CM Ferreras-Copeland & Dean Fuleihan of OMB (photo via Ferreras-Copeland's office)
Proposed cuts in state funding to New York City loomed large over the first of many City Council budget hearings on Mayor Bill de Blasio’s $82 billion preliminary budget. At Tuesday’s hearing, the Council’s Committee on Finance heard testimony from several de Blasio administration officials, Comptroller Scott Stringer, and independent budget watchdogs.
Throughout the proceedings, two main themes emerged: concerns over what Governor Andrew Cuomo’s state budget proposal means for the city and the extent to which the de Blasio administration is saving in anticipation of an economic downturn. There were also a series of specific budget issues and priorities raised by Council members throughout hours of testimony that first featured de Blasio budget director Dean Fuleihan.
The hearing kicks into full gear the process of negotiating the city’s spending plan for fiscal year 2017, which begins July 1. As Council hearings proceed over the next month, different issue committees will hear testimony from agency commissioners, leading to the Council’s official response to the mayor’s preliminary budget. Their response is due by March 30.
Finance Committee Chair Julissa Ferreras-Copeland, in her opening remarks, clearly emphasized her belief that the city needs to find ways to reduce costs and increase reserves, and that the biggest fiscal challenge now facing the city is Gov. Cuomo’s proposed budget, which cuts nearly $1 billion from New York City funding.
Ferreras-Copeland noted that though the governor has insisted the proposed cuts to Medicaid and CUNY funding “won’t cost New York City a penny,” he made no changes in his recently-released 30-day amendments to the state budget released on Feb. 12. Still, Mayor de Blasio has not taken those cuts into account in his budget, which raised several eyebrows at Tuesday’s hearing. De Blasio and his top officials have insisted that they will hold Cuomo to his word, though no discussions have yet occurred wherein the two sides can work to find the “efficiencies” that Cuomo is demanding.
Ferreras-Copeland acknowledged that Mayor de Blasio’s preliminary budget, released on Jan. 21, put forth many progressive proposals, but warned that the city must brace for a possible economic slowdown. As she has in the past, Ferreras-Copeland indicated that she does not believe the administration has a strong enough savings program in place.
“With the recovery from the Great Recession continuing into its seventh year, the city must ensure that it is prepared for the next financial downturn that will inevitably come,” Ferreras-Copeland said. “To be clear, the city is not forecasting a recession and in fact predicts continued - if moderate - growth. But, in order to be prepared and fiscally responsible, the City must take steps now to build up its reserves and find efficiencies where money can be saved.”
Preliminary budget estimates put city reserves at $6.6 billion, compared to the $11 billion before the Great Recession ($7 billion was used to pull the city out of that downturn.) The $6.6 billion also marks a percentage of city spending far short of what watchdogs recommend. The plan also includes $1.8 billion under the Citywide Savings Program, which was created by the mayor to find voluntary savings in city agencies. Last year, the CSP savings were $3 billion.
“Not only is this amount low relative to the size of the budget, but most of the savings in the plan appear to stem from accruals, delays in spending, and other non-recurring savings – raising the question of whether these savings find real efficiencies, or whether they are just a more accurate reflection of true costs,” Ferreras-Copeland said.
Fuleihan did announce publicly Tuesday that he and his Office of Management and Budget had sent out a letter on Monday calling on all agencies to find savings across the board without reductions in services or relying on new fees, fines, concessions or making any layoffs.
“Agencies will be required to find productivity and management improvements by restructuring the delivery of programs or services, using technology to produce efficiencies, improving revenue collection, reducing administrative and overhead costs, and funding underused programs at the appropriate levels,” the letter stated.
Ferreras-Copeland said the letter was welcome news. She also laid out at least $20 million in savings identified by the Council and said that the Council would continue to look for savings as it goes through budget documents and hosts agency commissioners at upcoming hearings, which continue Wednesday.
Echoing Ferreras-Copeland, Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito noted that the Council would have to build on its reserves. “I believe the mark of a true progressive is not just one who seeks to create change but does so in a manner that is sustainable over the long term,” she said. Mark-Viverito also said the proposed state budget could have “serious consequences” for the city’s budget, but shouldn’t stop city officials from negotiating the budget.
