texas where they already are and who are already competing for these jobs. You see it already. This sentiment was echoed by the city controller at a panel during the budget hearings as well. They're worried about that. We see these firms moving now. This budget resolution will only exacerbate the migration issue in New York. As I mentioned in the poll, said one third of New Yorkers were looking to leave the state of New York in the next five years. That is not a good sign. And like they said, 40% say cost of living, 21% quality of life, 15% increased taxes. And according to The US census, we've already lost over a million of our neighbors since 2020. Policies like this will not help. It was just going to exacerbate. What we needed to be

[Lester Chang (Member)]: doing is we need to

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: be cutting taxes, cutting red tape and regulations, cutting spending, strengthening our competitiveness, encourage private sector investment and job creation so our businesses want to stay here and even better businesses want to come here. I'd be remiss if I didn't talk quickly about a couple things. CHIPS, I think that's something I know my colleagues will talk about. That's something that needs to be invested in and have a stronger commitment from that perception. I think that needs to be done. The corrections officers that I mentioned, we need to get them the death gamble. We've done it before. We passed it before. That's gonna be a significant recruitment retention tool for our corrections officers, and we need to make that retirement system for New York City correct corrections on par with the New York Fire Department and Police Department. Otherwise, we're gonna continue to see the loss of our corrections officers in the city system continue because it's already declining at a crisis level. And, of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't take a little bit of time to talk about an issue I talk about a lot on the floor, energy. I'm disappointed but not unexpectedly not surprised that there's no pause or delay in the CLCPA, the cap and invest, the EV school bus mandate, the green new deal, the energy climate agenda that you've advanced with the electrification mandates. The affordability, reliability, feasibility, fuel diversity, energy choice are not addressed by this bill and this chamber. We can start with the damning NYSERDA memo last week that says it's going to increase the cost of New York ratepayers. What we' been saying since we passed the CLCPA in 2019 the memo did it say it' going to increase home heating costs by more than four by up to $4,000 so more than $4,000 increase the price of a gallon of gas by $2.23 a gallon above and beyond what it is now. Increase the price of diesel by $2.41 a gallon above and beyond what it is right now. We'll increase utility costs up to 46% for small and medium sized commercial businesses depending on the utility and facility size. And it will increase delivery truck operations by 60%. So your food costs are gonna go up when they're delivered by food. Your lumber costs which we have an affordable housing crisis, those costs are gonna go out. We're just completely out of touch. You cannot say as the governor says, she's for affordability when you have this policy resume on your agenda. It just doesn't work. The total cost of the CLC pay by three different estimates, more than a quarter of $1,000,000,000,000 to a half $1,000,000,000,000 the total cost of our budget. Things like the July 23, the PSC approved $43,000,000,000 of improved ratepayer increases for the green energy mandates. To convert your home over from electric from natural gas to electrification by three different studies, 20 to $50,000. People cannot afford that. The mother of all unfunded mandates, EV school bus mandate which we talked about, increased cost by 8 to $15,000,000,000 in replacement costs. Again, why not let the state of New York do it first and show it can be done? Why are we asking our school districts to do and taxpayers to do it a full five years before our our but the state does it. That makes no sense to me. Whatever. Why are we asking our school district or property taxpayers to be the guinea pig for this experiment? There's things we can do. We talked about the rebate. That's good. But we got a rebate. There's $2,400,000,000 for the energy that provide direct relief. Give that money back to the rate payer they've already collected from them because they want direct rate rate payer relief. They don't want to subsidize someone's EV purchase or electric heat pump. There's the taxes, fees, assessment, and surcharges on your bill represents up to sometimes 20% of your bill. Let's let's suspend that. I mean, it's nice you wanna freeze rates, but this will provide that doesn't do anything to lower them. This would lower rates. And we need to look at repowering natural gas and and building natural gas so we can help hit our supply like the nice of said. We have declining generation and retirements, rising fuel costs, pipeline constraints, and the growing demands for electrification are the things driving up these costs. We have major short term and lot reliability gaps that need to be addressed.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: So,

[Lester Chang (Member)]: we need to do

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: a better job. I mean, the policy, we need all above strategy. Natural gas is a part of it. The technology is not there for the new stuff yet. But natural gas, you don't tear down a bridge before you build a new one, but that's exactly the policies you're implementing are going to do. And there's more. But I will tell you, we can do better on this. What I will say, we will continue to talk about this issue and continue to advocate for energy agenda that prioritizes affordability, reliability, feasibility, fuel diversity, and energy choice because my colleagues, New York families and businesses deserve it. And for that reason and many other reasons, mister speaker, I will be voting the negative on this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: Miss Walsh?

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Will chair Pretlow yield for some questions, please?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: Mister chair, will you yield?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Absolutely.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: Chairman yields.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: Thank you very much. So as I think all of us know, this year is the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the the declaration of independence, and next year is the anniversary, two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Battle of Saratoga, which was the turning point in the American Revolution. Celebrations are planned all over the country, certainly in New York State, but if I'm looking at the proposal correctly, it's stating that for the two hundred and fiftieth commemoration, out of a $272,000,000,000 one house budget proposal, there's only $7,000,000 that's being appropriated for the two hundred and fiftieth commemoration and that money is only being earmarked for one project at People's Island State Park. Could you please reassure me that I'm incorrect in what I'm seeing because I find that to be an absurdly low number for considering the importance of this event?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: You're right. It is what it is. I can't assure you that you're wrong because you're right. But this is what was proposed and we can maybe negotiate a higher amount.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: I really hope so. I mean if you look at what other states that don't have nearly as much to claim in terms of history and the fact that this is the right where we are is the location of the turning point of the American Revolution. I mean other states like New Jersey are appropriating, you know, tens of millions of dollars for this celebration and it will be a moneymaker because we're going to have people coming in, history buffs and people who are just really proud of our country who are going be coming to the area and I really believe and I would ask that the majority continue to advocate in negotiations for an amount that's going to be much higher than that. Okay?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: All right, thank you. So we'll move on from there. I wanted to talk a little bit about universal pre k. Could you talk a little bit about what the one house proposal is regarding universal pre k and what those expenditures will be looking like?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We're looking at at least $10,000 per child for districts that apply for it. Prior to this proposal, the amounts that were available weren't enough for many districts to put it into place. We feel that with the $10,000 per child that that will open it up to a lot more school districts or not for profits depending on where we are talking for universal pre k.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: Now isn't it true though that the UPK under the one house budget proposal will be mandated for all four year olds by school year 2028 and 2029?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I don't know if it's mandated.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: I think it's more than encouraged. I thought it was mandated.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Okay, this is saying schools are mandating them. If the parent isn't mandated, I'd to explain. The schools can mandate students in their district for pre k.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: So it will be a local option as to whether the four year olds will

[Unidentified Staff/Counsel (off-mic interjections)]: go? Okay.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I'm being told that schools have to provide it, the parents don't have to utilize it.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: Okay. Alright. So the schools will have to provide it. So let me give you some insight into a district that I represent, the Shenandoahoe School District in Clifton Park. They are just now in 2025, hopefully by fall, going to be able to implement full day kindergarten. And it has taken it's a huge lift. It's a big school district by upstate standards. Big It's school district. They had to purchase a whole other building, completely outfit it, then staff it. It's a big lift. And they're one of the last school districts in the entire state to be able to implement full day kindergarten. So what my concern is, is that unless we implement some type of a waiver process for school districts, one of the school districts that I represent is going to have a really hard time providing UPK for all four year olds within that timeframe. So I don't believe maybe I'm wrong, but is there any waiver process that's been built into the language in the one house regarding UPPA

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: It's for four not in the one house now and it can be negotiated in the future. What we have in the one house is what our proposal is compared to what the Governor proposed. Everything now is still being negotiated for a final budget.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: I would very much encourage if that could be incorporated in some way to give some relief to schools that certainly see the value in universal pre K but will have a very difficult time meeting a mandate in that short of a timeframe.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: But you do realize that the school districts can get outside entities to do it?

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: That's right. And we do have some in my district, but we also have a number of schools that are religious based and they have my understanding is that they can't participate because they would have to deviate significantly from the curriculum that they would be doing with the kids. So there are some providers of UPK, but not enough nearly to meet what the demand would be if this goes into place like this. So I just wanted to mention that. I wanted to circle back next to a topic that was brought up by the previous speaker and that is zero emission school buses. I saw that the one house budget proposal included $100,000,000 in new funding for zero emission school buses but it didn't prescribe how the funds would be distributed. Can you explain why that is the case? Why are we doing it that way?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: This is a program we're adding $100,000,000 to. This is the same program we had last year and this is an additional $100,000,000 to that program.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: Okay. Do you happen to know what the amount that was has the amount that's currently in the program been expended?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I'm not sure. Not yet.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: Is a belief or has there been any kind of a study or maybe during the testimony that you took during budget hearings that $100,000,000 will be enough to satisfy the demand in order to meet the current mandate of no new purchases of buses beyond 2027 that are not zero emission?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, the thousands of buses that will need to be purchased by that date, don't think the $100,000,000 is nearly enough.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: I would absolutely agree with you that it would not nearly come close enough even if you could find them. Because as we all know, and I know we've heard that zero emission buses are two to three times as expensive as a high efficiency diesel bus, for example. Okay. I would say that that might be something that should be considered. I personally prefer, and I will put in my own 2¢, that I don't think that that mandate of 2027 going forward that there can be nothing but zero emission purchased by school districts is feasible at all. I think that I share the dismay of the previous speaker that some of these CLCPA mandates that have been put in place need to be strongly examined because they are just not feasible. They're not affordable. They're not feasible. But okay. Just checking my notes. Okay. Could we talk about the rates commission and I believe you discussed it with the previous speaker about the two year prohibition on any rate increases for two years. During the my question is during that two year freeze when there would not be a rate increase, if there are utilities that are making investments and they would normally when they would come in for a rate case present what those investments were and then use that as an explanation for why there would need to be a rate adjustment. During that two year freeze, what would happen in terms of the investments that are made during that two year period? Wouldn't they just get banked and then when the freeze ultimately lifted they could come in with those or how would that work?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well this will be determined by the commission that we are setting up. A freeze is a freeze, they can't raise the rates, That's what we are saying. And the commission will then look at the producers of electricity and the sellers of electricity and come to some agreement as to what the rates really should be because right now the popular belief is that we are being overcharged and we want to find out if that's true and by how much.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: Yeah, so I think that that issue though of we don't want to by creating this freeze on rates, we don't want to legislate a disincentive for utilities to continue to improve the transmission and the grid because we know that on the East Coast and in New York we have some of the oldest energy infrastructure anywhere in the country. We can't just create a disincentive. If they don't think that they're going to get their investments back at the end of that two year freeze, then why would they possibly want to expend the money because they're just they would just be

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: throwing Well, they will spend the money because it's their system and if the system needs work, they are going to fix it. They are not going let it just fall apart because their rates are being frozen.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: But can you speak to what the intention of the proposal in the one house is? Is it that they would ultimately be able to recover investments made during that two year freeze or not?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: That would be up to the Commission which hasn't been put together yet.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: Okay. Alright, very good. I did see that for CHIP's funding there was an increase of $50,000,000 over was it over last year or was it over the Governor's proposal? It's know it's over the Governor. Yes. And I think that that's really good. I just did want to kind of state for the record that having met with the highway superintendents that are within my district, they are very concerned that that will not be sufficient. They are concerned that the cost, as we know just as consumers and as citizens in New York, that the cost of everything has gone up. Their cost of asphalt has gone up. Their cost of labor has gone up. The cost of fuel has gone up. It's all gone up. And as, of course, as we add more EV vehicles that are heavier on our roads, we expect that that's going to tax the roads even to a greater extent so that a road that could be maybe patched in the past would need a total reclamation project, for example. But I do think that that's a better direction, the increase that I saw in the one house and I just wanted to say thank you for that. I think that that's good. I don't think it's enough but I think it's better than what the Governor's proposed and that's a good thing. I guess that's less of a question than a comment. Let me see if there's anything else I really needed to ask you about. I did note that there were no fixes proposed to tiers five or six. Could you just indicate where the negotiation is maybe so far on that issue as far as the push to try to create some fixes to tier five and six?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: That is being discussed right now. As I said to my previous interrogator.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: Oh, hope you don't think I'm interrogating you.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: The previous questioner. We have to look at both sides of that. Everyone wants to fix tier six, but the reason it came into being is because of the increased cost to municipalities, the state being one of those municipalities. And many mayors have come to us saying that they can't afford for their pension costs since this is a state pension fund. Even though it's flush, it's not flush enough to just roll everybody back and not have any increases in billing to the municipalities.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: Well, share that concern. I think that we need to make sure that it could be affordable and will not hurt our municipalities as well. So thank you for that. Chair Pretlow, I hope you didn't see that as an interrogation but rather a lovely discussion and I thank you very much for your time. And in my remaining time, Mr. Speaker, briefly on the bill or on the resolution.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: On the resolution?

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: Thank you. So when I came to office in 2017, the twenty seventeen-twenty eighteen budget was $162,000,000,000 and this year's one house proposal is over $100,000,000,000 higher than that. And just let that sink in for a minute about the increase in government spending over the last just ten years that I've been in office, not quite even ten years in office. If we could spend our way out of our affordability crisis, that would be fantastic but that is not how things work. And I feel like every time I get up and each year I have to speak on the one house budget and on the budget, the final budget, I feel like it's just like Groundhog Day. I feel like, I really do feel like it's the same feeling I have every single time that I have to get up and say why are we spending this much money? Are we really delivering the kind of results that our voters, that our constituents, that our state really expects us to do. So I can't support this type of really bloated spending package. I think we need to do cost cutting. I don't think that we can tax our way out of this. I think we need to rein in spending. I will be voting no on this resolution. And I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: Mr. Jensen.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the gentleman from Westchester County yield for some questions on health related topics of the resolution?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: Will the chair yield?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: Chair yields.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to lead off my questions on the essential plan. You referenced to the ranking member on Ways and Means that since this document was prepared that we had an influx of $6,000,000,000 due to the federal approval of the thirteen thirty one waiver. With that approval, to revert back to the basic health plan, would qualified immigrants be covered under the essential plan moving forward?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes. Yes,

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: okay. Will the state be receiving funding for the essential plan for these individuals from the federal government? No. No, okay. Does partial approval to revert to the basic health plan allow New York to access the essential plan trust fund balance?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: Would

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: covering qualified immigrants begin to draw down the essential plan trust fund balance?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Okay. Is there a projection on when the trust fund balance would be depleted?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: This will get us through the current fiscal year and depending on usage, even farther, but would definitely get us through the current fiscal year. And if there are any changes in administrations or changes of heart, we'll go even farther.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Okay. Do you have any concerns about the sustainability of this program if we must continue paying for these individuals under this program out of the trust fund?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: No. Okay.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: And seeing, I know yesterday it was highlighted, I know in some media outlets that CMS did issue this approval to revert. But CMS's letter to DOH approving the application to revert was dated February 27. When did the executive branch share that the state was approved to revert with its co equal branch of government?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We actually just found out. I believe it was yesterday when we found out.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: So, you found out, your office found out yesterday, a co equal branch of government yesterday.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yeah, but when the assembly was putting together, we anticipated that we would get the waiver. We expect it to waiver a little bit later and that's why we have the potter money set aside and not have individual expenditures listed, but as happens, it came through now.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: So, despite the letter getting sent to the executive branch at the February, the assembly, and I'm assuming the Senate just found out

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: yesterday. It could have been there. Don't know. I'm not on the 2nd Floor.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: All right.

