2016 17 Enacted Budget Finplan

Report on the
State Fiscal Year 2016-17

Enacted Budget Financial Plan and
Capital Program and Financing Plan
July 2016
Message from the Comptroller

July 2016
Each year when the States budget is enacted, much attention

understandably is devoted to its immediate impact. But New Yorks
history shows that we also need to pay attention to the longer term. Too
often in the past, a focus on the short term has resulted in problems
down the road. In that context, this report on the State Fiscal Year 201617 Enacted Budget Financial Plan and the associated Capital Program
and Financing Plan raises several important concerns.
Based on the Division of the Budgets projections of disbursements and
receipts in coming years, my office estimates that the State faces
potential budget gaps averaging nearly $5 billion annually over the three fiscal years starting in 201718 substantially more than projected in this years Executive Budget. One reason for those potential
gaps is the use of more than $5.9 billion in temporary or non-recurring resources in this years budget.
Spending on major programs including school aid and Medicaid is projected to increase in coming
years at rates higher than the average for the previous decade. And a broad new program of personal
income tax reductions enacted this year will have a major impact on State revenues starting within the
next few years. within the next few years.
To be sure, the State has some rainy day reserves and certain undesignated fund balances that could
be available in case of an economic downturn or catastrophic event. But the Financial Plan projects
that, within the four-year plan period, the State will use up most of the budgetary cushion it has
accumulated primarily from billions of dollars in recent monetary settlements. Moreover, our rainy day
reserves are at low levels compared to those in many other states.
These and other concerns outlined in this report provide further evidence of the need for State fiscal
reforms such as those that I proposed earlier this year. For example, my reform package would
require steps to boost budgetary reserves, and to highlight the future budget impact of current-year
actions. These reforms are intended to increase attention to the need for structural balance and thus
reduce the risk of future budget crises. Further, increasing budgetary reserves could better position
the State to respond in the event of unexpected challenges. Other reform proposals would improve
the States use of debt and its capital planning, two other issues discussed in this report. The goal, as
always, must be to ensure that New Yorkers tax dollars and other public resources are used costeffectively and in ways that meet the highest standards of transparency and accountability.
Thomas P. DiNapoli
State Comptroller
Table of Contents
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 1
II. SFY 2016-17 FINANCIAL PLAN OVERVIEW...................................................................... 4
III. STRUCTURAL IMBALANCE ............................................................................................ 15
IV. RESERVES ...................................................................................................................... 23
V. DEBT AND CAPITAL ........................................................................................................ 25
VI. ECONOMIC OVERVIEW .................................................................................................. 37
VII. RISKS TO THE FINANCIAL PLAN ................................................................................. 39
VIII. APPENDICES................................................................................................................. 41
I. Executive Summary
The State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2016-17 Enacted Budget Financial Plan reflects the States
commitment to increase funding for education, health care, transportation and certain other
purposes, with All Funds spending growth projected at 3.6 percent. The State entered its
current fiscal year with an exceptionally large General Fund balance of $8.9 billion, which
enhances budgetary flexibility in the near term and is expected to support increased capital
investment and other purposes over multiple years.
The Financial Plan projects that All Funds tax receipts will increase by nearly $2.5 billion or 3.3
percent this year, a softening from SFY 2015-16 growth of 5.1 percent. The Enacted Budget
includes a broad program of personal income tax (PIT) reductions that are projected to reduce
State revenues by $236 million in SFY 2017-18 and by $4.2 billion when fully phased in by
2025.
The Financial Plan projects limited growth in State Operating Funds disbursements of 2.0
percent, despite significantly higher percentage increases in major categories such as school
aid and State-funded Medicaid. Using the figures presented in the Financial Plan as a baseline
and adjusting for certain prepayments, the Office of the State Comptroller estimates that State
Operating Funds spending will rise by 3.6 percent this fiscal year.
The Financial Plan outyear projections are based on an assumption of holding annual spending
growth from State Operating Funds to no more than 2 percent and include planned savings
from unspecified actions to achieve that goal. These unspecified actions are not included in the
disbursement projections, but instead are presented as a separate line in the Financial Plan
tables labeled Adherence to 2% Spending Benchmark.
In recent years, using this presentation, the Executive has portrayed surpluses in the outyears
of the Financial Plan. For the first time since use of this presentation began, the Enacted
Budget Financial Plan shows that even if State Operating Funds spending growth is held to 2
percent, outyear gaps will occur beginning in SFY 2018-19.
The Office of the State Comptroller estimates that, based on projections of disbursements and