“We can and should discuss the financial repercussions of these proposed state actions,” she said, “but we should not let it distract us from the task at hand.”
Council Member Jumaane Williams was quite direct later in the hearing, saying the city shouldn’t take Gov. Cuomo on his word and needs to have a contingency plan for its budget. Ferreras-Copeland called the lack of such a plan “unsettling.”
OMB Director Fuleihan repeatedly stressed that the city will fight for its interests as the state continues its budget process - the state fiscal year starts April 1. Fuleihan emphasized that the FY17 financial plan is a “highly responsible budget” that makes targeted investments, establishes $1.1 billion in new savings and maintains “unprecedented reserves.”
Fuleihan said he shared Ferreras-Copeland’s and Mark-Viverito’s concerns. He also stressed the challenges stemming from increased pension costs and from federal funding cuts necessitating changes in the city’s healthcare system.
He laid out the major new investments from the preliminary budget -- including $115 million for the $15 minimum wage for city employees and contracted workers, investments in public safety, funding education initiatives under the mayor’s Equity and Excellence agenda, investments in transportation and social services, along with a few Council priorities. He said the budget recognizes “the very real and concerning economic signals” from around the country and the world and “reaffirms our mutual commitment to discipline, responsibility and meeting our challenges head on.”
Although Fuleihan agreed with the Council on the need for more savings, he said the city’s reserves, which will be just under 7 percent at the end of Fiscal 2016, are at the “right level” for the city’s present needs.
Both Comptroller Scott Stringer and Ronnie Lowenstein, director of the Independent Budget Office (IBO), testified that the city’s reserves are insufficient to weather an economic downturn and called for a more robust savings program to boost reserves.
Lowenstein said “even for a modest downturn” the city only has enough in reserves to get through the following two fiscal years after a downturn begins. However, Lowenstein cautioned that it may be quite difficult for the city to put more into reserves if the governor’s proposals requiring additional spending from the city are enacted.
The comptroller’s office has “determined that the optimal range for our budgetary cushion is 12 to 18 percent of adjusted expenditures,” Stringer said. “At the start of FY 2016, our cushion was 10.6 percent of expenditures, putting us over $1 billion below the minimum and over $6 billion below the top of the optimal range.”
Stringer reiterated his call to for every agency to strive to identify savings, pointing out that “agency efficiencies make up only 30 percent of total savings in the first two years of the [five-year] plan.”
Regarding the letter sent by OMB instructing all city agencies to find savings, Fuleihan said that the savings will certainly happen. “We’re working with you,” Fuleihan told Council members, “this year we’re going to do savings in the executive budget.”
Although the city’s finances are in good shape overall, several economic risks lay on the horizon. Most pressingly, Cuomo’s proposed cuts, but also signs of trouble on Wall Street and from international markets, including China.
Upstate legislators “think New York City is a piggy bank,” Stringer testified. “But let me set the record straight - the city is facing real budgetary challenges and, as we know from recent history, our economic path can turn quickly.”
Yet another move is brewing in Albany that could cost New York City roughly $1 billion if approved - the proposal put forward by state legislators to impose a 2 percent property tax cap on New York City.
Analysis of the city’s finances from the IBO indicate “of the nearly $2.0 billion in growth we project in tax revenues in fiscal year 2017, $1.6 billion is expected to come from increased property tax collections. By 2020, we estimate that property taxes will account for 46 percent of the city’s tax revenues.” While Mayor de Blasio touts that he has not raised property tax rates, increases in property tax assessments create increasing revenues as values rise.
Mayor de Blasio’s decision to aid the city’s struggling public hospitals, known as NYC Health + Hospitals is another issue that must be addressed when the executive budget is released in late April or early May, something Fuleihan acknowledged in his initial testimony.
NYC Health + Hospitals is the “largest identified risk,” Stringer said, as “the city’s public hospital system is required to reimburse the city for debt service, medical malpractice claims, and fringe benefits costs incurred on the system’s behalf. But NYC Health + Hospitals has only made the full payment once in the last four years.”