[Lester Chang (Member)]: Thank you

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: very much.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: On to Medicaid funding. Medicaid growth continues to be a primary driver behind the increases we're seeing every year in our state budget. Does this budget resolution offer any long term solutions to address the rising cost in the state's Medicaid program?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I'm looking at now our state share spending is actually down 3.9%.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Okay. So, seeing that the state share is going down, what structural reforms are being proposed in this resolution that would ensure that not just we see that reduction, but ensure sustainability of the Medicaid program.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I believe we have a cap that we're sticking to. Okay. There is a cap that we have.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Okay. The one house budget resolution, it creates a new contingency fund that allows for significant spending outside of the global cap. This, combined with the healthcare stability fund and reclassifying other state agency spending, has led to avoidance of Do the global you believe that making these changes could render the Medicaid global cap ineffective?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Alright. So we don't need the contingency fund now since we have the approval.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: So would be your position and the majority's opinion to not make that a part of the negotiations as we work towards an enacted budget?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yeah. It's not necessary.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Okay. Do you believe that circumventing the cap is a prudent use of time when we have growth that some believe is unsustainable within the program itself.

[Unidentified Staff/Counsel (off-mic interjections)]: This wasn't because of unsustainable, it was something the federal government changed. Somebody responded to it. It wasn't

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Okay. This is something that we didn't initiate. The federal government initiated and we're just responding to them.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Okay.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: I know over the past several years, even before the current administration in Washington, we've seen Medicaid spending explode over that time period, including a 75% state share increase under the current New York State Administration. But yet, we've seen very limited and modest fraud prevention efforts. Do you believe the state's current Medicaid fraud prevention efforts are sufficient?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: It could always be improved, but yes.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Okay. And do you believe that you said it could be improved? Is there anything resolution that would look to increase our efforts to have a more focused effort to look at any ability for any other partner government to make accusations of waste, fraud, abuse within the

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: medical We do have a Medicaid inspector general whose responsibility is to look into this and try to find if there is any fraud or money being wasted.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Does the one house budget add any additional funding to the Medicaid inspector general to allow them to increase their efforts to ensure that our Medicaid funding is not at risk Mr. By the federal

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Jensen, we did not add any additional money.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Okay, thank you. And I know that the governor's budget, her proposal included a recurring general fund support for the healthcare stability fund. Does this address any continued need for general fund assistance for healthcare related spending?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I don't believe that we changed the governor's submission.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Okay. Is it sustainable in the long term to continue to use general fund dollars

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: to

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: allocate for general healthcare funding?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: General healthcare funding is for the betterment of the lives of many individuals in the state, if we have to use it, I guess we just have to use it.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Okay. I know that through the work of members in congress like our former colleague congressman lawler, the MCO tax revenue was extended additionally I believe to the tune of $1,500,000,000 How did this budget proposal allocate that revenue to healthcare stakeholders in New York?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Mr. Jensen, you're a prognosticator when you said our former congressman?

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: No, said our former colleague.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: No, I didn't hear that. Congressman.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: No. Our our very esteemed former colleague, congressman Michael Lawler of

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Oh, okay. I I I heard something else, but

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Listen. Just because wishing doesn't make itself.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We we we can ask the sonographer. I'm sorry, repeat the question. I was thrown for a loop.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: So, with the federal government extending our MCO waiver for an additional year, with the influx of that, those funds, I believe to the tune of $1,500,000,000 is the amount, How does this budget resolution look to allocate that revenue to healthcare stakeholders in the state?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, it's in our spending plan. Give I you a breakdown.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: But I'm asking you. I like hearing voice.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Here we go. Dollars 1,200,000,000.0 for hospitals and nursing homes, 500,000,000 for the Medicaid global cap offset, dollars 155,000,000,000 for hospital outpatient rate increases, dollars $330,000,000 for the SafetyNet Transformation Fund, 193,000,000 for nursing homes, 100,000,000 for quality pools, $40,000,000 for clinics, $15,000,000 for the VBP incentive payments, $12,000,000 for assisted living programs, and $20,000,000 for certified home health agencies and hospice.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: So, how was the decision made? I know there were calls to evenly split revenue in this context between nursing homes and hospital systems. How were the different healthcare stakeholders prioritized to receive certain amounts? We just allocated.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Don't think

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: it's Through a dart board or was it based on the proposals?

[Lester Chang (Member)]: Well, on

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: need. Based

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: need? Yeah. Okay. Moving on to rural hospital stability. Certainly, you look across our state, certainly access to rural healthcare is sometimes greatly a challenge. I think that you and I would both agree that when we're in the healthcare crisis that we are, making sure that people have access to healthcare how they need it, when they need it, and more importantly, where they need it is critically important. But I know several rural hospitals continue to face financial challenges. What provisions are in this budget resolution to specifically support the long term stability of our rural hospitals and healthcare providers in rural settings?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, proposal had $212,000,000 for rural hospitals and we're accepting

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: that. Okay. Continuing on hospitals, the hospital financial transparency. Some hospital systems, including some that are particularly close to me, do report financial distress. While there are others across the state that maintain strong financial reserves, does this budget resolution support any increased transparency into hospital financial data to ensure that state funding is targeted to the providers who are most in need or most at risk of sustaining dire financial straits?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We do have money set aside for distressed hospitals, but they have to show us what caused that distress.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Okay. I know in previous budgets, enacted budgets, the state has allocated, I believe, hundreds of millions of dollars combined to SUNY Downstate for that hospital. And I believe that was also proposed in this budget resolution to continue that funding.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Has there been any steps taken by that institution or by SUNY as a whole to get the that hospital's financial house in order to operate without 9 figure support from New York State?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, this is a reappropriation, I That's believe okay. You're

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: referring

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: want to pivot to a topic that's very near and dear to me. Early intervention. As many of our colleagues know, I didn't speak until I was five. So, unfortunately, you have the early intervention providers in Rochester to blame for that. But I wouldn't be able to do this job without early intervention. And this budget resolution proposes a rate increase of 5% for early intervention services. But yet we're still waiting on federal approval that an increase we passed in 2024. Do we know what the current status is of the increase from the fiscal year twenty twenty five enacted budget?

[Unidentified Staff/Counsel (off-mic interjections)]: Well,

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: was a delay because of the federal shutdown. I know we have allocated $18,000,000 in current budget and I don't know if it's been re upped by the Feds yet.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Okay. And I do know and for the good of the order, myself along with former minority leader, Barkley and current minority leader, Rob, all three of us wrote to CMS asking them to expedite approval of that waiver to the federal government. Would providers expect similar issues with the proposed increase in this year's budget if it is included in the enacted budget?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: It should go faster.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: That's the hope?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yeah.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Okay. Are there any provisions including the budget that would ensure successful and timely implementation of an increase outside of CMS approval?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Don't think that insures it? Don't believe so.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Okay. And on the Health Care Reform Act, the one house budget resolution extends proposes extending HICRA, which includes taxes on health insurance and health care care services. Do you believe that taxing health insurance and health care services make or contribute to the affordability crisis New Yorkers across the state are facing? Well, health care

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: is affecting everyone, whether you're wealthy, middle income, lower income, yes. Why

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: does this budget resolution include an $80,000,000 general fund sweep to ICRA?

[Unidentified Staff/Counsel (off-mic interjections)]: To

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: fund it. What was that? To fund it.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Okay. Would it be prudent to examine other funding streams for HECRA programs so that these taxes could potentially be repealed to make healthcare more affordable.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: But that would be raising more taxes which we don't want to do. Okay.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Does this budget proposal include anything that makes healthcare more affordable for New Yorkers that are not enrolled in public healthcare programs like Medicaid or the essential plan?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Nothing real, nothing that comes to mind, no.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Okay, thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: On the resolution?

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: Oh, yeah, that

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: too. Sir, thank

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, I appreciate the Chairman answering my questions. When we talk about issues surrounding healthcare in New York State, it certainly is critically important that we look to address healthcare access for all New Yorkers no matter where they live. Whether they're in New York City, Monroe County, Long Island, the North Country, Southern Tier, or anywhere in between. And certainly a key component of that is making sure that our healthcare spending and the administration of the dollars for healthcare is efficient and effective. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: Thank you Mr. Jensen. Mr. Agilino.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Will the chairman please yield for a couple of questions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: Will the chair yield? Yes, I will. Chairman yields.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member)]: Thank you, chairman. My questions are also gonna be in the area of health care, but the public safety aspect of health care in New York State. Yesterday, I had some folks from EMS in the building, and they were telling me that there was something that the executive budget changed. And I don't know the status in this house's budget, but it deal with the medical indemnity fund that negatively impacts ambulance services.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I believe we have is it 80,000,000? You said for the ambulances?

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member)]: Yes. They were telling me that the executive budget proposes changes to the medical indemnity fund that affects the revenue that they receive for transport.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Okay. That has nothing to do with ambulances.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member)]: Okay. What is the there is a portion in there that they were very concerned about. I had never heard of it, and I told them that today would be the day I would ask. Is there something in the executive budget that you came across that needed to be changed to assist and aid ambulances?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Okay. The governor had it in her budget. We rejected it.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: Okay. Did you Yes. Rejected her changes? Yes.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member)]: Okay. Well, hopefully that pacifies them. And thank you for for playing along with me as I've never heard of what they're what they were explaining to me. Also, are there any changes in the one house budget, because they are not in the executive budget, that would increase the Medicaid rates paid to ambulance for transport? No. Currently, they're getting about 50% of what it costs. So you're telling me there's nothing in the one house or the executive's budget?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Not to my knowledge, no.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member)]: Okay. Well, you. That was the only questions I had. I appreciate your time. Mister speaker, on the resolution. On

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: the resolution.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member)]: So in 2021, this body passed unanimously bill a 51, excuse me, a fifteen sixty one and that created a task force on rural ambulance services. Five years ago, we recognized there was an issue with our rural ambulance service. 15 member task force recently published their report on rural ambulance. It's about 85 pages long, but it was condensed down into some bullet points and these bullet points need to be enacted legislatively very soon, if not now, in this budget if they're going to remain viable and be able to answer nine eleven calls in a timely manner. One of those proposals coincidentally was to increase or to allow EMS services to exceed the 2% tax cap. We already do it for one small group. There's an exception in the tax cap rules, laws, and we wanted to add one more sentence to allow EMS providers to exceed that. That bill passed near near unanimously. Think we have one dedicated member from the 8th District who voted no, but that was one forty two to one to allow EMS to exceed the 2% property tax cap to either establish EMS in their area or to bolster one that's already existing. And many times these EMS providers aren't looking for thousands of dollars added to it. It may just be pennies over the 2% tax cap that will bring them an additional revenue to keep them in the black. Right now, ambulance services are getting paid less than 50% of the cost when it comes to getting an ambulance out the door and to a patient and to a hospital. This is exasperated in rural areas due to stranded costs, meaning ambulances may have to drive an hour to get to a hospital, wait at the hospital for acceptance of the patient, and an hour back. That's a two over two hour period where in a metropolitan area, a similar ambulance could make three or four runs in that same amount of time. And that's what's really exasperating the rural ambulance problem. Had we passed that 2% tax cap, unfortunately, the governor vetoed it with a very bland veto message that didn't address that it was gonna be taken care of in the budget, and it appears that the one house budgets don't have anything in there either. It's my hope and it's the prayers of these EMS providers that budget negotiations taking place in the coming days and weeks, hopefully days, somewhere in this building, they will be included in those negotiations to give them some sort of relief. Financial relief. They need relief across all aspects of what they do, but right now they're having trouble even keeping the lights on. Ambulance service providers, particularly in rural areas are getting very hard hit on this and it's what we call mutual aid dominoes. One agency can't answer in the seven to five to seven minute time, another one gets toned out, another gets toned out, and pretty soon we're waiting thirty five, forty minutes to get crews together to get somebody to respond and then the response time is also time and distance added to it. Rural EMS is a house of cards teetering on collapse right now. Their words, not mine. It's in their report. As a first responder myself, I see this struggle every day and night, seven days a week. This is an essential service that's not really an essential service. We've had bills to create it as an essential service, but those have not come to the floor for a vote. These people can't run much longer on dedication and pride. I urge my colleagues to reconsider their request in this budget that we have coming up of billions and billions of dollars. There's absolutely nothing in there to take care of EMS, particularly those in rural areas. I I I have finished my time, mister speaker, and I appreciate your consideration in the matter. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: Thank you. Mister Smullen?

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Would the chair yield for some questions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: Yes. I will. The chair yields.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: Thank you very much. Let's start from the big picture and work our way down into some issues that are really hurting rural areas. We're talking about this budget here. What is the total all funds for this budget again, sir?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: One second. Let me get my notes again.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: $2.62.

[Unidentified Staff/Counsel (off-mic interjections)]: $2.62.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: $262,000,000,000.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: 171,960,000,000.00. Is that right?

[Lester Chang (Member)]: Yes.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: Yeah. So that's 20 some billion more than last year. When we look at New York State in the amount of debt that the state carries, how much of that is looking at debt that we're going to actually obligate new debt for last year or reauthorize debt that has been held in the past?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Give me one second. We are looking at our capital spending for this fiscal year is $12,100,000,000 I'm sorry.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: And how much total debt does the

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: state hold? S20 twenty seven, sorry. Total debt is 73,775,000,000.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: Right. So 73 plus billion. And how much other debt does the state guarantee through either public authorities or local authorities that the state actually backs that amount of debt? Public

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: authorities is $329,000,000,000. The state authorities outstanding with the entire list. State authorities is $9,107,300,000,000 General obligation bonds are $2,500,000,000 Our spending is $3.00 $7,000,000 General obligation bond issued is $3.00 $7,000,000 and revenue to debt outstanding is $69,000,000,000

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: Billions of dollars, right? And in fact, that doesn't include local authorities which are also backed by the state which might have a debt of about $146,000,000,000 by my calculation.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Bring What it all up in

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: does New York rank in terms of the overall debt among states in The United States?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I don't know. We're pretty near the top, I would imagine.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: We're pretty near the top. That's a pretty near statement. We're the number two in the nation. We in New York State have an

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: extremely

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: It's

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: near top.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: Very much at the top. That's not a surprise that we're right there with California as well as a completely Democrat controlled state. So, what is New York's debt to GDP ratio right now? Is that one of the highest ones in the country by chance?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: It's close.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: It's about 20%. So, yes, it would be. It would be in the top of those. When we're looking at debt and we're looking at what the budget is, don't you think we should be paying that debt down on an accelerated rate as opposed to increasing spending in other areas?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: My personal feeling is we should always pay down our debt. We shouldn't carry debt but maybe we're taking a lead from the federal government that increased our debt by trillions of dollars.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member)]: Well Debt