receipts by the Division of the Budget (DOB), but not including the unspecified savings
described above, the State faces potential budget gaps averaging just less than $5 billion
annually over the three fiscal years starting in SFY 2017-18. Total potential gaps over the fouryear Financial Plan period are nearly double those reflected in the SFY 2016-17 Executive
Budget Financial Plan. One factor underlying such projected gaps is the Enacted Budgets
reliance on $5.9 billion in temporary or non-recurring resources, excluding federal aid for
disaster assistance.
The Enacted Budget Capital Program and Financing Plan projects spending from capital
projects funds to total nearly $63.5 billion over the next five years, an increase of just under
$2.8 billion from the Executive Budget. Projected average annual spending of $12.7 billion
would be 41 percent higher than the average over the past five years.
The combined balance in the States two main statutory reserve funds (Tax Stabilization
Reserve and Rainy Day Reserve) as of March 31, 2016, was unchanged from the previous
year and is expected to remain at its current $1.8 billion through this fiscal year. The General
Fund balance as of that date included just over $7 billion in what DOB informally considers an
1
unrestricted reserve for various purposes, some of which could be available to supplement
statutory reserves in the event of an economic downturn or catastrophic event. These
unrestricted reserves are projected to decline to $1.4 billion by SFY 2019-20.
Other key points in this report include:
All Funds disbursements are projected to increase $5.4 billion or 3.6 percent, to $156.1
billion, in SFY 2016-17. While the Financial Plan presents projected All Funds spending
as $148.2 billion, this figure excludes certain federal funding for health care and disasterrelated aid.
While the Executive has set a goal of limiting annual spending growth from State
Operating Funds to 2.0 percent, spending in two of the States largest programs is
expected to increase at significantly higher rates in coming years. School aid is projected
to increase 4.8 percent this fiscal year and an average 5.3 percent over the remaining
three fiscal years in the Financial Plan period. Medicaid spending is expected to rise 2.4
percent this year, but by an average 4.5 percent in the following three years. Spending
on State operations is projected to decline slightly this year and then rise by an average
0.9 percent annually during the rest of the Plan period.
All Funds receipts, including miscellaneous receipts and federal aid, are projected to
decrease by $919 million or 0.6 percent this year. The decline is largely attributable to
an expected reduction in monetary settlement receipts and a smaller transfer from the
State Insurance Fund (SIF), down from $1 billion in the previous year.
All Funds PIT collections in the first three months of SFY 2016-17 were nearly $600
million lower than projected in the Enacted Budget Financial Plan issued in May 2016
and nearly $1.2 billion lower than February 2016 projections.
The $5.9 billion in temporary or non-recurring resources in this years budget includes
more than $2.3 billion in revenue from a top PIT rate of 8.82 percent on certain higherincome taxpayers that is scheduled to expire at the end of 2017, when the top rate is
reduced to 6.85 percent. Another $1.5 billion is from prepayments of personal income
tax refunds and debt service. Other temporary or one-time resources are from the SIF,
Mortgage Insurance Fund and other funds. The use of temporary resources to meet
recurring expenses contributes to the States structural deficit, increasing the difficulty
of achieving budget balance in future years.
The largest share of projected capital financing over the next five years, at more than
51 percent of the total, is backdoor public authority borrowing which is not approved
by voters. While the Capital Plan projects $350 million in spending from the voterapproved Smart Schools Bond Act Program this fiscal year and anticipates that the $2
billion authorized from the program will be fully disbursed over five years, voterapproved, State General Obligation bonds are expected to support just 4 percent of
capital investments over the Capital Plan period. The remaining 45 percent is expected
to be financed with federal resources or State cash resources (pay-as-you-go).
Capital projects funds disbursements for transportation purposes, the largest element
of overall capital projects funds spending, are projected to total $25.7 billion over the
2
five-year Capital Plan period, compared to $22.2 billion over the preceding five years.
Such spending is also expected to increase significantly in the area of economic
development, and in mental health, health and social welfare, among others, while
declining in higher education.
The States capital projects funds ended SFY 2015-16 with a negative aggregate closing
balance more than double the negative end-of-year balance three years earlier,
excluding the Dedicated Infrastructure Investment Fund (DIIF). Negative balances of
more than $900 million are projected for each of the five years in the Capital Plan period.
DOB projects that statutory State-Supported debt capacity will decline from $4.9 billion
in SFY 2015-16 to $105 million in SFY 2019-20. This figure assumes certain actions by
DOB to preserve debt capacity, including the deferral of certain debt issuances, use of
certain monetary settlement resources to support capital spending outside the DIIF, the
re-estimation of capital projects spending, and a change in the financing of State
University dormitories that makes such borrowing not subject to the statutory debt caps.
Annual State-Funded debt service is projected to increase 23.1 percent from the current
year through the end of the Capital Plan period, reaching nearly $8.5 billion in SFY 202021.
II. SFY 2016-17 Financial Plan Overview