And as Lowenstein of IBO stated, the mayor is forgiving $337 million owed by NYC Health + Hospitals, but has also chosen to maintain the city’s $204 million annual match of a “federal funding stream, even though the federal dollars are expected to decline because of changes in the health care payment system.”
Additionally, as Jacques Jiha, commissioner of the Department of Finance, said during his testimony, “there are some economic risks ahead that could affect city tax collections: stock, bond, and commodities markets are flashing warning signs...the economic situation is not as severe as in 2008, but it is very worrisome.”
During the initial three hours-plus of the hearing, Council members took turns questioning Fuleihan, seeking answers mostly about issues germane to committees they either chair or serve on.
Council Member Brad Lander asked about how the $15 minimum wage for city employees and contracted workers would be implemented and then moved to homeless shelters, saying they were perpetually under-budgeted. Lander said the 15 percent reduction in the homeless shelter population predicted in the preliminary budget was unrealistic, to which Fuleihan replied the city will decide on a more appropriate projection when the 90-day review of the Department of Homeless services concludes two weeks from now.
Analysis submitted by the IBO predicts that in 2017, city-funded spending to shelter homeless families and adults will cost $101 million more than currently budgeted under the mayor’s plan.
Stringer reiterated his call for money spent on homelessness to be spent more effectively, given that the city will spend $1.7 billion on shelter operations and homelessness programs this year across three agencies - a figure that has grown 46 percent in the last two years.
“We have to track the results of that spending,” Stringer said. “For $1.7 billion each year, our shelter system should not be rife with violations and substandard living conditions. We need to ensure that every dollar is used to efficiently and effectively, to serve the 58,000 men, women, and children who sleep in our shelters every night.”
Minority Leader Steven Matteo, head of the Council’s three Republicans, first addressed property taxes, which he wants to see reformed, then wondered about the costs of the city’s pension obligations and when they would be fully met.
Because retired employees are now living longer, the city’s pension contributions have needed to increase by about $600 million annually beginning this year. Fuleihan testified that the pension system is currently “71 percent fully funded,” and the city is on track to have the pension system fully funded by 2032.
Council Member Jimmy Van Bramer called for baselining library funding and ensuring that cultural institutions are adequately funded. He chairs the Council’s cultural affairs committee, which includes the libraries subcommittee.
Council Member Helen Rosenthal, chair of the contracts committee, directed questions to Fuleihan on the feasibility of reinstituting the Central Insurance Program which would allow workers contracted by the city to buy health insurance at lower rates and using the CIP to meet federal guidelines for overhead on city contracts. She also asked about irregularities in NYCHA security contracts and transparency with Department of Education contracting.
Williams pushed for increased funding towards the Summer Youth Employment Program, in effect doubling what the city has promised so far, a concern echoed by Council Member Laurie Cumbo and Ferreras-Copeland.
Cumbo, as chair of the women’s issues committee, wanted to know what the city was doing to invest in women’s safety.
Council Member Mark Levine commended the administration’s funding towards legal services for tenants in housing court and inquired about how much the city saves down the line from anti-eviction services. He also brought up the issue of infrastructure needs in upzoned neighborhoods.
On most of these specific issues raised by Council members, Fuleihan was non-committal, largely listening and expressing that he understands Council members’ concerns.
Preliminary budget hearings continue with the transportation committee and higher education committee on Wednesday.
***
by Samar Khurshid and Meg O'Connor
@GothamGazette
The Mayor & education leaders (Demetrius Freeman/Mayoral Photography Office)
As mayoral control of city schools comes up for Albany renewal again this year, one concern being raised by a variety of analysts is how and where the New York City Department of Education spends its money. Namely, the opacity of DOE procurement and contracting continues to be of concern to those worried about waste and a lack of oversight for the department with an annual expense budget of more than $20 billion.