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: is debt is debt, and we're all have to we're all gonna have to pay it.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: Well, debt drags you down and drag drags drags the economy down, certainly. And that's what's happening in New York. That's one of the main reasons why our budgets have been so bloated over the past seven years that I've been in the assembly. Since I first got here, we've gone from 170,000,000,000 to $270,000,000,000 in debt. That's a $100,000,000,000 increase on a percentage rate. Is that higher than any other state in the country?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Not sure.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: I think it is. I think it is. Thank you so much.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: And mister Spill, you've done your homework. Okay.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: And I appreciate that. And it and it's really important because our citizens are actually amongst the most highest taxed and regulated in the in the entire country. And that also trickles down into our budget that we're talking about today, $270,000,000,000. You mentioned earlier, how much is going to be appropriated in this one house budget for localities, local school districts to help pay for the electric school bus mandate?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: There's a $100,000,000 set aside for that.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: A 100. And that was on top of 500,000,000 that was obligated in a borrowing from the environmental protection fund a few years back. Correct?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I believe so.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: So overall, we're looking at this electric school bus mandate where we've been given now a 100,000,000 in this budget, a few 100,000,000 in in the last budget through the Environmental Protection Fund spending. How much of that is actually as a percentage of the true cost of the electric school bus mandate for New Yorkers as a whole? How much is it going to cost in addition to what we're paying for our regular school buses?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I believe the electric school buses are two to three times as expensive as the current school buses.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: So you would say, you would agree that 8,000,000,000 to $15,000,000,000 total just for the bus purchases themselves is within the realm of possibility and that mandate needs to be completed. No new buses bought after 2027. Correct?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: As the law stands right now, yes.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: Okay. So I think you've gone to where I hoped you would, which is maybe the law needs to be changed in this area. I I think that the electric school bus mandate is one of the great unfunded mandates that's happened to our taxpayers in New York State. And it's not just the 8 to $15,000,000,000 to buy the buses. It's actually the cost to upgrade the grid at the local bus garages that it would be able to allow them to actually charge the buses. You know that it's going to cost school districts a tremendous amount of money to do that. Correct?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: Now, is the actually is the zero emission school bus purchases, the capital cost, is that actually an exception to overriding the 2% cap tax cap which our schools are subject to? No. It's not. Thank you very much, mister Pretlow. I appreciate it. Mister speaker, on the resolution.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: On the resolution.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: So here we are, once again, we're debating a one house budget that fails to address the most urgent issue facing New Yorkers today, is affordability. Across the state, families are struggling to keep up with the rise, the cost of living, utility bills have surged, and much of the increase is directly tied to the state's aggressive push for rapid electrification under the climate leadership and the community protection act. The cost of electricity has gone up. The cost of home heating has continued to climb. Yet the policies driving those increases continue moving forward without pause. There is no relief for the electric school bus mandate for our rural school districts. Despite the clear financial strain being felt by households and local governments alike, this one house budget does nothing to address the state's growing affordability crisis for rural communities. Instead, it continues the same tax and spend approach that has defined Albany's agenda for years. If the majority were serious about lowering cost for New Yorkers, they would start by reevaluating the mandates that are driving those costs in the first place. For rural areas, the most egregious state mandate is the zero emission school bus mandate. Superintendents across the rural areas of Upstate New York are telling us the same thing. This mandate is not feasible. Districts cannot comply with the electrical infrastructure requirements to support charging fleets of electric buses. Others lack the facilities or grid capacity needed to make this transition possible. But the biggest obstacle is cost. Transitioning entire fleets of heavy duty vehicles will require billions of dollars, far more than individual rural school districts can realistically absorb. And this is where Albany has created what can only be described as a statutory conflict. New York State has a codified 2% property tax cap. If a school district wants to raise taxes beyond that threshold, it must receive approval from 60% of its voters. That law was put in place to protect taxpayers from excessive increases in local school districts. Yet at the same time, the state has imposed an unfunded mandate that will cost districts billions of dollars to comply with, far more than what a 2% tax increase can possibly cover. So what happens when voters say no? What happens when communities decide they simply cannot afford to break the tax cap? Programs get cut. Real education programs are getting cut. After school sports will get cut. Enrichment programs for some of our poorest students will be forced to be cut to comply with this electric school bus mandate. It'll emit it'll lates eliminating services that families actually depend on. All to pay for an unfunded mandate imposed by Albany. If this legislator true legislature truly cares about affordability, we would start by rolling back mandates like this one. We would listen to the superintendents who are asking for flexibility because they know their districts cannot meet this timeline. I have not heard a single school district superintendent in the rural areas of Upstate New York say that they would like this mandate and that they would like to comply with it. In fact, everyone has said that they wish that this body would pass assembly bill 2,005 that would allow school district to simply opt out because it's too expensive and it would force them to break the tax cap. But this state has essentially told our local school district voters that you can vote for whatever you want as long as you vote for this mandate. And if you vote against it because you cannot afford it, because you don't wanna break the tax gap, the Department of Education is coming for you. Districts could with be have funding withheld, fines levied, or even legal actions if the state determines that they are not meeting this mandate. That is the consequences of poorly written legislation. That is the consequences of the climate leadership in the community protection act of 2019. It's coming to roost. It's here in this body today, and it's costing our school districts billions of dollars going forward. And it puts them in an impossible position. It leaves communities asking a question that no school board should ever be forced to ask. Do we pay for educational programs that give our students a better future? Or do we eliminate those programs to comply with an unfunded mandate done by an unthinking majority from Albany who cares little about what happens in our rural school districts? And they're pushing a radical urban centric policy agenda. If the majority truly wants to address affordability, they should start by acknowledging the damage that this mandate is causing. Superintendents across New York State are asking for flexibility because they know their districts cannot meet this deadline. This body should listen to them. Our responsibility is to support schools and the students they serve, not force them into a statutory conflict that threatens the very programs meant to prepare our children's for the future. Our voice, our communities, our values dictate it. We should eliminate the electric school bus mandate in this year's state budget. Thank you, mister speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: Thank you. Mister Miller?

[Brian D. Miller (Member)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Will chairman yield for a few questions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: Will the chairman yield? Yes. I will. Chairman yields.

[Brian D. Miller (Member)]: Thank you, mister Prelo. I'm gonna stay on topic with topic of transportation. First, I'd like to start off with work zone safety. The majority rejected the governor's proposal to expand the automated work zone speed enforcement program to include all New York highways under the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Transportation, New York State Thruway Authority, New York State Bridge Authority, or the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. Given the recent safety concerns for our highway workers, what alternative measures have been considered or proposed to improve compliance with the speed limits and work zones?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: That didn't have fiscal implications and we tried to take most of the governor's policy out of the budget.

[Brian D. Miller (Member)]: We always have policy in the budget. It's We try not a huge issue and it really should have been concerned. Now I want to go on to chips. Last week, we all saw the sea of orange here in Albany. The assembly majority provided a $50,000,000 increase to chips when our local road crews were requested a $250,000,000 increase just to restore to proper funding levels. In 2024, 39% of the New York State DOT's 38,233 lane miles of roads were in fair or poor condition. Only three of the New York State DOT's 11 regions have less than 30% of their roads rated deficient. While the majority finds billions of dollars to spend on new programs across the budget, why can't we increase the base funding level of CHIPS to an acceptable level to assist our localities?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, governor proposed $650,000,000 We added $50,000,000 to that because that was in addition. And we added $50,000,000 for the local Pave New York for a total of $200,000,000 and we added $50,000,000 for the state touring roads. These are in addition to what the governor proposed.

[Brian D. Miller (Member)]: Well, will thank you for the increase in the Pave New York and state routes. But the $50,000,000 for the CHIPS funding is a mere pinance to what really needs to be done. Over the last two years, Chairman, the highway superintendents from our local municipalities, cities, villages, and counties and towns have all come here asking for a $250,000,000 increase. And we all ride, we all drive on these roads. And I know we've all gotten off the Thruway exit on Exit 23 here and came into a minefield. Extreme winter recovery is gonna be absolutely unbelievable. But, you know, with the $50,000,000 increase in our CHIPS funding, these roads are disintegrating. It's not a linear function. It's an exponential function on what happens. And every year we get more and more and more behind. I just would really like a great answer why we couldn't have at least matched the senate's $250,000,000 increase in the in the chips funding.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, maybe we can we can average it out when we go into negotiations.

[Brian D. Miller (Member)]: Well, let's work on the negotiations and hopefully the $250,000,000 will still be in play. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the bill, on the resolution.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: On the resolution.

[Brian D. Miller (Member)]: Again, you know, just one week from one week from the sea of orange here, in Albany when we all understand that our roads are our lifeblood to New York State's economy, New York State's safety, and everything that we do here. And again, we neglect our lifeblood throughout throughout the Upstate New York. You know, have the Hudson Valley, which has the worst roads by far that we've talked about over the years. But we still can't find our way to fund these at a at the level requested. You know, the the cost of construction work, the cost of the aggregate, the cost of our labor has increased 70% over the last three years. Hopefully, during this the last end of our budget deliberations and negotiations, we can find a way to properly fund upstate roads. Thank you, mister speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: Thank you. Mr. Gandalfo.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the chairman yield for some budget questions, please?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, male)]: Yes, I will. Will the chairman yield? He said he would. There you go.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Excellent. So, first set of questions here is going to be in the TED budget Part HH Subpart D, some of the utilization review and prior authorization reforms. So first, do you have an estimate on how much the changes proposed in TAD Part HH Subpart D will cost the state? These changes are going to affect the state's health insurance plan night shift. How was that for was there any forecasted cost to the state there?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: There was no physical associated with that, so we didn't have it.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Not at all? No. Even though it does affect NYSHIP? Okay. What about the impact on commercial health insurance premiums? Is there any estimate on what we can expect out of those?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We don't really project that. You thought the private insurance that you're talking about?

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Yes, commercial health.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: That's not part of our budget.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Okay. So, the reforms would affect them though, but you don't know how much it might cost? No. Okay. Alright. And in this part, Ted HH subpart D, what is the definition of a chronic condition? What constitutes that?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: A chronic condition?

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Yeah.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: A condition that lasts for at least a year.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: The language language specifies that a utilization review can only be conducted under certain conditions related to a course of treatment within a twelve month period. How is a course of treatment defined? The cost? Course of treatment.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I don't believe it's defined in the law. It's not defined.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Okay. Now, is the goal of this section to remove waiting times and friction in the prior authorization process?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Repeat that please, mister Gandalfo.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Is the goal of this section of the one house budget to remove waiting times and some of the friction in the prior authorization process? Yes. Okay. And why does the majority feel that this is the best remedy to that rather than maybe trying to utilize some technological advancements?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, we thought that if someone has a chronic condition that they will be utilizing the health facilities over and over, more often.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: A couple more insurance questions, are moving off health insurance but to homeowners and property and casualty. I see the majority rejected a lot of what the Governor proposed in her executive budget on auto insurance and homeowners. Is there a reason why the majority reject it?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: As I stated to a previous questioner, those were policy items that we removed from the budget because we tried to discourage the governors, whomever the governor may be from putting policy in the budget.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: So, not all policy though, I mean the prior we discussed is policy.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, don't put the policy in the budget if you know Pataki v. Silver, we are not permitted to change any language in the budget. If the governor puts something in in his or her budget, it it stays there. We can only ask to take it take it out.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Right. So, the decision was made to keep, let's say, the prior authorization reforms but to reject some of the property

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, that thing that we keep, we modify slightly, so we have to put it in.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Okay. So, there is no specific concerns as to When

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: we modify it, it involves something fiscal. I'm sorry, couldn't hear

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: you.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I said when we modify policy and it has a fiscal implication, we usually put it in the budget or in our one house.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Okay, so the governor's proposals have a fiscal implication to the state then on auto insurance, homeowners?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Not to the state,

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Okay, I was just confused as We to why a lot

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: admitted that,

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: yeah. There's been a lot of talk on these insurance reforms that might provide relief to New Yorkers in lowering auto insurance rates and possibly homeowners rates. There was some discussion on that.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: There is lot of discussion on that, but that's for the ratepayers, that's the individuals, you and I, our insurance to Okay. Go

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: I was just curious as to why we might reject those if they would provide savings to New Yorkers, But some policy isn't here. That's

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: A little.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Okay. A little. Just not that policy. Okay. And now moving on to some of the questions of taxation. This does increase taxes on millionaires. I know before you had stated, and correct me if I'm wrong, that New York now has more millionaires than we did during COVID. Yes. Is that part of a broader trend that there's more millionaires nationally or is New York

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: the I outlier can only speak for New York because that's what we looked at, but we do know based on tax and finance that there is an increase of billionaires in New York.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Just in raw numbers.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: And people like to talk about affordability and out migration, but when someone migrates out, someone truly migrates back in, when someone like Billy Joel sells their estate for $275,000,000 on Long Island, you or I, maybe you but not me, can afford to buy that. Someone with similar income is going to move in there and buy some millionaires coming back.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Okay. So, the raw number of millionaires increased. But, did some digging into data and a few years ago, New York's share of millionaires nationally was 12.7%. 12.7% of millionaires lived in New York.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I can give you the New York numbers if you could extrapolate that out then. There are 10,299 filers in New York with earnings above $5,000,000 twelve ninety three filers with earnings above $10,000,000 five fifty one filers earning above $25,000,000 and 132 New York filers earning in excess of $100,000,000.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Right. That's that's great for raw numbers, but we used to have a 12.7% share of all millionaires in The US living here. That has fallen to 8.7%. Why do you think that is?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Maybe they're making more money in other states.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Okay. And it could that possibly be related to

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Possibly could

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: increased taxation on them and maybe they

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: That I I won't agree with it, the taxation because I say millionaires are replaced by other millionaires.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Okay. Numbers wise, but proportionally, people are making more money all over the place apparently, but they're just deciding to take their money elsewhere.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: And it's just normal population shift. There are a lot of middle income people that are moving out of New York also for various reasons.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Okay. And another taxation issue, we are increasing the corporate tax rates.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes. I also Businesses are earning in excess of $10,000,000.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Okay. And I noticed there's also funding in here for the New York Works program, which some of that money is aimed at job retention. So why why do we need money for job retention if raising taxes on businesses isn't going to drive them out of the state? What is driving them out of the state if not the taxation and regulatory environment?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Various things drive people from the state, taxes included, but the weather keeps some people like a sunny day. They don't like the snow in New York. There are various reasons to move. Family issues, people move and they want be closer to their families or where they originate from. A lot of people moving down south because that's where their family was from.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: There are

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: various reasons for moving.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: And that's why they're moving.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: They don't just move because of taxes.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: What about businesses? They just decide they don't want to be here anymore for to move closer to someone else? Okay,

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: so we haven't seen any evidence of that.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: No evidence that businesses are leaving because of Because of taxes. There

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: are tax increases but a lot of business want to be here because the better workforce is here.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Okay. Well, mean we're raising taxes on businesses and then turning around and offering taxpayer funded grant programs to ask them to stay. It's just a curious situation to me. But anyway, we'll move on. I only have about one more question here. Are there any major criminal justice changes in the one house budget? No. So, nothing to cashless bail? No. Protect our courts at? No. Okay. Is that because the majority believes that it's working as intended, cashless bail?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I believe it is. Look, bail was supposed to be only to ensure that an individual comes to trial. What we are supposed to do is have speedy trials. The reason that the original bail reform was put into place is because people were being given a high bail for crimes as turnstile jumping, because turnstile jumping is considered theft of service. In New York State, theft of service, no matter what the value is a felony, which gives you a year in jail as a minimum. And people were languishing on Rikers Island because they couldn't afford to pay a bail of $200 in some cases $50 So when we implemented the bail reform, it was supposed to work the way it did, but I don't want get into my personal feelings on how I believe that the DA sabotaged bail reform by undercharging people and then saying that because of bail reform we had to let this person go. I know of several cases where people were arrested for what would have been a felony gun possession and they were charged with attempted possession of a firearm and then let loose. Then the DA said, we had to let this person go. That's what was happening with bail reform and that's what caused all of the issues that we experienced.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: So the charge there is that a district attorney would allow a dangerous criminal to be released in order to sabotage bail reform?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: The headlines, on, like, Newsweek and the and the New York Post, a couple of them. Every every crime that was that came about was because of bail reform and it's not what it was.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Well and I ask because just this week, there was a case in Suffolk County where some Salvadorian nationals were arrested with the materials with Molotov cocktails. They were arrested and