The SFY 2016-17 Enacted Budget Financial Plan released in May by the Division of the Budget
(DOB) projects increased All Funds disbursements of $5.4 billion or 3.6 percent over SFY 201516, bringing total All Funds disbursements to $156.1 billion. 1 Approximately $2.9 billion of this
increase reflects State and federal spending from capital projects funds, and another nearly $2
billion (including federal dollars) goes to school aid. Some $1.1 billion of the increase is federal
Medicaid funds related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and health care reform. These
increases are partially offset by projected declines in spending for public protection and parks.
DOB estimates that State Operating Funds disbursements will increase $1.9 billion or 2 percent
over last year, compared to the projected rate of inflation of 1.4 percent. General Fund
disbursements are projected to increase by $3.8 billion or 5.6 percent over SFY 2015-16.
The Enacted Budget Financial Plan projects All Funds receipts for SFY 2016-17 to be $152.3
billion, representing a decline of $919 million or 0.6 percent from SFY 2015-16. State Operating
Funds receipts are projected to be $94.6 billion, representing a decline of nearly $2 billion or 2
percent from SFY 2015-16 levels. DOB projects General Fund receipts to be nearly $69 billion
in SFY 2016-17, representing a decline of $700 million or 1.0 percent.
All Funds personal income tax (PIT) collections in the first three months of SFY 2016-17 were
approximately $600 million lower than the Enacted Budget Financial Plan, and nearly $1.2
billion lower than February 2016 projections. Primarily as a result of the lower April receipts,
DOB adjusted certain PIT projections and expenditure assumptions in the Financial Plan, as
compared to preliminary figures in the Financial Plan Update that accompanied the SFY 201617 Executive Budget.
The Enacted Budget Financial Plan includes nearly $7.1 billion in temporary and non-recurring
resources, of which $5.9 billion is State-sourced, with the majority of this total having been
enacted in previous budgets. Such temporary resources are among the factors leading to
potential budget gaps in future years. The Financial Plans outyear projections assume the
adoption of budgets with no more than an annual increase of 2 percent in State Operating
Funds spending, but do not specify how such targets will be met. 2 However, DOB projects that
even with State Operating Funds spending growth held to 2 percent, gaps of $841 million and
$399 million would occur in SFY 2018-19 and SFY 2019-20, respectively. If spending were to
increase as projected before actions to meet the 2 percent benchmark, outyear gaps would
reach $6.9 billion by SFY 2019-20.
The FY 2017 Enacted Budget Financial Plan is available at https://www.budget.ny.gov/budgetFP/FY2017FP.pdf.

Disbursements in the Financial Plan do not reflect the assumed savings, which are identified as a separate line in the tables entitled
Adherence to 2% Spending Benchmark.
2
All Funds Disbursements

All Funds disbursements are projected to total $156.1 billion, an increase of 3.6 percent, or
$5.4 billion, over SFY 2015-16 and $1.5 billion higher than projected in the Executive Budget.
This projected growth over SFY 2015-16 is $2.9 billion higher than the growth projected in the
Executive Budget Financial Plan, reflecting, in part, spending added by the Legislature and the
Executive in the final budget agreement. In addition, actual spending in SFY 2015-16 from All
Funds was nearly $1.4 billion lower than anticipated when the Financial Plan was updated in
February.
The majority of the projected growth in All Funds spending occurs in the General Fund
(increased by just over $3 billion or 5.3 percent, not including transfers to other funds) as well
as State capital projects funds (up $3.2 billion, or nearly 46 percent, largely because of new
additions in spending as well as delayed spending from SFY 2015-16). Federal spending from
non-capital funds is projected to increase $566 million, or 1.2 percent. Federal spending for
capital purposes is projected to decline $239 million, or 11.7 percent, from levels in SFY 201516. Spending from debt service funds and State special revenue funds is projected to decline,
also offsetting projected growth by $393 million and $730 million respectively.
Based on the Enacted Budget, local assistance grants from All Funds are projected to increase
4.2 percent, or $4.6 billion, as compared to an increase of $1.6 billion, or 1.4 percent, in the
Executive Budget. Departmental operations spending is projected to decline $157 million, or
less than 1 percent, as compared to an increase of $9 million in the Executive Budget. General
State Charges is projected to increase 1.7 percent, or $131 million, as compared to 4.2 percent,
or $323 million, in the Executive Budget. Spending for capital projects is projected to increase
19 percent, or $1.2 billion, as compared to $577 million, or 8.4 percent, in the Executive Budget.
Debt service, which is affected by prepayments, is expected to decline 7.1 percent, or $395
million, compared to a slight increase ($3 million) in the Executive Budget. However, if
prepayments are adjusted out, debt service is projected to increase by $965 million, or nearly
20 percent, from SFY 2015-16.
All Funds Receipts