The DOE is technically a state agency and operates under different rules and procedures than other city agencies run by the Mayor. Although Mayor Bill de Blasio does have control over it, deciding its budget in consultation with the City Council, DOE procurement and contracting don’t go through the Mayor’s Office of Contract Services. The DOE’s contract budget for Fiscal 2016 was about $5.4 billion of the nearly $22 billion total operating budget (The Mayor’s preliminary budget proposes $22.8 billion for DOE in Fiscal 2017, with $5.6 billion for contracts). Therein lies the cause for concern from the city comptroller, state legislators, and nonprofit watchdogs.
Last year, the DOE was embroiled in a contracting scandal stemming from its procurement policies. A vendor, Custom Computer Specialists, received a $1.1 billion contract to provide hardware and software to the DOE for five years. The contract was to be approved in February by the Panel for Educational Policy, which votes on all DOE contracts costing more than $1 million (an especially high threshold some say). But, before the contract could be voted on, a parent advocate publicly raised concerns about its lack of public scrutiny and the fact that CCS had been involved in a kickback scheme that defrauded the DOE in the past.
Pressure on the DOE from multiple quarters, including Public Advocate Letitia James and City Council Member Helen Rosenthal, who chairs the contracts committee, led to the contract initially being renegotiated down to $635 million and approved by the PEP. But it was subsequently pulled altogether by City Hall -- the first time that has happened in the history of the DOE, both Haimson and Rosenthal said. The DOE broke the contract into parts and put out fresh bids which were eventually met in December at a total price of $472 million.
“There are bad contracts nearly every month that get PEP approval,” said Leonie Haimson, the advocate who blew the lid on the CCS scandal. Haimson runs the nonprofit Class Size Matters. “Even though the Department of Education has promised to make it more transparent, there are still problems with the process,” she said, pointing out that many contracts are retroactively approved after funds have already been disbursed.
The PEP is a 13-member body, which includes DOE Chancellor Carmen Farina as a non-voting member. Five appointees are chosen by the borough presidents and the rest are appointed by the Mayor.
Haimson only noticed the issue in the CCS contract when she saw it on the PEP website about a week before it was to be voted on. Following the kerfuffle, the DOE announced that it would start posting contracts 30 days before their scheduled vote. Haimson has partnered with Patrick Sullivan, a former PEP member, to create a Citizens Contracts Oversight Committee to analyze these proposed contracts when they are put up online. They are crowdsourcing assistance in looking through hundreds of pages of legalese to ensure that the city isn't being ripped off.
“Members of the Panel are supposed to provide independent oversight and checks and balances over contracting at the DOE and so far they’ve completely failed in that mission,” Haimson said. She proposed that the city Comptroller be allowed to nominate a non-voting member to the PEP to bring attention to these issues. In the past there have been calls for the Mayor to give up holding a majority of appointments to the PEP, but, as expected, there has been no movement on this reform.
Patrick Sullivan, who served on the PEP for seven years, says he has seen a change for the worse in the culture of accountability of the PEP. Under Mayor de Blasio, he claims, PEP members are less willing to question the DOE and that the DOE is less willing to share information.
“The problem was and what remains is that the DOE presents only a brief outline rather than the entire contract to the PEP,” Sullivan said. That, he insists, made it difficult for the PEP “to do what is pretty plain in the law, which is approving contracts.”
Sullivan does believe the current system could work, but only if the PEP puts its foot down and asks to see the contracts in full.
(Gotham Gazette made initial contact with PEP chair Vanessa Leung via email but subsequent emails went unanswered. She did say, “There has been some changes, a simple one being that we are given an overview of areas for future meetings in advance so we know what areas will be up for new contracts.”)
The CCS case was one that slipped through the cracks, despite the DOE process of vetting vendors and proposals. According to DOE officials, the process includes pre-proposal conferences to discuss the proposals with potential vendors and applicants. Proposals are examined by expert committees and vendors are evaluated using the Mayor’s of Contract Services’ Vendex system, which tracks vendor history, quality of services, and level of expertise. The DOE consults the Special Commissioner of Investigation and even looks at vendor tax filings. A history of less-than-satisfactory service does not automatically disqualify a vendor but is explained in the final Request for Authorization sent to the PEP. In the CCS case, these details were available to the DOE and PEP.