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: A reminder to our colleagues that the comments on debate are confined to the proposal before the house, which is the one house proposal, which I don't believe includes the commentary that you all are debating.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Do respectfully madam speaker. I think it is relevant because it is the lack of a proposal that was once passed in a budget and that is not being fixed in a budget. It could have been included in a budget and it is not.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: But that's not included today.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: And that's my issue with the budget. I'll move on. Thank you. I'll go on the bill briefly, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Thank you, Mr. Pretwell. Just to wrap up my thought, just this week some Salvadorian nationals were arrested in Suffolk County with Molotov cocktails. They're in The United States illegally, but unfortunately, what the DA can charge those individuals with is not a bail eligible offense. Those people were not only required to be released, but because of the protect our courts act also cannot be turned over to federal agents at the courthouse. So if that's this system working as intended, we have a real problem on our hands. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Bologna.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield for few questions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the chair yield?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes. Chair yield.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: My first just for the for Steph, we're gonna be talking about everyone's favorite subject and the most easily accessible subject crypto mining. So, have a few on few on those for you. So, just as far as the the excise tax is concerned, just to clarify, I'm trying to get the the intent and the policy goal here. Is this tax mainly intended to raise revenue for the state?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: Or is it meant to discourage crypto mining activity in New York because of electricity

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: use? Both.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Both. So, accident. It it it is actually it's actually both. These crypto mining facilities, they are not mines because they are above ground, but these crypto producing entities use massive amounts of electricity to create cryptocurrency and they were paying less than the rate that you and I would pay if we were in the same area. What we are doing is putting an excise tax on entities that use a proof of service? Proof of work. Proof of work functions, which is not all of them, but it is the ones that use the most electricity.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: They are essentially just massive computers that do massive amounts of computation and require electricity to do that.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yeah. Correct.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: Okay. So, what criteria is used to treat specifically crypto mining differently than other high energy computer computing mechanisms like AI. I mean, they're essentially kind of the same thing, what it looks like here is that it's specific to crypto, not the greater computer usage. Does that sense?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: This is being only put on facilities that use at least 2,250,000 kilowatt hours per year of electricity and used the proof of work. It's really a lot of electricity and I don't believe that anyone else is using that. Now, facility in clay will probably be using this much when they do the microfluidic chip facility and there's going to be a problem there.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: Okay. Is the intent here to look at specifically crypto mining differently with the proof of work as opposed to AI data centers?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, don't believe that AI data centers use proof of work.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: And, I guess that's but they still use a tremendous amount of electricity. So, I guess my question is, are we concerned that we're setting a precedent by singling out a certain producer, for lack of a better term, in a similar industry?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, there's no public benefit being associated with crypto mining.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: Oh, okay. I mean, crypt I mean, bitcoin, I guess, in some some circles, though, would be considered a a commodity. I mean, like just like gold is at this point. I've heard people compare

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: But there's no public no public benefit there.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: I mean, it is a large part of our national and global economy. But, you know what? I digress. So, from an implementation standpoint, is there anything that speaks to the difference between electricity being used for specific crypto mining versus let's say something with like a light switch or other administrative computers? Is there a difference or something specific in the legislation that says the excise tax is gonna specifically be on the crypto portion, not electricity that any other business would use?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, I think it's a 2,250,000,000 kilowatt hours is is is the difference in how much is being used.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: Okay. Thank you. And then guess my last question would be, as far as this is concerned, are we concerned or is any consideration been given with this excise tax? The impact it's gonna have on the industry as a whole. And, again, we're we're we're in competition with other states. What would prevent businesses from setting up shop in Ohio, Pennsylvania, just neighboring states across the border where they wouldn't have to pay this tax? There had been any cost benefit analysis on what that looks like?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I don't believe so.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: Okay. And then from a procedural standpoint, so, there's a specific example I'm thinking of here, but I'm just curious as to how it would be impacted by this tax. If a company started out as a natural gas power plant, They produce electricity for the for the greater grid. It goes on to the grid, but they actually they supply their own energy, their own electricity for their own company. Are they still taxed on the energy that they are producing for themselves that is not coming from the grid?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Not that they produce their own electricity. But just to follow-up on your previous question, these crypto mining facilities don't even have employees, so if they moved, all that would do is save us the electricity. They're not doing anything. It's like maybe one person operating the thing.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: I do know of some that have, especially in my neck of the woods, that have 30 plus employees that are making over a $130,000 a year, not to mention all the construction jobs that are going to erect the buildings. So, mean, there are In in a crypto mining facility?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yeah. I don't know. What are they doing? All they are doing is running programs and mining for you don't need 30 people. There's some laundering going on there, sir. I

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: mean, but okay. Fine. If you if you don't wanna go with me down that road, we let's talk about labor unions for a moment. I mean, labor unions, good union jobs, you know, erect these these you know, these structures need to be built. They they need you have I I mean, what about what about those jobs that are lost? If if these structures are not being put up in New York State and elsewhere, you know, that that's opportunity that our union workers now don't have to work on these sites.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, do not know what these sites even look like, to tell you the truth. I don't know how much construction it is to build a facility to put 200 computers in. So, get that. They may not be substantial construction.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: They may just be Mr. Perlow, if ever you want to come out to my district, I'd be happy to show you what some of these massive facilities look like. So, I mean, there are really good jobs that that come along with this. So, with that, let's let's move on. I do have a couple energy questions for you. So, the basic goal of the two year freeze on utility rate increases is obviously to give relief to rate payers. Was it is that a is that a fair assessment?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: Okay. Does the moratorium on the rates apply to all electric and gas regulated by the Public Service Commission?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: No. Oh, ma'am. I'm sorry. Yes. Yes.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: Okay. Now, does this include rates that may have already been approved by the PSC? Yes. Okay. So, just from a practicality standpoint, let's say a utility company had a rate case that was approved last year. Generally, are done in three year blocks. Are they exempt from this, for those next two years?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Are basically, are they not defined? But I don't think so.

[Unidentified Staff/Counsel (off-mic interjections)]: Applies to. Yeah. It applies.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: Okay. So because their rate case was set prior to this, they're able to continue to implement their rate rate case. Correct? No. No. They're not. No. So we're retroactively then going back on the PSC's rate case for utility companies. Right?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: You can put it that way. Okay.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: Utilities often make projections based on those rate cases. So and and they use it to to recover things like storm damage, storm response, infrastructure upgrades. So if we're now manipulating the already set rate cases, how what impact is that gonna have on the utilities to upgrade and maintain safe infrastructure?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I believe they would have to prioritize what what they would how they wanna spend their their revenues their existing revenues. Okay.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: After the two year moratorium then, is it not conceivable that they may try to recoup some of those losses from their ratepayers?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, that would be up to the public service commission at that time with recommendations from the commission that we are proposing to be set up.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: My last question on all of this is the section with the PSC profit review of NYSO electricity sales. It says that the PSC has to develop a method to identify excess profits from electricity? Yes. Who and what defines what excess profits are? And I guess in practice, what does that look like?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We look to NYSERDA and DPS to

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: identify excess profits. There's no real working definition of what that is? No. Okay. How can we The

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: proposal says that Dysarta and DPS will develop a methodology for doing this.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: Okay. How are we anticipating that's going to impact rates?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Hopefully, lowers them or keeps them stable or prevents them from rising.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: Thank you very much. My last overarching question is, in this entire resolution, there is nothing about new pipelines, new extraction, new drilling, new new sources of of existing traditional energy sources? No. Okay. Thank you very much, mister Pettler. I really appreciate Madam speaker, on the res

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: on the resolution.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: One of the biggest concerns that I have is continues to be the diversification of our energy portfolio. I understand the push for renewables, and I understand the push for, you know, all electric. But I I gotta tell you, if you're in a sinking boat with a massive hole, how we are going about that problem right now in this state is we're just bailing water out with actually not without fixing the hole. Until we actually get more energy online in this state, and that includes drilling, that includes more natural gas, that includes new pipelines, I fear that our utility crisis and our energy crisis is only gonna continue to get worse. So with that being said, I will be in the negative on this resolution. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Slater.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Good afternoon. Would this chair please yield for some questions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the chair yield?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes madam speaker, I yield.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: That chair yields.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Thank you very much chairman Pretlow. I have a wide range of questions and I apologize to the staff. I know they're gonna do their best to bounce around and I appreciate that. I wanna start if we can with the medical indemnity fund. Okay. Thank you very much. Just few questions to to kick off here. So, I think we've talked about this in years past. You and I, the MIF has faced fiscal stress over the last couple of years. And the governor included in her budget benchmarking MIF rates to Medicare and Medicaid, but that was rejected by the one house. Is that correct?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We rejected that. We put in $80,000,000.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Thank you. And I appreciate that. Having heard from families in the MIF, they were very concerned about the impact that would have on their ability to get care for their loved ones. In regards to the $80,000,000 is this investment sufficient to cover MIF commitments with the current rate structure?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Currently, yes.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Great. And is this investment intended to be reoccurring? Because we did some similar action last year in the budget where we added additional money to make sure that the fund was not insolvent.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We'll take our cues for what happens next year.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: I'm sorry.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We'll take our cues for what happens next year.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Understood. Similar to what we did last year. Yeah. Understood. For this year. Appreciate that. And with this investment, so based on that answer, we're viewing this as a short term solution, not a long term fix for those families in the MIF. Yes. Okay. Great. I appreciate the clarity on that. If we could, I just want to quickly touch on the crime analysis center that's being proposed in Westchester County. I think it's rather ironic that the most northern member of Westchester is right now asking questions to the most southern member of Westchester about a Westchester issue.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: About a Westchester issue?

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: But I see that there is that the majority did agree or concur with the executive on, I believe it's $4,000,000 for the crime analysis center for Westchester. Is that

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Actually, it's 4,500,000.0.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Oh, that's fantastic.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: 4.5.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: My concern is this, we already have a lab in Westchester that law enforcement uses. Have we heard from law enforcement that this is needed? This additional new center?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I believe this was a request by the county for these additional funds.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: And do we know if the county had input from local law enforcement?

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: I'm just going

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: be very honest. I've That I don't heard from local law enforcement, the Westchester County Chiefs Association, and there is grave concern over this proposal because it's a duplicative center and there's no clarity. And so I guess what I'm asking is, what is the purpose of the center if we already have the real time crime lab that is up and running, available, and is a fantastic resource for law enforcement right now.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, the purpose of this is to actually analyze crime in Westchester County.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: The same that is already being done by the existing real time crime lab.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: But now it'll be done twice?

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: It'll be so it's a duplicative office that we're gonna spend

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: 4 It's not duplicative. It's it's just it's actually enhancing what we already have.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Who will be running this office? I can't answer that. We don't know. We don't know it's gonna be the state police or the the county police. I believe it's DCJS. So the state is going to create and run a duplicative center to analyze crime even though the county already has this in place. Yes. Well, I think that we and I would hope if we could have a conversation with law enforcement officials like the Westchester County Chiefs Association and hear their concerns about this. I've heard it from quite a few in that regard. If we can move on to the New York City, some business tax questions that I have specifically regarding New York City. Is it a fair statement, Chairman, for us to say that we have recently benefited from increased revenues from Wall Street? Yes. And so, one of the proposals that I'm seeing here is increasing a tax on that very financial industry. Is that accurate?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Which tax are you refer to?

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: It increases from 9% currently to 10.8%.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Oh, that's for individuals making over $25,000,000

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: But, are they is it not for those individuals?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: But, that's not taxing the industry. That's tax ing individuals that earn that.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: It's not tied directly to the financial services industry. No. Because the financial services industry, because of those bonuses that have occurred, the state has reaped the benefits of that in revenue.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Is that

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: that's accurate. And so, here we are taxing or increasing the tax on those very revenue earners from the state's perspective.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: And I believe that the tax I'm sorry.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We're not taxing the industry. We're taxing individuals that earn in excess of $25,000,000. But those individuals are

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: I'm sorry.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: That's it. Now

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: the revenue generated from this increase, would that benefit all New Yorkers or just New York City?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, you're referring to the corporate business tax? That's just for New York City.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: I'm sorry. That's just for New York City. Just for New York City. Yeah. So is this a one proposal that the majority is putting forward to deal with the concerns coming out of city hall about their budget holes?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, since New York City makes up 47% of the state's population, would imagine that it would be. So, that's a yes. You can take it that way.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: I would take it as a yes. My understanding is that the recent budget hearing, the tax commissioner I guess warned us about taking such action though because there's really unpredictability when it comes to these particular individuals and their ability to generate their income level at that level. Is that something that you heard at the hearing as well? Yes. And so, what happens if individuals do not reach the income level that we are expecting them to, but yet we're increasing the tax on those individuals?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: If they don't reach that income level, they won't pay the tax.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Is there and then what does that do for our balance sheet from the state Well, operating assumption

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: is that people will reach that income level. Well, there will be a sufficient number of individuals at that income level to pay for the expenses that we have as a state. But, if individuals do not reach that level of income, then there's no tax to them.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: And then, but there's no contingency if we are inadvertently creating our own revenue hole because those people don't actually reach that level, correct?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yeah.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I'm going to move on if I can. I have some housing questions for you as well. Bless you. Thank you. You're quite welcome. In regards to housing, one of the issues that I continue to hear about is this ongoing vacancy issue. Specifically when it comes to rent stabilized apartments. And I understand the governor wants to let them build, but there also seems to be a need to let them fill. And I know that there's been proposals in the past when it comes to either resetting the rent stabilization rates for landlords who are trying to either upgrade or bring those units up to code. Is there anything that the majority has proposed to support or help in that?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We don't have anything to budget for that.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: And last year, we did some work when it came to capital improvements at these types of buildings.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, do have money for capital improvements in my opening statement for NYCHA and for other forms of public housing.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: NYCHA and other forms of public housing, but if they are privately owned rent stabilized housing, they wouldn't get access to

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: that. Not of the 50,000,000 that I referred to. Right. Yeah.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: And currently the threshold I believe is I think it went from 15 to $30,000 last year. It's something that the legislature we did for capital improvements. Is that an accurate statement?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I don't remember. I don't know. I believe so, but I'm not a 100%

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: sure.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: And then there's a path forward for landlords if they are able to go to $50,000 on capital improvements as well as my understanding. So, in this budget, have we done anything to make the $50,000 limit less cumbersome?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: No. Okay.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Very good. I'm gonna if I can just pivot. I I apologize again to the staff, but I appreciate them coming up and down. I'm gonna pivot to our other favorite topic in the Hudson Valley, our state roads. What has the majority proposed when it comes to DOT core capital in this budget?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: For For capital? Capital? That's something that the executive would have put it on. We haven't done anything for capital.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: We have There is nothing in the one house budget here

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: that's let's say each two. No, we haven't done that. That's an agency function as to what their capital needs are.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Last year we added $800,000,000 to DOT core capital.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: The executive added that we didn't add.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: And we concurred.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yeah.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: So, is there anything in this budget in a very similar way that we are trying to increase funds for DOT Core Capital in the same light? I

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: am pretty sure that that's going to be addressed when we put capital plan together which will be in the final budget.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Okay, I understand. Now, in regards to the Hudson Valley specifically, where you and I both live, Region 8 has consistently been rated as having the worst state roads and the worst state bridges from a condition standpoint according to DOT's own conditions report. Previously, there was support in the other house for $100,000,000 directly for Region 8 in the Hudson Valley. That fell off the table last year and I'm curious if that is something that the majority is going to be supporting this year.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, there's nothing in the budget right now, but that would be part of the plan when we do the final budget if it's in the governor's capital proposals.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: And in regards to CHIPS funding, I do appreciate the increase of the $50,000,000 in CHIPS. There's been some talk of combining some of those pots of money so that it gives greater flexibility to our highway superintendents when it comes to utilizing those dollars. Has that merge been reflected in this No. Particular budget? Is that something that the majority is potentially considering?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We did something with the touring roads but to a great extent though and ships are still separate.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: And so, it's what is it the extreme winter weather dollars or the pave our pothole dollars. There's no discussions about combining those into one fund with chips to give those highway superintendents more flexibility, more dollars?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I don't believe so. Okay.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Very good.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: All right.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: And my last topic, I promise is lake communities. As what? Lake communities. Lake?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Lake communities? Yeah.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: You should come up to Lake Mayapac. It's beautiful. We've got a number of lake communities in my district.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I don't even know Spring Lake which is the golf course.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: I can meet you there. But, when it comes to our lake communities, there has been a consistent issue of harmful algal blooms. And, this is not just for the Hudson Valley but across the state. Has the majority in this budget reflected any additional funding to support lake communities when it comes to combating haves?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I think we have $12,500,000 in the budget for that.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: And how does a municipality qualify for the 12.5

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I'm not sure. Okay. You know there's an application process but I don't know how they do it.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Okay and who oversees that pot of money? Is that EFC or DEC? DEC. DEC. And so they administer it. Now, it comes to our lake communities and our lake associations, has there been any discussions about allowing lake associations to be eligible to apply for state funding?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I'm not sure. I don't know.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: I'm sorry? I don't know.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I'm not sure.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Okay. Okay. So, don't know if the 12 and a half million of lake associations would be able to apply?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, that's what it's there for, but I don't know how they'd make the application.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: In my understanding, chairman, is that lake associations, and I believe one of our colleagues is carrying a bill on this, lake associations would not be able to accept state funds, which is why I'm curious if the 12 and a half million would be if they would be eligible for that.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I'm not sure. That goes to the municipalities. Are these lake communities not part of municipalities?