All Funds receipts are expected to decline 0.6 percent, or $919 million, in SFY 2016-17, as
shown in Figure 1. This is primarily due to a $3.7 billion decline in miscellaneous receipts (13.6
percent), reflecting the loss of major one-time revenue sources including monetary settlements
received in SFY 2015-16, as well as a $750 million decline in transfers from the State Insurance
Fund. This decline is partially offset by projected growth in taxes and federal receipts. Federal
receipts were initially anticipated to decline by $1.2 billion. However, largely because federal
receipts were more than $1 billion lower than anticipated in SFY 2015-16, the Enacted Budget
Financial Plan projects that federal receipts will increase $327 million or 0.6 percent in SFY
2016-17, to $51.7 billion.
Figure 1
All Governmental Funds Receipts
(in millions of dollars)
Receipts:
Personal Income Tax
Consumption and Use Taxes
Business Taxes
Other Taxes
Total Taxes
Miscellaneous Receipts
Federal Grants
Total Receipts
SFY 2015-16
Estimate
(30-day
amendments)
SFY 2016-17
Executive
Proposal
Dollar
Growth
Percentage
Growth
SFY 2015-16
Actual
SFY 2016-17
Enacted
Dollar
Growth
Percentage
Growth
47,093
15,640
8,406
3,944
75,083
49,960
16,135
8,018
3,512
77,625
2,867
495
(388)
(432)
2,542
6.1%
3.2%
-4.6%
-11.0%
3.4%
47,055
15,725
7,884
4,009
74,673
49,464
16,134
7,994
3,536
77,128
2,409
409
110
(473)
2,455
5.1%
2.6%
1.4%
-11.8%
3.3%
26,333
52,328
153,744
24,159
51,133
152,917
(2,174)
(1,195)
(827)
-8.3%
-2.3%
-0.5%
27,268
51,324
153,265
23,567
51,651
152,346
(3,701)
327
(919)
-13.6%
0.6%
-0.6%
Source: Division of the Budget
Tax receipts are expected to total $77.1 billion, representing an increase of 3.3 percent, or just
under $2.5 billion. This projection is slightly less than anticipated in the Executive Budget,
primarily due to an adjustment to projected personal income tax (PIT) receipts. While projected
PIT receipts for SFY 2016-17 were adjusted downward by $496 million to reflect lower-thanestimated April tax collections, PIT collections are still projected to increase 5.1 percent or $2.4
billion over SFY 2015-16.
Part of this growth reflects an adjustment by DOB to the administrative cap on PIT refunds paid
in the final quarter of the previous fiscal year. In SFY 2015-16, DOB increased the
administrative cap on refunds by $600 million from the actual SFY 2014-15 level and by $800
million from SFY 2015-16 Enacted Budget projections to $2.55 billion, resulting in a higherthan-expected level of refunds paid for the year, while reducing refunds projected for SFY 201617. Without this change, the General Fund balance at the end of SFY 2015-16 would have
been higher. In the SFY 2016-17 Enacted Budget Financial Plan, DOB has lowered the
administrative cap on refunds to be paid annually within the final quarters of SFY 2016-17
through SFY 2019-20 to $1.75 billion.
State Operating Funds Disbursements