The problem was the initial decision by the department to issue a Request for Bid (RFB) rather than a Request for Proposal (RFP). RFBs are generally more to the point, with specific contract requirements, while RFPs lay out general services that are needed. (Taking all the evaluation criteria into consideration, the least costly proposal is not always the one that wins the contract.)
After the contract was pulled, it was re-issued in March 2015 as an RFP and DOE chief financial officer Ray Orlando said in a statement, “The DOE heard from members of the PEP, as well as elected officials, about their concerns regarding the procurement process and decided that issuing a new restructured procurement through an RFP will allow us to reach the best possible outcome for the school system and the City. The DOE will be issuing a new solicitation.”
The DOE then decided to make some the requests for authorization of contracts available for public review at least a month in advance. They also provide PEP members with the Requests for Authorization four weeks before their next meeting. At the meetings, members receive basic information about expected future procurements that are likely to eventually vote on.
“We’ve worked closely with community leaders and stakeholders to improve our contracts process and look forward to this continued collaboration,” said Ray Orlando, DOE CFO, in an email to Gotham Gazette (the same message sent to the Daily News in December).
City Council Member Helen Rosenthal is not satisfied with how DOE procurement functions although she gives credit for changes made after the CCS case.
“The root of the problem there (in the CCS matter) was that they were bidding out something without specificity,” she said. “After that they made the contract more specific. Bids came in tighter and lower.”
Rosenthal met with Ray Orlando last month to discuss these issues and he explained the new transparency measures. But Rosenthal left the meeting disappointed and less than assured that DOE had made any significant reforms in how procurement happens.
“They’re making the final product more transparent,” she said, “but I don’t know if they’re changing internal procedures.” While she doesn’t discount that there might be some changes, Rosenthal has been internally calling for a hearing where she hopes the DOE can answer to the public.
However, the City Council does not have the same level of oversight of DOE as it otherwise does over a mayoral or city agency. The Council can pass laws requiring reporting by the DOE (as it’s done in the past) but cannot legislate policy or even hold oversight hearings on specific policies. The Council could pass a resolution calling for the DOE to go through the Mayor’s Office of Contract Services, but cannot legally mandate it.
“There’s no legal requirement to tell us the answers to these questions, not the same way a mayoral agency is required,” Rosenthal said. “But the questions I’m asking are the ones the taxpayers have a right to know the answers to.”
Rosenthal hopes that the administration will oblige her request for a hearing.
Transparency in procurement and spending has also become a key issue in the debate over mayoral control. Carl Marcellino, chair of the state Senate education committee, recently said he would want more oversight over the DOE’s spending for mayoral control to be extended, echoing comments that were made last year when Mayor de Blasio was seeking an extension of control of city schools (he received a one-year extension).
“I have supported extensions in the past and I do believe ultimately it will be extended,” Marcellino said of mayoral control in a statement, as reported by City & State. “At this point, for how long is yet to be determined. I also think we have an opportunity to increase accountability and transparency on where school funds are being spent in the City. We need a clearer picture on where these funds are going and how they are being used."
Marcellino’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story.
Another important voice on the issue of DOE contracting has been city Comptroller Scott Stringer. Testifying before the state legislature in Albany last year, Stringer expressed his support for mayoral control as well, with caveats. He said, “Part of that needs to be reforming the Department of Education’s procurement rules to provide more oversight and transparency. For too long, the DOE has answered to no one when it comes to procurement. With billions of dollars at stake, cutting corners on procurement is bad for taxpayers and bad for our children. DOE must abide by the same oversight rules as every other city agency.”
Under the New York City Charter, DOE’s Procurement Policy and Procedures, and New York State Education Law, the Comptroller’s office has the authority to register and audit DOE contracts.
“However, ensuring MOCS’ participation in DOE’s procurement process would elevate oversight and transparency of the Department to the same level as that of all Mayoral agencies,” Stringer told Gotham Gazette in a statement.