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: They are, but the lake associations manage their own bodies of water.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Okay. Well, if that's not really being addressed in this budget, no.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you so much for answering my questions, chairman. I appreciate it. I'm gonna just go on the on the resolution if I could.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: Thank you very much, madam speaker. I just wanted to take a moment and thank the chairman and the staff for providing information to my questions. I mean, I think we all know that this is just a wish list, but a wish list should also reflect priorities. And when we're dealing with an affordability crisis here in New York, you can't tell me with a straight face that increasing spending at an unsustainable rate is the proper way of dealing with the affordability crisis that New Yorkers are dealing with. I think that we have to be real clear with our priorities. I think we have to be real clear with our plan of action. And while some people may view this as our attempt to get some answers and to propose things, I think this misses the mark and I will be voting in the negative. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Durso?

[Michael Durso (Member)]: Thank you madam speaker. Would the chair please yield for a couple of questions.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the chair yield? Yes. The chair yields.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: Thank you, mister Pretlow. I only have a couple questions so I should be brief. Just to touch back on the zero emission buses, you said it's a $100,000,000 in additional funding for that program. Yes. And how is that $100,000,000 being allocated or what is it specifically going to? Just the program in general? Yes. And what will that program do with that $100,000,000?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, hopefully it will help the school districts that apply for the funding to buy or to purchase electric school buses.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: So that that $100,000,000 is supposed to go specifically to school districts that are trying to comply

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: with For for the most part, yes.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: Okay. And now that timeline, obviously, you'd said before, just reiterating it, has not changed within this budget proposal. Correct? No. Okay. And do we think that with the timeline that was originally proposed that that $100,000,000, and I know you answered this already, but I just wanted to hear it again, will get us to meet that mark?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: They haven't in the past.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: Okay. Thank you, mister Pellow. Okay. Also in this resolution, the one house proposed $39,400,000,000 in school funding. Correct? Which is roughly about $905,000,000 more than the governor's proposal? Yes. Okay. And $2,100,000,000 more than last year? Yes. But in this resolution, there's no school runs essentially breaking out where that money is going. Was there any type of percentage based plan or how that extra $9.00 $5,000,000 will be distributed throughout the schools in New York State? Well, this is a preliminary resolution. School runs came out with

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: the Governor's proposal. We do not run school runs for our one house resolution.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: So how do you come to $9.00 5 and I'm all for it. I will say that. I think our schools need to be fully funded and we know with some of the mandates that they have that they need it. But how did we come to $905,000,000 more? Are we going by individual schools that need more money? Are we saying that the percentage wise that they're gonna be getting where there's 2%, 4% increases relate to that nine zero five million dollars or are we just adding up all the wants of everybody and hoping that it works out in the end?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We're adding students in foster care and students experiencing housing instability to the pupil needs index at a weighted value of 0.65%. We are increasing the English language learner factor in the pupil needs index from 0.53 to 0.6%. We are moving the cap on pre pupil needs index and we are providing a 2% minimum year over year increase to foundation aid. We are providing an additional $20,900,000 to increase pre kindergarten and pre

[Michael Durso (Member)]: K. Okay, perfect. Thank you, Feller. I appreciate that. Just moving on quickly to the corrections officers recruitment program that's continuing with a $33,000,000. Is that for state corrections officers only or is that for corrections officers throughout the state, whether it's town, county, city, or is it just for state correctional officers to be recruited?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I believe it's I believe it's

[Michael Durso (Member)]: just state. That's that's only for state recruitment, sir?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: Okay. Thank you. And then my last two questions. There was $5,100,000 in the governor's budget for rural DAs to battle wage theft. In the one house that was now changed to directly going to the Department of Labor. Why what was the decision behind giving it directly to Department of Labor as opposed to the rural DAs?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We figured they would have a better handle on it.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: And how is that, sir? Can you explain that? Only because, obviously, we were in the same labor committee hearings, and the the DOL admitted to the fact that they don't have enough fraud investigators, especially those that are trained in construction trades. So they rely on the DAs and the local DAs to do that wage theft investigations. So when the commissioner of Department of Labor admits that they count on the DAs, why would we take it out of the DAs hands that are doing the work and give it to Department of Labor who can't do the work?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Because we think the Department of Labor is better suited to do it.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: So is that $5,100,000 that's allocated to Department of Labor specifically for wage theft? Is that language in there specifically for wage theft or can that be used anywhere in the Department of Labor?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: That's just for wage theft.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: It is all so it's it specifically has to go towards whether it's hiring, training, or paying those wage theft investigators within the Department of Labor? Yes. Okay. Thank you. My last question would be, in the governor's proposal, there was roughly $17,000,000 for to fund a fraud assessment bill that we had passed here in the assembly in the senate last year. The governor unfortunately vetoed it because it had a monetary note on it of $17,000,000. She then put it in her her governor's proposal, and it is now left out of this resolution. Can you explain to me why?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Can I ask again, please? I didn't I'm sorry, sir. Could you ask your question again, please? I didn't

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: hear it.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: So there was $17,000,000 in the governor's budget allocated for a fraud assessment bureau that we had voted on in the assembly and the senate last year passed. The governor vetoed it because of a cost of $17,000,000 needed to be done in the budget because there wasn't money for it. She then put it in her budget proposal Mhmm. And the majority has taken it out. Can you tell me why?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Okay. It was rejected because it was an employer assessment.

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: I'm sorry, say it again sir.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: It was rejected because it was an employer assessment.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: It's an employer assessment? Right.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: The employers would be paying for it. We didn't want that.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: Well, no. Well, the governor's proposal had $17,000,000 for for the establishment of the fraud assessment commission, which again would assess workers compensation fraud investigations and workers compensation fraud investigation fund.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Right. And that would imply that there is an assessment on the employers which we did not want to do.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: But it would be well, no.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: It's not general fund. It's SRO. I'm sorry. Say again? It's not general fund.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: It's not general Okay. Alright. Thank you, mister Pretlow. Let me just make sure I don't have any other questions. So it's not because it's policy or anything like that. Right? You're just saying because it is again, it has it has funds attached to it. Right. And, obviously, you know, as we speak about in this chamber and as everybody's talked about, we talk about affordability, protecting workers, protecting the New York State workers. Those two bills, whether it's the fraud assessment bill or the, rule DA bill for battling wage theft, would do just that. I just want to really get an assessment of why.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Okay. So we told that the assessment is a fee and a fee that employers have to pay.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: Okay. Thank you, miss Fellow. I appreciate it. Madam speaker, on the resolution.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: I thank mister Pella for taking my questions and the staff for working so hard. Obviously, as as said before, this is a wish list and some of the wishes are fantastic. As I said, I wanna fully fund our schools and make sure that our students and our teachers and faculty and staff have all the resources available to really teach the next generation that are coming up. But when we talk about affordability and we're talking about our state and we're talking about keeping people here in retainment and recruitment, whether it's corrections officers or we're talking about, know, other civil service workers, we need to be able to protect them. And then I didn't wanna ask numerous questions that were already asked, and and the chair was so kind to answer some of the questions that have been already asked. But when we we're gonna take policy out of the budget, I understand that. But when those policies protect the hardworking men and women of New York State, whether it's work zone cameras to keep people safe, whether it's fraud investigations, whether it's wage theft, whether it's a PLA, these are all things that are gonna protect New York State workers. People that work and thrive and want to live here and grow in New York State, and they've obviously been taken out of this resolution, unfortunately. So when we sit there and talk about that we want to protect our workers, we want to protect New York State taxpayers, we want to sit here and get more people to be happy and work and thrive in this state, what we're constantly doing is showing them that we're going to just sit here and argue about policy constantly. We're not going to put the things into the budget that are actually gonna protect the working men and women of labor in this state. Unfortunately, madam speaker, I'll be voting no

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: on this budget.

[Lester Chang (Member)]: Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Miss Giglio.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will mister chairman yield?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes, I will.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The chair yields.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: First, I'd like to thank you chairman and I'd like to thank our ranker and ways and means on both sides in the majority and the minority for all of your hard work. I know what goes into this and we really appreciate all your hard work. So thank you. So my first question has to do with energy because energy is a big discussion in my district and throughout the state and the energy costs rising, electric costs rising, doubling in some areas of the state. And it it just seems that the power energy rebate check for residents of $500 for households under $150,000 and $300 for households up to $300,000 to help offset rising utility costs. Is there an application process? Who will handle that and when will they expect this relief?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: That will be handled through tax and finance.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: Tax and finance? So right after the budget is passed, people can start making these checks will go out? No,

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Maybe in October?

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: October is when they can expect relief.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: Okay, thank you for that. And then on agriculture, so the inclusion in the EPF of Cornell AgriTech funding is fantastic, I want to say that. Can that funding be used to help satellite research farms in New York like LIREC Long Island Horticulture Research Extension Center?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: Yes, that's wonderful. On the environment, it includes an Excelsior Power Pilot program encouraging voluntary programs where residents can reduce energy usage during peak demand in exchange for bill credits. But there's really no commitment in that signing up for it. I know that they have to sign up for it, they have to sign for it. But at any time, they can withdraw and say we no longer want to be a part of the program. So what are we expecting the cost to be for the installation of those thermostats that can be monitored remotely, that they don't have to actually go and look at a meter, they can just

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Me too.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: Go on a computer and see how much they're using and they can, you know, set the thermostat to the temperature that whoever, in my case, sees is an energy efficient temperature for a home to be in.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes, we put in $33,000,000 that we put in language to instruct how it should be distributed.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: So, the intent is to be able to regulate the temperature of people's homes through that thermostat remotely, correct?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes. There Yes. Will be limitations, but yes.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: Okay. Okay. So we didn't see what those limitations were. Thank you for that. And then my next question has to do with child care. So how much in total spending does the majority set aside for child care assistance?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I think it was about $3,000,000.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: $3,000,000.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I'm sorry. Billion.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: And how does this compare to the executives' more than $3,000,000,000 in child care spending? The one house is different.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We kept the Governor's proposal.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: You kept the Governor's proposal. And how many children will be covered by this spending?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: That's a hard question to answer because it depends on how many slots there are and if you look at our language, it's a minimum of $10,000 so depending on what the actual amount is, But if you want a rough estimate, divide 10,000 into 3,000,000, 3,000,000,000 and that's how many young people would be served.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: Okay. And then so does the majority believe that $475,000,000 for New York City and the 155,000,000 for the rest of the state to backfill federal fiscal year 2026 child care spending is enough to reopen for new applications. 35 of the 58 local districts remain closed to new cases and applicants who are seeking this child care funding. Suffolk County is closed to new applicants. It's one of 35 that are closed to new applicants. So how many people do you think that we're going to be able to include in the program based on this funding?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, we have 300,000,000 over the last year and we are hoping to get more funding.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: Okay. Well, I hope so too because I think it's very important so that people can get back to work and they have child care, safe child care for their children.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: So next I would like to discuss the workforce development and the challenge in the child care sector. What there's nothing in the budget for workforce development and without additional funding, many programs are unable to pay staff a fair living wage which has led to increased turnover and difficulty recruiting qualified educators. So, what is happening with workforce development of childcare facilities throughout the state?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, are looking at it. It's a very large issue, I know you are well aware. And we are going to have to do something shortly, but it's not being directly addressed.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: Because it's great to increase and provide access to children, but if we don't have the educators, what good is it? Another growing concern is the support needed for children with developmental delays or special needs in the classroom, where staff require additional training and compensation to effectively provide one on one support so that children receive the services they need and are not pushed out of early learning environments. So what are we doing about the people that have developmental delays that need to get into these programs earlier than the rest? My opinion.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Okay, I'm not sure what program you are referring to, it will probably be post budget.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: Well, we are having a problem with the workforce development as it is with just standard childcare and now we're talking about people coming into and accessing childcare that may have intellectual and developmental disabilities where it requires further training of the workforce and accessibility for those children also. So we need funding and I don't think there is any in the budget for the workforce development. So without the educators, we're going to have a problem, we're going to start getting over capacity. I hear from childcare establishments within my district that the Department of Health is there, Department of Labor, Department of Education, they're under constant scrutiny with regulations and the amount of teachers and staffing levels. So I think that it's definitely workforce is something that we need to focus on so that people can get back to work and that children do have access to childcare.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: Okay. I appreciate the increased investment in work zone safety, but I'm curious as to how much revenue we brought in from last year's budget when it came to work zone safety and how much we anticipate we'll be taking in with this new investment.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Are you talking about the red light about speed cameras?

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: No, I'm talking about the work zone safety where you have the vehicles and you have the cameras on the vehicles that are monitoring. I was at the International Union of Operating Engineers yesterday where the commissioner of labor said that there was reports of people going a 141, a 131 miles per hour in these work zones and really it's a camera that's catching them and not law enforcement that's there to pull them over to make sure that they slow down so they don't hurt not only the people in the work zones but everybody else that's on the road. So, I'm just wondering what the revenue is anticipated for the increased investment in the work zone safety.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, is nominal. And the vehicle you are referring to offer the speeds, that's how they move around, they are attached to the vehicles to get speeders.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: Well, would hope that investment in the revenue from these tickets is put right back into our police force because the lights on a police vehicle in a work zone and on the roads is more is in my opinion more of a deterrent of speeding than just having a work zone and and not really being clear as to what's expected of them within the work zone. And on the veterans benefits, I appreciate the one house because once again the Governor removed veterans benefits from her executive budget and the majority seeks to restore 2,600,000.0 of the 4,400,000.0 reduction. So specifically what programs are restored with this funding?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We don't line them out. These are items that the Governor cut through legislative ads and we are buying them back.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: And my next question has to do with Office for New Americans. So the majority proposes $184,800,000 for the Office for New Americans, 110,800,000.0 more than the governor. And what would this extra funding be used for and how many people would receive services?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Civil legal legal services.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: I'm sorry?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: It will not be used for civil legal services.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: Civil legal services. So a $184,800,000 for legal services in immigration cases?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: Okay. And then well those are all my questions. Thank you chairman Pratlow for answering my questions. Madam Speaker on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The resolution.