The Financial Plan projects spending from State Operating Funds will increase 2 percent from
actual levels in SFY 2015-16. 3 Figure 2 illustrates where growth in spending from State
Operating Funds is projected to occur during SFY 2016-17. Almost all net State Operating
Funds spending growth comes in the areas of school aid, Medicaid and transportation. These
increases are offset by a significant projected decline in debt service related to the timing of
payments.
3
State Operating Funds are made up of the General Fund, State-sourced special revenue funds and Debt Service funds. Federally funded
grants are not included, nor is any capital spending (State or federal).
Figure 2
Spending Growth from State Operating Funds
SFY 2015-16 Actual to SFY 2016-17 Enacted Budget Financial Plan
SFY 2015-16
Actual
SFY 2016-17
Enacted
Dollar
Growth
Percentage
Growth
Dollar Growth
as Percentage
of Total
231
14
4,745
17,434
1,794
2,967
2,646
263
2,955
23,302
5,458
264
771
(189)
289
14
4,952
17,850
1,976
2,942
2,570
328
3,031
24,422
5,599
264
754
(103)
58
(0)
207
416
183
(25)
(75)
65
76
1,120
141
0
(17)
86
25.3%
-1.5%
4.4%
2.4%
10.2%
-0.8%
-2.9%
24.7%
2.6%
4.8%
2.6%
0.1%
-2.2%
-45.7%
3.1%
0.0%
10.9%
22.0%
9.7%
-1.3%
-4.0%
3.4%
4.0%
59.2%
7.5%
0.0%
-0.9%
4.6%
62,653
64,889
2,236
3.6%
118.2%
12,981
5,602
12,841
5,693
(140)
91
-1.1%
1.6%
-7.4%
4.8%
18,583
18,534
(49)
-0.3%
-2.6%
General State Charges
7,452
7,551
99
1.3%
5.2%
Debt Service
5,598
5,203
(395)
-7.1%
-20.9%
50.0%
0.1%
94,288
96,180
1,892
2.0%
100.0%
Local Assistance Grants

Economic Development Government Oversight
Parks and Environment
Transportation
DOH Medicaid inc. Administration
Other Health
Social Welfare
Mental Hygiene
Public Protection/Criminal Justice
Higher Education
School Aid
Other Education
General Government
Local Government Assistance
Other
Total Local Assistance Grants

Personal Service
Non-Personal Service
Total Departmental Operations
Capital Projects
Total Disbursements
Sources: Division of the Budget, Office of the State Comptroller
As shown in Figure 3, actual State Operating Fund disbursements in SFY 2015-16 totaled
$94.3 billion, or approximately $38.5 million higher than initially anticipated and close to the last
projections released in February. This disbursement figure reflects nearly $750 million in
payments originally planned for SFY 2016-17 that instead were made during the preceding
year, as well another $140 million for workers compensation costs normally paid from the
General Fund that will instead be paid off-budget in SFY 2016-17.
These adjustments have a significant impact on projected growth for SFY 2016-17. Figures 2
and 3 reflect not only negotiated changes to the Executive proposal, but also any changes
associated with timing issues that occurred after the February Financial Plan Update.
Figure 3 illustrates how projected spending growth increased from 1.7 percent in the Executive
proposal to 2 percent in the Enacted Budget Financial Plan.
Figure 3
Comparison of Growth in Projected State Operating Funds Receipts and Disbursements:
Executive Budget and Enacted Budget Financial Plans
SFY 2015-16
Estimate SFY 2016-17
Executive
(from February
Proposal
2016)
Dollar Percentage
Growth
Growth
SFY 2015-16
Actual
SFY 2016-17
Enacted
Dollar
Growth
Percentage
Growth
Receipts:
Personal Income Tax
Business Taxes
Other Taxes
Total Taxes
47,093
15,019
7,778
3,825
73,715
49,960
15,585
7,402
3,393
76,340
2,867
566
(376)
(432)
2,625
6.1%
3.8%
-4.8%
-11.3%
3.6%
47,055
15,090
7,244
3,890
73,279
49,464
15,579
7,372
3,417
75,832
2,409
489
128
(473)
2,553
5.1%
3.2%
1.8%
-12.2%
3.5%
Federal Grants
21,547
74
18,561
74
(2,986)
-
-13.9%
0.0%
23,255
73
18,733
74
(4,522)
1
-19.4%
1.4%
95,336
94,975
(361)
-0.4%
96,607
94,639
(1,968)
-2.0%
63,032
64,328
2.1%
62,653
64,889
2,236
3.6%
12,957
5,521
12,809
5,667
(148)
146
-1.1%
2.6%
12,981
5,602
12,841
5,693
(140)
91
-1.1%
1.6%
18,478
18,476
(2)
0.0%
18,583
18,534
(49)
-0.3%
7,326
7,636
310
4.2%
7,452
7,551
99
1.3%
Debt Service
5,452
5,455
0.1%
5,598
5,203
(395)
100.0%
50.0%
94,289
95,898
1,609
1.7%
94,288
96,180
1,892
2.0%
Total Receipts
1,296
Departmental Operations
Personal Service
Non-Personal Service
Capital Projects
Total Disbursements
-7.1%
State Operating Funds Receipts