This year in his budget testimony in Albany, Stringer did not mention DOE procurement but did support a three-year extension of mayoral control. (Mayoral control was far less a focus for everyone this year when de Blasio and Stringer appeared in Albany as Senate Republicans largely focused on property tax reform.)
“I have long supported mayoral control of schools,” Stringer told Gotham Gazette. “It is the best way we can ensure accountability and make sure that our schools are equipped with the management and resources to meet the immediate needs of our schoolchildren.”
Class Size Matters’ Haimson believes mayoral control is at the center of the problem. She says it puts too much power over the DOE in one office and precludes the usual checks and balances over spending. “It’s a bad idea. Period. It’s a bad idea in principle. It’s a bad idea in practice,” she said, blaming mayoral control for what happened in the CCS case. Patrick Sullivan feels likewise.
For supporters of mayoral control, that is a spurious argument. “You need to have the mayor in charge of the money going to the Department of Education if you want well-funded schools,” said Clara Hemphill, of the New School and its education publication, Inside Schools. “Anything else is just posturing.” Hemphill said the battle over mayoral control at the state level was more a “power play” between Mayor de Blasio and Governor Andrew Cuomo than an argument of substance.
City Council Member Daniel Dromm, chair of the education committee, did not respond to requests for comment. Dromm’s education committee will hold preliminary budget hearings on DOE spending on March 8 (capital) and March 16 (expense).
It is unclear at this point if state legislators will hold a hearing on mayoral control of city schools with de Blasio called to Albany to discuss his leadership of the city’s schools, his school-based policies and spending practices.
Council Member Rosenthal also believes mayoral control is a good system, but it needs tweaks to make it better. Like Senator Marcellino, she wants the mayor to ensure more transparent spending.
“I definitely prefer mayoral control than the old system,” Rosenthal said, “but I’d want more mayoral control in terms of contracts going through MOCS therefore allowing City Council oversight.”
***
by Samar Khurshid, senior reporter, Gotham Gazette
@samarkhurshid @GothamGazette
Council Member Lander & young people against plastic bags (photo: William Alatriste)
“Last year, we said bag fees by Earth Day,” Council Member Brad Lander told Gotham Gazette, shortly before an unrelated committee hearing at City Hall. “I’m saying it again. Bag fees by Earth Day.”
Even a year later, Lander is confident that the bill he is co-sponsoring with Council Member Margaret Chin to impose fees on single-use plastic and paper bags at grocery stores and bodegas will pass the Council by April 22, Earth Day. Lander, Chin, and their allies are making a renewed push to see the legislation pass, including making tweaks to the bill and gathering new support.
The bill, an effort to reduce the number of plastic bags that end up in the city’s waste stream, was introduced in March 2014 but has not moved since it was initially heard on Nov. 19, 2014 by the Committee on Sanitation and Solid Waste Management. While supporters call it an important environment-friendly measure, opponents say it will be cumbersome for families when grocery shopping and everyday people making quick purchases. Proponents cite the already underway increase in the use of reusable bags for shopping, while opponents say this is an unnecessary infringement into the private marketplace and people’s lives.
In order to become law, the bill must pass in committee and the full Council, then be signed by Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Now, in a 2016 effort that even involves support from state legislators, Lander, Chin, and others are pushing forward with the hope that by the time Spring rolls into Summer, de Blasio will have signed the bill into law. Currently, the bill has 21 Council sponsors in total, plus the support of Public Advocate Letitia James. It needs five more co-sponsors for a majority in the 51-member Council.
“As Spring starts to return to New York, people remember that plastic bags aren’t what’s supposed to bloom in trees, and it’s time for the city to adopt the fee and significantly reduce plastic bag waste,” Lander told Gotham Gazette. “I’m optimistic that we’ll get there.” Lander said that the bill is being changed slightly to be more effective as he and Chin respond to the issues raised at the initial hearing.
State Senator Brad Hoylman, who chairs the Senate’s environmental conservation committee, is paying close attention to the city bag bill, which he believes is a litmus test for any efforts the state might make to legislate on the issue. At an event at New York University on Feb. 25 co-sponsored by members of Congress, the State Assembly and Senate, the Manhattan Borough President’s office, and a number of Manhattan community boards, Hoylman and Council Member Chin discussed the proposals and the way forward.