[Jodi Giglio (Member)]: With the governor increasing the budget by $6,000,000,000 and then the one house in the senate and the assembly increasing it up to another $7,000,000,000, 6,000,000,000 in one house, seven in the other is really a lot of spending when the whole state of the state was about affordability in the state of New York. And we are raising the budget and we are asking more people to pay. I heard the numbers from Chairman Prentlow about the billionaires and the millionaires that we have here in the state of New York. But they are leaving. They are leaving and we've seen it. We've seen them leaving and we've seen more and more of these costs in this inflated budget fall on the middle class. And reining in spending and helping and supporting businesses, not taxing them more, is really a way that we are going to keep New York thriving and we are going to be able to pay for the important things that are in this budget. And there are a lot of things in my opinion in this budget that are not important and there are cuts that could be taking place and they're just not. So for the resolution, I will be voting no. I will be looking forward to working with my colleagues on the important things to me and my community and my district in this budget. And we'll hope that we can come to a sensible budget that does not tax small businesses and further push people out of the state of New York. Thank you Madam Speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Ms. Walker.

[Latrice M. Walker (Member)]: Thank you Madam Speaker for pausing in today's deliberations to acknowledge me. May I have the floor to speak on the resolution, please?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution.

[Latrice M. Walker (Member)]: Thank you, madam speaker. New York's the New York state budget is more than a collection of numbers. Instead, it should be a well thought out statement of priorities that help to make life easier and more affordable. With that in mind, I am proud to say that this budget resolution does deliver lower cost, funding our schools, improves transportation and public safety, it provides relief to the high cost of utilities and eases the tax burden for 8,300,000 New Yorkers while addressing an affordable housing crisis. The fair free bus program provides $15,000,000 for a free bus route in each borough. One of the first of these iterations of this program was the B 60 which ran through my district along Rockaway Avenue. It was free, it was accessible, It was efficient, and it connected our constituents to many other trains and buses and in institutions and employers and hospitals, and we thought that it was an amazing investment. So thank you for that, mister speaker. We also wanna acknowledge that the budget proposal cuts income taxes for about 8,300,000.0 New Yorkers who are earning less than 323,000 a year. The cuts would include an average tax cut of $446. On the opposite side of the spectrum, it is my firm belief that the wealthiest New Yorkers should pay their fair share of taxes. Accordingly, the assembly budget proposal calls for marginal increase in taxes for New Yorkers earning more than $5,000,000 a year and this would affect about 10,000 filers, which quite frankly is only less than 1% of New Yorkers. The assembly budget plan also seeks to lower the burden of everyday ever climbing cost of utilities. In January, the state public service commission approved increases for ConEd customers in New York. These increases went into effect immediately and increased rates for about up to about 9% for electric and 6% for gas over three years. A typical gas bill immediately went up $5 per month and electric bills went up around $4 per month. Again, if we're serious about affordability, we have to do everything in our power to bring relief to New Yorkers and that is what this budget resolution does. In response, the assembly proposed a two year moratorium on electric and gas rate increases for all New Yorkers, and we understand that that is the blue ribbon residential affordability program. The assembly would also provide a one time protecting our wallets energy rebate, which totaled 2,600,000,000.0, which helps roughly 5,400,000 residential rate payers. One of the cornerstones of our family first agenda is to provide a quality education for our children. And in the words of Nelson Mandela, education is the most powerful weapon that we can use to change the world. We appreciate the early investments in education because we know that the return on investment will result in higher outcomes. We appreciate the proposal's increase of financial aid and know that it will be directed to our most vulnerable and neediest of students. Amending the state's foundation aid formula increases aid for school districts by including new measures to account for high rates of homelessness and foster students. And of course, it also increases aid to students who are English language learners. We hope that we will continue to have a student foundation aid formula which addresses and looks at the experiences of all of our students. We also appreciate the investment in SUNY and CUNY, particularly the New York Opportunity Promise Scholarship for students. As a SUNY student, I know the value of education being the great equalizer even for myself. Commissioner Jessica Tisch announced in January 2005 was the safest year for gun violence with the fewest shooting incidents in shooting victims in recorded history. Of course, we credit the men and women of law enforcement, but we also applaud the credible messages and violence interrupters who have their eyes and ears on the streets. But we can't rest our laurels on success, and we have to turn the page from the tried old playbook to reacting to crime. We have to prevent it before it happens. The assembly budget proposal provides $100,000,000 to New York City to support raise the age, which is a recognition that justice involved young people are worth saving. It is an acknowledgement that alternatives to incarceration can do more to build boys to men and girls into strong women than incarceration than ever. We also provide 30,000,000 to support community based organizations providing youth diversion and prevention services for justice involved youth up to the age of 25. Another 7,000,000 is earmarked to support criminal justice programs including reentry programs, community dispute resolution centers, transitional housing, civil or criminal legal services, and crime prevention programs. And, of course, the additional money which will be spent for SNUG. One of the things that the budget also does is it makes changes to the Affordable Care Act by taking advantage of section thirteen thirty one. This gives states the ability to pursue an innovative approach to high quality health care coverage by creating a basic health care plan which provides for incomes for people between up to $200,000 a year a year of the federal poverty level. It also allows for New York State to implement a basic health blueprint program, and we appreciate all of those investments. But one of the things that it does is it also changes from the section thirteen thirty two waiver program, which allows for New York State to be innovative and address many different issues. The basic health program that we are embarking on will provide a 95% of the aggregate value of subsidies that will otherwise have gone to individuals to be eligible to purchase insurance on the New York Health Exchange or otherwise to a plan or a version of the plan that directs resources directly to the state. While this may increase and will increase the number of individuals covered in the long run, We understand that it will decrease premiums, however, if the overall risk is improved. Certain issuers in the past when we had done this program were certified to offer the essential plan. And we know that through this process, some of them were competitive contracting and or the states have an ability to apply for an exception. But these this contracting opportunity should provide for incentives to health care that improve the quality of transformation as well as healthcare allocation. We recognize that some of those incentives should include care coordination and management, preventive services, patient involvement and decision making, I. E. Informed descent, but it should also include an allocation and an acknowledgement of the benefits of social determinants of health. Some of those social determinants of health include conditions that in which people are born, grow with, live with, work, and age through. These factors significantly influence individual and population health outcomes. When designing and implementing thirteen thirty one waivers, New York State should allow for mechanisms that allows flexibility in its Medicaid and Children's Health Plus program policies. It is essential to consider how socially determinants of health can affect the effectiveness and the reach of these waivers. Some of the things that it can deal with is access to health care. It can invest in transportation barriers, also geographic location barriers by promoting and supporting more telehealth services and or providing incentives to providers in underserved areas. We appreciate that it involves lower income levels and allows for more comprehensive financial assist incentives and assistance to close affordability gaps. However, it can do more regarding health insurance literacy. Understanding health coverage options is crucial for enrollment and utilization. Educational incentives embedded within waiver programs can empower individuals to make informed choices. We've seen through other waivers how housing stability, which is the cornerstone of good health, can also affect a person's stress levels and we know that limited access to health care will always lead to poor health outcomes. Education and health literacy enables individuals to navigate a very confusing health care system, understand their options, and follow medical advice. It incorporates educational resources into some of these waiver programs that will undoubtedly improve health outcomes. Nutritional access, it would allow for some of these resources to be utilized for local food pantries and can address disparities and promote wellness especially in low income communities. It will also can foster employment opportunities because we know that stable employment also leads to improved health care access and enrollment rates. Strong social networks and community engagement can provide emotional support and resources. These waivers should encourage community based initiatives that can help bridge gaps and address health care disparities at local levels. One of the things that we know is that we need to invest more in mental health services, And so we appreciate health care incentives that would allow for a more integrated care model within these waiver programs because we know the outcome will result in better physical health and public safety. Chronic health conditions should be addressed, and early intervention and ongoing management should be the priority of these waivers. So we recognize that aligning thirteen thirty one waivers with broader social policies and address socially determinants of health will create a holistic approach to health care, coordinated strategies across sectors such as housing, education, employment, and health will undoubtedly lead to to a more sustainable improvement in health care outcomes. Thank you, madam speaker, for allowing me to speak on the importance of social determinants of health, and we encourage the New York State, in its final deliberations of the budget to allow for these incentives and considerations to be included. And I support and will vote in the in the positive on this resolution. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Gray?

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the, chair yield for

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the chair yield?

[Lester Chang (Member)]: Yes.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The chair yields.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Thank you very much. So Chair Prentlow and certainly our ranker, Phil Parmizano, I would like to just acknowledge and thank you for the time that you've spent in the endless budget hearings in the last few weeks here. So thank you very much. Energy. Let's talk about a few things on the energy agenda here. So the power, the check program that's being proposed in the one house budget?

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: Yes.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: So that is the mechanism for that is going to be the utility companies that are going be sharing the data with the tax and finance. Is that correct?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Okay. And so what is the timeframe for all of this to take place after the late stage

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: It will be post budget. We are looking at, I believe, October.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: October? That is providing that we pass the

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: budget Under October, by has to be checks have to be mailed out by October.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: In time.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I cut you off. Are saying now?

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Perfect timing for the fall. So let me just say, there are two things that many of us are receiving complaints on right now. Number one is the cost of the utilities and number two, we seeing my office seems to be getting complaints on the slowness of the responsiveness of the taxation of finance to process the refunds. So do we think this program, this is the most efficient way to disperse this money back to the ratepayers?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, tax and finance has all of the information that is needed. I don't know if we would trust the electric companies to send the checks out or even give you a credit on your bill. So the entity that we have to do this is tax and finance.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Okay. What protections, so we are transferring data between the utility to the tax and finance. What is the data that we are transferring and what protections do privacy protections do people have when we're transferring this data?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Say that again please, I'm sorry.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: So we're transferring data from the utility companies. How long is it going to take the utility companies to prepare this data for a transfer? Okay.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: So in the bill there is information sharing provisions.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Okay. So do we have any concerns over privacy with this?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: No. And

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: if there is a breach of data, who's liable?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: If there is an information breach

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Correct. It happens frequently. Credit cards, a number of companies.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We not sharing personal information like that.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: What's

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: that? Haven't really contemplated that.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Okay. Perhaps we should because the utilities probably would be interested in who's who's gonna have the liability in this. Sustainable energy, the sustainable future program. So I think in the governor' budget she re appropriated $1,000,000,000

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: yes

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: okay and then the assembly is adding a billion dollars yes so if the governor' re appropriating a billion and we haven't spent that, why are we adding another billion to it?

[Unidentified Staff/Counsel (off-mic interjections)]: It's all been allocated and most

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: of it has been spent. But it's allocated there.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: It's allocated. Okay. But we haven't spent it.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I believe you spent a lot of it.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: She's reappropriating a billion. That was the same billion that was put out last year. She's reappropriating. Couldn't have been spent.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: There's additional money involved.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: The assembly is putting additional billion in there.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yeah.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: But the governor reappropriated the billion she put in there last year. So it's $2,000,000,000.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: You have to keep reappropriating it as you are spending it. So it's not all spent in the current year, it will be spent next year, you have to reappropriate it. But it is in the process of being spent.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Okay. So the billion that the governor put in last year's budget and she is reappropriating this year, you are telling me that you are saying

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: right

[Josh Jensen (Member)]: now

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: that some of it has been spent?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: But we're just

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, it's been allocated. So isn't

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: that artificially inflating the budget?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Out the door, but it's been allocated as to where it's going to go.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: What did you say? I'm sorry.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We do just reapproach all the time.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Okay. Okay. So is that artificially inflating the budget if we've already pushed some of the money out the door? Some of that billion dollars has already been put out? No. Look. I don't understand how you

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Just I'm having a hard time hearing. I'm sorry.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Okay. I'm sorry. So if the governor is reappropriating a billion, but you're saying we've spent some of that billion?

[Unidentified Staff/Counsel (off-mic interjections)]: Reappropriation continued prior year spending. Reappropriations from

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Am I missing somewhere?

[Unidentified Staff/Counsel (off-mic interjections)]: That doesn't count into our current year spending.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Reappropriations go on all the time, and what they do is continue the prior year's spending. As long as the money hasn't been totally spent, we just keep reappropriating it. It has been allocated to where it is going to go, but we have to reappropriate it until we fully spend it. So, if there was $1,000,000,000 there last year, so the process of being spent is allocated and we are putting in another $2,000,000,000 now.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Okay, that's different. So, you have allocated the first billion but it hasn't been dispersed yet.

[Robert Smullen (Member)]: Is that correct?

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: That's a different story. Let's go to the ratepayer relief program utility intervener. So we have this proposes the utilities are going to pay reimburse the intervener, right? Additional interveners. Yes. And it's is this a prohibition for them to increase to use that reimbursement as part of the rate case?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: It's the fund.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Appropriated out

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Can you

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: ask mister Colton? That was the interruption. Couldn't hear you.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: So it's requiring the utilities to pay the intervener reimburse intervene reimburse the intervener. Correct?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: No. It's being paid out of the general fund.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Is being paid out of the okay. The proposal allows

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Not the rate payers, they're being paid out of the general fund, yeah.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: So we're paying the interveners out of the general fund?

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: Yes.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: Okay.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: So we're paying interveners. We're going to so purportedly going to expand the rate case hearings, right? Is that correct? Yes. And yet we have legislation that's in the house that is limiting the cost of litigation for for the utilities. Is that correct?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: That's not in the budget. Am

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: I waiting for an answer? Oh, me. I'm sorry. I thought I was waiting for you. Sorry about that. Let's go to the energy storage systems. So you're proposing what are the we're proposing these energy storage systems that you want to assume battery systems, is we Yes. Are call are the sources of the generation that is going to supply the power to these battery systems?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: That's not part of this budget. We are trying to maintain a supply of electricity that will be produced by solar and wind and other entities.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: They may not necessarily be existence right now.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Are incentivizing building of these battery storage by the sales tax exemption, correct?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: So, we have to have a generation to go with them, right? They don't generate power, they just start.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: The proposal that we will make would exempt certain commercial energy systems from the state's 4% sales tax through 06/01/2028.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Is this primarily coming from renewable energy sources? Yes. Essentially then we are subsidizing renewable energy, is that correct?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We are just making it possible to store the energy that is being produced.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Which is essentially indirectly subsidizing renewable energy.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: You take it that way. Right.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Okay. Does this proposal does it affect the citing requirements, the citing law? No.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Does it does

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: it keep full local control on the citing and zoning and land use? That's how it should be, yes. Should be or is?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, yes.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: So local control remains for siting of these battery storage systems? Yes. Okay, so if a community does not want a battery storage system?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: That would be in the zoning rules or however the community uses.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: I appreciate that being on the record. There are a lot of communities that find them undesirable. There are fire standards associated with all of these battery storage. Do we have an idea what that's gonna cost local municipalities, fire departments, who's paying for that?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: No. We don't because it's a tax incentive so we don't know how much is going to be billed so how much tax we are going to have to incentivize.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Important to figure that out you think? I mean I just kinda know what our exposure is here. Right? Yes. Right. Municipalities that have moratoriums or zoning requirements, they're all staying in check through this. There's no there's no change to any moratoriums or anything along that line.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Norber')]: Correct? No. Okay.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: The statewide decarbonization. So how much of the taxpayers invested so far for state agencies to decarbonize?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: None. Is nothing in this budget for that. There is no tax credit for them.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: The budget provides $50,000,000 same as last year. Executive ordered 22 directing state agencies to adopt sustainability and decarbonization programs.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: There is a $50,000,000 appropriation in the governor's budget. What again? A $50,000,000 appropriation in the governor's budget.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: Do we know how much have taxpayers paid so far to implement

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: 100 and stuff 50. In

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: March? One. 01/1950. Thank you. And what measure are we using for the decarbonization progress in terms of state agencies? What are we using? What's a metric you were using for success here?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I believe they have a committee or a council that looks at the energy reductions.

[Michael Durso (Member)]: Okay.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: But we don't know the progress. We don't know what the metric so we're just spending the money without knowing how it's being implemented.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: There are requirements. We're putting requirements in application. Is reporting also. That's required.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: So do we know when this is fully implemented, how much are we going to invest in this program?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: It's an annual appropriation. I don't know how much the total is going to be. Do we

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: know an end date? I mean, is there a finish line here?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: It's an executive program that's done annually.

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: But we're appropriating the money for it, right? Yes. We're accepting the executive's proposal, Right? Yes. So do you think if we're I mean, would be wise that we know what the end date is, how much we're gonna have to invest in this over time? I think it'd be responsible for the taxpayers to know.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, this is calculated annually and if the administration changes, the end date may change.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: So,

[Scott A. Gray (Member)]: let's go to the Excelsior Power Pilot program. Do we so it proposes to remotely operate the consumer smart thermostats with

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you Mr. Gray. Mr. Steck?

[Phil Steck (Member)]: On the resolution, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution.

[Phil Steck (Member)]: This budget brings me back to an issue that arose over a decade ago. We think things have changed but it's just history repeating itself. In 2014, Bill de Blasio ran, was elected mayor of the City Of New York. He ran on a platform that included a surtax on city residents earning over $500,000 a year to fund universal pre k in New York City. But Governor Cuomo didn't want to increase taxes on high earners, so he took money from the state budget and paid for universal pre k in New York City. I voted for it. In my district, there was some funding for pre k but 50% of families had none. If they lost the lottery for pre k seats, they had to buy it in the private sector at a cost of roughly 15 to $20,000. In debate, in response to objections from my constituents, I made a commitment to change that situation. I inquired on this issue for several budgets and got nowhere. Ten years later, Zoran Mamdami was elected mayor of New York City on a platform of tax the rich to fund additional child care programs. Once again, the governor refused. Once again, the governor is transferring resources from the state to the city to fund more pre k and childcare programs in New York City. This house is again assenting to the governor's choice because mister Mondani, ironically on the recommendation of the very same advisor as Mr. Blasio had, has agreed. In this budget, there is an increase in funding for pre k that will benefit schools in my district. But it will not achieve universal pre k coverage even for four year olds. Once again, about 45% of families who lose the lottery will have to pay about 15 to $20,000 for pre k or day care. I have to say that I find this extremely painful. This time, I have to honor my pledge not to abandon these families. There is also the question of the financial bailout of New York City. This is also nothing new. The state did this in the nineteen seventy's by diverting funds from the stock transfer tax to make sure the bond holders were protected. Unfortunately, we no longer have that resource available. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Blumencrantz?

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? Absolutely. Chair yields.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: Chair, my first question relates to part f f with respect to the insurance, anti fraud programs. Yes. The executive budget proposal would have extended the time frame for insurers to report fraudulent claims to DFS from thirty to sixty days. Yet the Assembly One House budget resolution rejects these changes. Given the unfortunate reality that DFS lacks the resources as both they claim and have shown that to even investigate these claims, let alone prosecute them, why not empower insurers themselves to hold these fraudsters accountable? Why remove that from this proposal?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Mr. Blumecratz, this is the governor's proposal. It's not ours. We try not to put policy in the budget and we ask the Governor not to put policy in the budget. This proposal that you are referring to is non fiscal for the State's old policy. As such, we rejected it. Now, there is a more than likely chance that it will go back into the negotiated budget that you will be voting on on March 31, but right now it is not part of the Assembly's one house proposal.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: So, am I hearing you correctly, the reduction of fraud within our system that materially cost both the state and the taxpayers does not have a fiscal impact on the state?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, there's no direct impact. Yes. I'm saying that.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: Even on, say, hiring new investigators and Well empowering them in other ways in which the investigators can more successfully do their jobs? She

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: didn't put any money into that. It was just language. There was no money at all put into the budget that was given to us.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: Okay. Sure. My next part e e. The one house budget rejects the executive's opportunity to limit non economic damages related to auto accidents, a move that could finally bring some tort reform material change to many New Yorkers who are suffering from incredibly high, I believe the third highest in the nation, auto rates, something that's affecting affordability across New York. This was again removed. Why reject the proposal?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Same answer. It's policy that the governor put in the budget. It did not have or does not have a fiscal implication or direct fiscal implication to the state as such we rejected it.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: Fraud driven inflation hurting families is not relevant enough to include in the priorities It's of this

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: not not that relevant, it's highly relevant. It does not have a direct fiscal implication to the budget. It's something that was normally handled through direct legislation. So, what this is the governor putting legislation, her legislation in the budget.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: Chair, with all due respect, I think we see plenty of policy language within both this budget and every budget before it. So, I I understand your point of view but I wanna move on. So, does this one house budget proposal place any additional mandates on state agencies to combat or prosecute fraud, waste and abuse?

[Unidentified Staff/Counsel (off-mic interjections)]: Theft.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We did put money in for wage theft.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: For wage theft? Yes. But not with respect to mandates to agencies. I ask this question because there is a fiscal impact to how much money we give these agencies. And the reflection in their investigations and the way they are meeting their mandates is troublesome to me. Just to give you some of the statistics, DFS received 35,000 complaints. We saw somewhere around 77 investigations and only 20 prosecutions. OMIG, which is in charge of and receives plenty of funding from this institution in the state, they only saw 13 arrests a few years back out of hundreds and hundreds of investigations and hundreds and hundreds of employees and investigators. So, is there not a fiscal impact to not stopping the the the leaky sieve that we're seeing within our system?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Well, I think that the what you're referring to has is absorbed in the FTEs or full time equivalents, is the employees. Yes, we put money in these agencies but this is what their job is, this is what they are being paid to do. Okay.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: My next question is related to the changes made within the budget. Are you satisfied with section one seventy six of the penal law relating to insurance fraud as currently written, specifically the ridiculously high number threshold required to prove to prove guilt?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I'm not familiar with that section of the law.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: Was removed.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Don't believe it has

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: anything

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: to the budget this year.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: There's there's no there's no fiscal implication there.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: No fiscal implication to the state budget? Yes. In your opinion, there's no fiscal implication to the state as well? Or Or where does that line move? Because I see that used as a terminology where something is so important because it has a fiscal impact on a supply side versus a non supply side.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Bloomberg, it's important if it's part of the budget. If it's part of the taxesdisbursements of the state, it's important to the budget. If it has to do strictly with policy, then it does not have implications to the state's budget.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: So, why does the one house budget resolution not include the executive's proposal to expand the definitions of fraudulent insurance acts including staged motor accidents? Again, I know you are going to say it has

[Michael Durso (Member)]: a positive

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: implication to the state. If the governor said added a million dollars to it or as an expense or a cost, then it would have an implication to the budget. But since there is no money involved, it is deemed as policy and it is our policy to try to put as little policy in the state budget. It should be strictly a fiscal document as it was to, well, as it was a while ago.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: I was going to say not in Reese's memory but thank you. On the bill, Madam Speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: Madam Speaker, I think it was Theodore Roosevelt said once that the best thing you can do is the right thing and the worst thing you can do is nothing at all. What I see within this budget and its proposal of over $270,000,000,000 is that there is an incredible amount of inaction in helping the families who are suffering from an affordability crisis that is consuming so many. At the same time, where we make proposals in which we provide bonuses or tax incentives, we skim off the top by ignoring the issues when a small business is trying to expand. Yet, we ignore the issues small businesses are facing, they are paying a vague in their premiums. When we ignore families that are suffering and yet we have to increase taxes to maintain a burden that is continuing to hurt them while not solving, again, those supply side issues that are hurting our families, hurting our budget, and hurting our ability to help those in need and allowing those who are being fraudulent actors and those who are are scam artists to continue to consume so many of our dollars unchecked. We provide funds to these organizations like OMIM, like DFS, like the AG's office. We are not seeing returns on our investment in terms of investigations. What the governor proposed in this budget is a small step in the right direction that could have far more significant fiscal implications, not only in our taxpayers, but on our bottom line as a state. There's a reason she placed those here in the budget today, and I can't say I'm a fan of every one of her proposals. But in particular, the small step would be a significant step in the right direction so we wouldn't have sit here and explain why tax increases are so incredibly necessary. Why we're gonna tell a family in New York City that if they're paying $500,000 for a home, have to consider that something that needs to be burdened by a mansion tax. It's incredible to think that we are so focused on placing more burden on the taxpayer instead of doing our jobs to be fiscally prudent in this budget. Madam speaker, thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Norber.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Norber')]: Thank you, speaker. Would the chair yield, please?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the chair yield? Absolutely. The chair yields.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Norber')]: I believe I'm towards the end, so I'll

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: keep this

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Norber')]: short. My question has has to do specifically with the sensitive areas protections.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: With with what?

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Norber')]: Sensitive areas protectors?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes. Okay. Okay.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Norber')]: Would this also include the governor's proposal to enact a 25 foot buffer zone between houses of worship?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I don't believe that there's a fiscal to that. Excuse me? And we've omitted it. We do this it is not part of our one house.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Norber')]: Yes. And you omitted it. Correct? Yes. You rejected it. And what was the

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: reasoning behind that

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: again? No fiscal. Okay.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Norber')]: I heard you say that before, but what about regulations to data brokers? That also has no physical Exactly. You guys did not omit that for the budget. So could there be any other The regulations? Of data brokers. That was not omitted. And that has no physical implications.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Didn't we tax them? I believe there was money attached to that.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Norber')]: To the data brokers?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yeah. In in d f yeah. In DFS, they put money in it. How much? Yeah. The governor put $21,000,000 in DFS for that.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Norber')]: What did you do? I couldn't hear you.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: The the governor put $21,000,000 in budget. For that specifically?

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Norber')]: Alright. But with all the money being spent right now in the budget, do you see any need to in that area, just a protest, which has no fiscal implications, maybe in that specific situation to have an exemption just because, let's say, just last week, protests have become have become much more aggressive and hostile, and we had a bomb thrown next to Gracie's mansion, next to the mayor's house. So would you well, would you not consider some type of exemption? And also last yesterday, there were about fifty, sixty people from the majority who were part of a press conference trying to show the support for this specific line item. So, again, was there any other type of reasoning? Because on the budget on the majority side, it looks like you guys are very much in favor.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We're not making an exception, but the conversation is being continued in that. Excuse me? I said we are not making we are trying not to make exceptions, but conversations are continuing on that.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Norber')]: Okay. Very good. Alright. Thank you very much. That's all.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Chang?

[Jarett Gandolfo (Member)]: Oh, come on, West. I'll ask a question. Thank

[Lester Chang (Member)]: you very much. Will the chairman yield?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the chair yield? Yes. I will. The chair yields.

[Lester Chang (Member)]: Thank you chairman and your staff. The staff that you demonstrated for a few hours, thank you very much. Thank you. My questions are fairly simple and to the points on some of the budget itself. On the consumption use tax, you impose additional increase on nicotine taxes and of course the banning of the vape on certain flavors.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes. But

[Lester Chang (Member)]: why do you want to repeal the cannabis for that you can generate the revenue and why not increase recreational use of marijuana?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: This is only medical cannabis that taxes being eliminated, not for cannabis cannabis.

[Lester Chang (Member)]: And when I increase the taxes for recreational use, I see that quite a bit being used in the city.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I tend not to use the term recreation. Prefer adult use cannabis. Okay. The markets are totally different and there is an unfair competition with the medical and the adult use cannabis.

[Lester Chang (Member)]: Because there's a lot of things that I don't like, taxes per se, but tobacco use, vape, adult use of marijuana is definitely not a healthy lifestyle it has unintended effect, especially medical side where you use it very often and it attacks our medical systems because of people using it and this is not a healthy lifestyle. And, we should pay for that, cover that cost for those people who are using those products. That's why I would like to see an increase in taxes especially adult use of marijuana. Tobacco taxes are already high but we should increase that and vaping we definitely should use So you

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: are advocating higher taxes?

[Lester Chang (Member)]: Yes. This is one of those few things that we should because we are paying for the medical cost for people who are used. That part, but the exemption side on cannabis use, I still okay, I understand.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Generally you don't pay a sales tax on prescribed medicine and theoretically people that are using medical marijuana have a prescription from a physician and they were formally paying taxes, well they are still paying taxes on it until it goes through and they were paying taxes on it. If your doctor gave you a prescription for X, you don't pay a sales tax on that, so this is really leveling the playing field.

[Lester Chang (Member)]: Now, is this medical use, does it include smoking or just I don't know

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: what medical marijuana looks like and how they take it.

[Lester Chang (Member)]: Have no idea myself too, but if it is smoking, it is something I would debate it on that because that's not a healthy anything you smoke putting in your lungs is pollution. I don't see any benefit but that's your side to decide. Transportation side, on the governor bill, you have the majority does not support is the motorcycle license additional safety courses.

[Jake Blumencranz (Member)]: Can

[Lester Chang (Member)]: you explain that why?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Many people already take the safety course before they get their motorcycle license. My understanding is that a lot of the people that are bikers want this because they want safety on the road. We have too many young people that get motorcycles, they take the road test and then they don't know really what they are doing. What this does is ensures that they go through a safety course, they know exactly how to handle the motorcycle and what to and not to do.

[Lester Chang (Member)]: Then why take this out? I don't mind having additional course, especially for young kids to reinforce safety laws, safety rules and especially the road test, especially applying safety and as you know throughout the state and throughout the country people die for being reckless and we need reinforcement even driving. If you don't use it, you lose that skill. I don't mind to have additional continuous driving courses. Even for us, people who are like myself, a senior, I don't mind to take a driving test again to make sure that my skills are up to par. Yeah.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: And your question is?

[Lester Chang (Member)]: Why do you take that off?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Is no back to the fiscal thing, there is no fiscal implications to that.

[Lester Chang (Member)]: I mean, taking additional tests is fiscal. There is a cost involved to apply for it.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: The Governor did not provide additional funding for that. But don't be surprised if the final budget has it. But it is not in our one house.

[Lester Chang (Member)]: Thank you. The next is the Stop New York Super Speeder through Intelligent Speed Assistant. The Governor put it in and your conference took it off. Can you explain that please?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: It does not have a fiscal implication to the state so it is not part of the budget.

[Lester Chang (Member)]: I mean there is cost to I understand that because it does take cost for application for speed.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Not for the state. If you live in New York City, you are speeding in New York City, the city gets the money.

[Lester Chang (Member)]: Next is housing, favorite topic. Especially the vouchers program. I know it's a fairly recent program. You bump up the budget to $250,000,000 I support it. I agree with vouchers because I think they are very efficient of having people using especially a real estate broker of getting people permanent housing. But unfortunately, it's fairly new program so do you have any basic statistics on how well it's been done since you increased the budget from 50 to $2.50?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: This just started March 1, so we don't have any real numbers I can just tell you that we are proposing $250,000,000 for the housing voucher program. The Governor only provided $50,000,000 for the same program. But this is on March 6? It just started.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Bologna')]: I understand.