Hoylman said New York City is setting the standard for the state. “The city is a good testing ground for how we might get this passed statewide,” he told Gotham Gazette after the event, “working with advocates and retailers on finding a formula that satisfies the goals of reducing use and not making it too onerous for the retail industry.”
But the struggle is likely to be even harder at the state level where the Democrats don’t have control of the Legislature as they do in the city (the Assembly is controlled by Democrats whereas the Senate is run by a Republican majority). Hoylman, a Democrat, said the Senate majority “typically opposes” legislation like the plastic bag bill. But he isn’t giving up hope that the Democrats could turn things around in this year’s election cycle, when all 213 seats in the Legislature are on the ballot, and perhaps pass a bill next year.
Hoylman is partnering with Sen. Liz Krueger, another Manhattan Democrat, to draft policy to be introduced, but only once New York City moves ahead with its bill. “We’ll see how the negotiations go at the city level and see what they end up with,” he said.
A number of environmental advocates attended the event, along with representatives from Senator Krueger’s office and State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli’s office in the audience. Jenny Romer, founder of plasticbaglaws.org and an advocate of bag fees and bans, spent close to an hour explaining the issue and discussing parallel efforts in other cities, some of which have been successful.
In New York City, the opposition to the bill has been fierce from those in the plastics industry who say it will do little to curb waste, that reusable bags will spread harmful bacteria and, most significantly, that it is a “tax” which will hurt low-income people. This opposition has come from within the City Council, too. (Under the bill, SNAP and WIC enrollees would be exempt from paying the fee.)
A number of groups came out against the bill, including the American Progressive Bag Alliance, which represents the plastics industry trade association, the Society of the Plastics Industry. APBA chairman, Mark Daniels, who also works with Novolex, a plastic bag manufacturer and recycler, testified at the February hearing. “The reality is that taxes and bans on plastic bags will fail to solve any environmental problem, turn people towards inferior options and jeopardize good American jobs, including those right here in New York City,” he said.
Council Member David Greenfield called the proposal “outrageous” at the hearing. He stressed the impracticality of carrying dozens of reusable bags to the grocery store and said low-income families would be worst-affected by the bill.
Minority Leader Steven Matteo, one of three Republican members of the Council, was more direct in his words. “If it looks like a tax, smells like a tax, feels like a tax, it’s a tax, and it’s a tax that is hurting our constituents and our businesses,” he said at the hearing.
In trying to win over a “handful” of her colleagues, Council Member Chin said at the event at NYU that supporters are considering lowering the proposed fee from 10 cents to 5 cents per bag, and that it might make the difference in getting majority support for the bill.
“That’s one of the big ones,” she said of the possible amendment, which might be among a few changes made to the bill. “I think so far, we’re trying to get everything together, and we want to have Earth Day as the day to finally make it happen.”
Recently, concerns were raised about Chin’s use of public money to fund outreach efforts about the bag bill through a non-profit, the Citizens Committee of New York, which is a registered lobbyist with the city. Lander dismissed the charges as a "hatchet job."
Mayor de Blasio is in favor of the bill’s intent -- reducing bag waste -- but has stopped short of outright support for the measure. “Well, that’s something we’ve been talking to the Council about and I’ve said that we share the goal of addressing the problem of plastic bags,” he said in response to a question from Gotham Gazette at a news conference on Feb. 1 where he announced the CleaNYC program, which includes increased graffiti-removal efforts, sidewalk power washing, and stepped-up litter basket collection on Sundays and holidays.
“This is a real environmental problem,” he said of the roughly 100,000 tons of plastic bags that New York City disposes of annually. “There are still some issues being worked through on the best way to do it, but, you know, when there are two parties who agree on the goal it’s just a matter of time of figuring it out the best way to get it done. And I’m pretty confident we’ll get there.”
***
by Samar Khurshid, senior reporter, Gotham Gazette
@samarkhurshid @GothamGazette
This article has been changed to include the correct dates that the bill was introduced and heard in committee.