[Lester Chang (Member)]: I believe in vouchers. If it is work, if the landlord accept the vouchers and if we use section eight as an example or the FEP program, the application for an approval is atrocious. Even my constituents call me and they are still waiting months and months just to get approval. And I hope it doesn't get bogged up in bureaucracy, if we have expanded this kind of program. Right. Because that will discourage landlords of not accepting the vouchers and then the program basically won't work if landlords don't accept that. And that also leads into the homeless program. You increase a $100,100,000,000 dollars for the unhoused from 250,000,000 253,000,000. I don't believe the this program is efficient. It doesn't work. I prefer to use that increase for vouchers because that's led the market forces to get these people more permanent housing rather than wasting homeless shelter that's only temporary and it doesn't work for decades.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Are you referring to capital monies? Yes it is. Because Okay. The capital is not part of our one house. The capital will be negotiated before the final budget. Do you think But I think we have like a $100,000,000 We have

[Lester Chang (Member)]: 100,000,000 to put in. Do you think this program really works? Yes.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I would hope it works. Yes, it works.

[Lester Chang (Member)]: I don't see it. Not in Brooklyn where I see it or Manhattan. We see so many homeless shelters spread out throughout the city and I prefer vouchers program that's more permanent housing than temporary housing. I think that's a better way to spend money is more permanent housing than than investing in temporary housing. Well, the money that you are referring to is for

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: repairing shelters now that need to be repaired. That's what the capital is used for. It's really not for building new shelters, it's keeping the shelters we have functioning.

[Lester Chang (Member)]: The operators are taking advantage, I feel. They are not using the money most efficiently and I believe I prefer to see convert those temporary shelters to more permanent shelters, more affordable shelters. I think that's a better way but again that's a different debate but that's my personal opinion. On the bill please. Thank you very much.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution.

[Lester Chang (Member)]: 270,000,000 billion dollars in the state budget and $20,000,000,000 more from last year I remember sitting in this this chamber. We lost population. For decades, we we were once nearly 23, 24,000,000 people live in New York State. We're under 20,000,000 and our budget ballooned so much. I believe Pataki during that time was was under 100,000,000 so where where where's the where's the efficiency out of it? I think we've gone bloated. And the taxes that we have increases even for millionaire taxes whatever taxes that we increases. The golden goose in New York City in financial area will lose that stock exchange. Texas is planning to open up from BlackRock to compete our exchange. They have feats. They move. Once you lose the stock exchange, the financial Wall Street, and taxing on on new business, especially in in that industry, you won't never recover. It'll be a downfall. And where and where finances are, stock exchange moved to Texas, well, that's where the job's gonna move. So the best course of action is cut programs that is being wasteful or not being useful. Unfortunately, we don't have a way to measure how successful programs are but we have programs perpetuating decades that doesn't work such as homeless shelter. It doesn't work. It perpetuates this program. We make it more generous for people outside of New York City coming into New York City and using our services that our taxpayers are paying. Not the best way to using our taxpayer money and I don't think that our taxpayer, our New Yorkers view that what we are paying to tax is a good value staying here. They will move with their feet. That's all I have. Thank you very much, madam speaker. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Manktilo.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the chair yield?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the chair yield?

[Phil Steck (Member)]: Yes, I will.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The chair yields.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: Thank you. Thank you, chair. I just like to have a couple questions about veterans. Do you know what last year's final budget was for our veterans?

[Lester Chang (Member)]: For veterans?

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: Yes.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I can look that up. Off the top of my head I don't know.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: I can help you out with that if you want.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Okay, help

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: me out.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: Alright. It was about ten point five million if I remember. Just make sure you confirm that. And right now I believe that the governor and her executive her proposed executive budget cut 4,400,000.0.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: Yes, that's a good number?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes. Good,

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: thanks. So right now, we are at 6,100,000.0 compared to 10,500,000.0 last year. And what is in the one house budget that we are proposing from the assembly side?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: We are restoring the legislative ads.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: And how much?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Probably the difference that we are referring to. I certainly doubt the Governor would cut veterans.

[Matthew Slater (Member)]: I don't know that note off the top

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: of my head.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: I came up with 2,600,000.0 ads.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Am not sure. I have to get back to you with the actual number. Okay. So last year was $31,800,000. And this year, she cut 4,400,000?

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: Yes.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: And so the difference is basically the legislative bans that we are going to put back in.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: So if our house added $2,600,000 how are we going to make up that difference to get back to where it was last year?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: The senate puts in money also. Am sorry, the senate puts in money also.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: Can you guarantee that?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I can only guarantee death and taxes in Zappa.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: We have both in New York that's for sure. Back to one of the other questions, there are some various unnamed veterans initiatives in the one house. Can you tell me what those are?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: There are some unnamed initiatives in the one house budget for our veterans. Can you tell me what those are?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: These are what we have funded last year. That is my belief. Many items that we have funded last year that the Governor took out, we are putting back in.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: So do you feel we will get them all back in for our veterans?

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: I am

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: pretty sure we will. Pretty sure? Okay.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: I am going to hold you to your word because I believe they will, but I am just concerned that they won't and how important it is for our veterans, especially with what is going on around the world. My next question, do you feel that tier six affects our veterans at all?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Tier six affects anyone that has hired under tier six pension plan.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: Yes. So do you think that could possibly affect our veterans?

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: If a veteran is hired as a tier six employee, absolutely.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: Alright. Well, I appreciate you answering my few questions. I just wanted to talk a little bit about veterans. Madam chair, on the resolution?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution.

[Brian Manktelow (Member)]: So I just wanna share a couple things. A few this is about a month ago. The chair from the veterans committee, myself, and assemblyman Angelina went to his district to meet with the Oxford Veterans Home. And it was a great day to see many of our veterans that were there, some wounded combat veterans missing limbs, missing other things within their lives. And I talked to some of the nurses and some of the caretakers there that day, and they're losing those caretakers partially because of tier six. They are going to a private home because they can make a little bit more money. And yes, we all know that we have to factor everything in when it comes to employment, health insurance, retirement. But for our young people, they can't do that right now because our young people are suffering. They are living day to day, week to week on their paychecks. So if they are able to get $2 an hour more at another senior living center nearby, they are going to go there. So I encourage us as a as an assembly that we continue to work towards fixing tier six. We constantly kick that can down the road. And let's roll our sleeves up. Let's get rid of that aisle in the middle, and let' work across this whole room to get this thing accomplished. If we want to talk about helping the state reducing our labor cost, let' fix tier six and get our state jobs fully filled we can' seem to do that in tier six constantly comes up. Madam Chair I thank you for allowing me to do that for having a few words I want to say one last thing I' a numbers guy so I know there's a $100,000,000, I believe, in the budget for electric bus electric buses. Well, I did the math on that. An electric bus is around 330 to $340,000 a bus. On a $100,000,000 that's 300 buses. I have 13 school districts in my district. One of my districts has a 120 buses. With those kinds of numbers, we will never accomplish getting those buses to our school districts. I just want to make sure we are thinking about all that as we move forward in the budget process. I am hoping the chair will bring some of these messages back to the negotiations. Again, like one of my colleagues said earlier, the number one thing we can do for New York State is to get rid of our debt. So thank you madam chair for allowing me to say a few words and thank you so much.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Party vote has been requested, miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The minority conference will be in the negative on this resolution. If there's any members that wish to vote yes, you may do so now at your seats. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference is gonna be in favor of this resolution.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Clerk will record the vote. Miss Glick to explain her vote.

[Deborah J. Glick (Member)]: Thank you, miss speaker. I just would be remiss if I didn't point out that the one house resolution includes a major expansion of the EPF, which is desperately needed in all communities across the state. Environmental Protection Fund supports a great many on the ground programs that are essential to to neighborhoods and communities everywhere, and an expansion of the water infrastructure. Those are investments that happen across the state providing support for a myriad of programs. And if you don't have clean water, if you don't have clean air, we act as if there isn't a cost to having pollution in our communities. There's a significant cost. We have seen neighborhoods that have been devastated by increasingly intense floods and storms, and it is important for us not to forget that we are stewards of this state and of our natural resources. So I withdraw my request and vote in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Glick in the affirmative, mister Eckes to explain his vote.

[Chris Eachus (Member)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I gladly vote in the positive on this. But before we lose too many of them, I think whatever budget resolution we put up, there would be a great deal of discussion. But I think it is time that we honor and thank all of the staff members that put a tremendous amount of work behind this budget and created what we have today. And I truly honor them and thank them very much for what they have done.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Eakas in the affirmative, mister Bendet, explain his vote.

[Scott Bendett (Member)]: Thank you, madam speaker. This resolution doesn't do much to lower the costs of health care. It doesn't do much to lower the cost of insurance or energy. We are giving insurance to non citizens. We are giving legal services to non citizens, new Americans to the tune of $200,000,000, yet veteran services are being cut. The electric bus mandate, a $100,000,000, only buys 300 buses, and that doesn't include the increased expense in infrastructure. Our EMS rural task force came out with suggestions. This budget doesn't address those essential services. It doesn't fully address our roads and highways. It doesn't fully address the DSPs who work with our most vulnerable. This budget is a Band Aid on a bullet wound and does not address our upstate affordability crisis. I'll be voting no.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mr. Bendet in the negative, Ms. Moreno to explain her vote. Thank

[Ms. Moreno (Member, 36th AD)]: you, madam speaker, and thank you to chair Pretlow and all the Ways and Means staff for your work putting together this budget proposal. I assumed office just over a month ago with a mandate to fight for an Astorian Long Island City that we can afford. When we knocked on thousands of doors across the 36th District, we found an overwhelming support for taxing the rich to raise revenue we need to deliver that affordable future through programs like universal childcare. Because it's working families with young children, not millionaires and billionaires, that are leaving our great state. That's why the very first bill I introduced alongside Senator Gonzales and with the support of Mayor Mamdani, would give New York City the ability to raise taxes on its wealthiest corporations and I am pleased to see a version of my bill included in the Assembly's budget proposal, which would raise taxes on corporations with incomes of 5,000,000 or more. This would raise an estimated 1,700,000,000.0 for New York City in this tax year alone. And it's a proposal that is overwhelmingly popular. A recent CNN poll found that 62% of voters support raising taxes on large corporations. This is a cross party line, with a majority support from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and residents of every region of our state. Last month, I was proud to march outside this building with thousands of New Yorkers to call for raising taxes on billionaires and corporations. Their chants continue to echo through these halls. Tax the rich, stop the cuts, fund our future. The Trump administration is gutting Medicaid, SNAP, and other essential programs that New York families depend on to give corporations and the wealthy billions in tax breaks. We have a responsibility to protect our constituents by taxing the rich and raising the revenue New Yorkers need. I vote in the affirmative. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, miss Moreno, in the affirmative. Mister Palmisano to explain his vote.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Ranking Member, Ways and Means)]: Yes, thank you Madam Speaker, to my colleagues. You heard me talk enough about the resolution. I just really want to say thank you. First, I want say thank you to the chairman for your time. I appreciate our discussion. I appreciate you standing as long as you did answering our questions. Certainly your staff running back and forth, we appreciate you too. And I'd be very remiss if I didn't give a shout out and a big thank you to our Ways and Means team back there. They just do a phenomenal job for us and I just can't thank them enough. And know this is just the beginning of the process. There's going be more discussions, more debates as we get this final budget adopted, and hopefully it's a fiscally responsible budget that delivers fairness for all New Yorkers and does the right thing to keep jobs and families here. So thank you to everyone again and I continue to vote now. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mr. Palmisano in the negative, Ms. Peoples stokes to explain her vote.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Thank you madam speaker for the opportunity to explain my vote. Would first like to plus one my colleague, mister Eakus, his comments regarding our staff. But I certainly do wanna honor mister Pretlow in the manner in which he debated this, I would say, the preliminary process of our 2026 budget. And I certainly would also like to congratulate mister Palosamo in his role, his first role as the ranking member of the, Ways and Means Committee. There are a lot of, really good things in this budget resolution. There are some things that, you know, will still need to be negotiated, and we still have time to do that in, madam speaker. But I will say that at present, there are some 100,000 New Yorkers who, on a regular basis, see a doctor and get prescribed medical cannabis. And there's some 85,000 providers across the state. And when they go get their prescription, they should not be paying taxes for it because when they go to get their metformin or whatever prescription they get at a at a regular pharmacy, they don't pay taxes on it. It just was an unfair tax system. I appreciate that the fact that it's in this budget. We've been trying to make this happen for the last couple of years. So I think this is a movement forward for those patients who still depend on cannabis to live a healthy life. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Ms. Peoples' jokes in the affirmative. Mr. Otis to explain his vote.

[Steve Otis (Member)]: Thank you. First, I also want to extend thanks to everybody for the good job. But I'll say that our one house budget is especially important because it reflects what members have heard from their districts, from their constituents, what members have heard during our budget hearings about things where we can improve upon what the governor proposed in her good budget. Our goal is to make it better and to address the needs of school districts and families and local governments. I wanna stress three ads that we have here that I think are very important. One is additional funding for problem solving courts to divert young offenders from a life of criminal justice to a life of a great future by providing social services instead of the criminal justice system. And so that's an important improvement. Digital equity inclusion programs, we have some funding here. This is a great equalizer to deal with people who need help, who are on the wrong side of the digital divide, who are on the wrong side of digital literacy. We all take for granted. This is an important societal issue. We need to do more. We do some in this budget. And lastly, the good additions that we propose in this budget for clean water funding in a variety of ways, building upon the governor's good proposal to do better by water infrastructure, environment, and the needs of this state from for public health because clean water directly relates to public health. I'm in support of this resolution, but understand again that this is the result of great work of our listening to what people tell us we need to do to improve this budget. Thank you. I vote aye.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Otis, the affirmative, miss Lucas to explain her vote.

[Nikki Lucas (Member)]: Okay, Madam Speaker, to explain my vote. I'd like to begin by thanking our bold speaker of this assembly, speaker Carl Hasties our ways and means chair, Gary Pretlow, and our amazing ways and means team. This assembly one house budget resolution reflects some of the biggest and brightest priorities of our state and my district, the beautiful 60th Assembly District which is East New York, Brownsville and Canarsie in Brooklyn. Here are some highlights that I'm proudest about and why I'll be voting yes. Our investment in our communities, it shows strength in education, affordability, housing and healthcare and makes a real difference for working families in my district who have long faced systemic barriers to opportunity. In all, this budget resolution is about investing in people, expanding educational opportunity, lowering costs, strengthening communities, and protecting health care. It is a budget resolution that meets the moment, delivers for families in my district, and advances equity for black New Yorkers and working families. That is why I proudly support this resolution and vote in the affirmative. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, miss Lucas in the affirmative. Mister Pretlow to explain his vote.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: Thank you, speaker. The resolution that we are voting on right now is one step in several steps to a road that we are all heading to March 31, aka April 1. And represents the input of all of my colleagues. It represents the input from 14 hearings where we heard from all segments of the population and it also represents what we think is a good thing. None of this would have been possible without the good people you see standing behind me, the able ways and means staff headed by Phil Fields who knows everything about everything. Don't ask me how he knows all of that but he does. And I just I wanna I wanna thank them for all they do. Now this is not the final. This is only a step. We now go into negotiations with the senate and the governor and from there we hope to have a final budget ready by the March 31 where we can vote on it and have an on time budget. So thank you for your indulgence, Madam Speaker and have a good weekend.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mr. Pettlauer, affirmative.

[Gary Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means Committee)]: And I vote absolutely.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 95, noes 47. The resolution is adopted. Ms. Peoplestokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Madam speaker, do you have further housekeeping or resolutions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: We have no housekeeping. We have a number of resolutions before the house. Without objection, these resolutions will be taken up together. On the resolutions. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. The resolutions are adopted. Miss People Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: I move that the assembly stand adjourned and that we we can adjourned until Friday, March 13. Tomorrow will be in a legislative day, and that we reconvene at 2PM, March 16, Monday being a session day.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Peoples Stokes, this motion, the house stands adjourned.