State Operating Funds receipts are projected to decline 2 percent, or nearly $2 billion from SFY
2015-16 levels, primarily because of a projected decline in monetary settlement revenues
within miscellaneous receipts, offset by growth of 3.5 percent for tax collections in this category.
Projected growth in tax receipts in State Operating Funds is primarily in PIT and consumption
and use tax collections. This growth is offset by a projected 12.2 percent ($473 million) decline
in other taxes, primarily the estate tax.
General Fund Disbursements

Disbursements from the General Fund, including transfers to other funds, are projected to
increase 5.6 percent, or $3.8 billion, to $71.8 billion in SFY 2016-17, compared to the decline
of 2.7 percent or $1.9 billion projected in the Executive Budget Financial Plan. As shown in
Figure 4, this variance of $5.7 billion is primarily because actual disbursements in SFY 201516 were more than $4.5 billion lower than the last projections included in the Executive Budget
Financial Plan. 4 Disbursements in SFY 2016-17 are $1.2 billion higher in the Enacted Budget
Financial Plan than in the Executive Budget Financial Plan primarily because of spending
added in negotiations, but also because some spending that did not occur in SFY 2015-16 is
now expected in SFY 2016-17.
The most significant change in the General Fund between the projections in the Executive
Budget Financial Plan and the Enacted Budget Financial Plan is the treatment of a portion of
the monetary settlement dollars ($6.4 billion) that were received in SFY 2014-15 and SFY 201516.
The SFY 2015-16 Enacted Budget created a new capital projects fund called the Dedicated
Infrastructure Investment Fund (DIIF), and included appropriations totaling $4.55 billion from
that Fund. It also provided authority to transfer $4.55 billion from the General Fund (where the
majority of monetary settlements have been collected) to the DIIF. 5 However, only $857 million
of the $4.55 billion was actually transferred in SFY 2015-16, leaving the remaining $3.7 billion
in the General Fund.
Primarily as a result of this, total General Fund spending was below projections in SFY 201516 by approximately $4.5 billion. This has a significant impact on the reported and projected
growth of General Fund spending. The transfer authority was extended in the SFY 2016-17
Enacted Budget. However, DOB has changed both the timing of transfers to the DIIF and the
planned use of the funds. For a more detailed discussion of this issue, see the subsection
entitled Use of Monetary Settlements within the Structural Imbalance section as well as the
Debt and Capital section within this report.
General Fund Receipts

DOB projects General Fund receipts will decline 1 percent or $700 million from SFY 2015-16
levels, primarily due to the loss of monetary settlement revenue. General Fund tax revenues,
including transfers from debt service funds, are expected to increase 4.1 percent or $2.5 billion.
Without transfers from debt service funds, General Fund tax collections are projected to
increase $1.8 billion or 3.9 percent. This is approximately $128 million higher than the growth
projected in the Executive Budget.
Figure 4 compares changes in General Fund receipts and disbursements from SFY 2015-16
to SFY 2016-17 as reflected in the Executive Budget projections and those in the Enacted
Budget, and the difference between the two. This figure shows significant changes in Transfers
to Other Funds, largely related to timing, and Transfers from Other Funds, where
approximately $250 million in non-recurring transfers/sweeps were included in the Enacted
Budget.
4
The Financial Plan that accompanies the Executive Budget also includes the Third Quarter Update of the then-current fiscal year. The
Financial Plan that accompanies the 21-day or 30-day amendments to the Executive Budget represents the last projections for the thencurrent fiscal year.
5
In the General Fund, transfers to other funds are counted with total spending, just as transfers from other funds are counted in total receipts.
This is not done with All Funds or State Operating Funds, as it would lead to double counting.
Figure 4
Comparison of Projected General Fund Receipts and Disbursements Growth:
Executive Budget and Enacted Budget Financial Plans
SFY 2015-16
Estimate
(30-day
amendments)
SFY 2016-17
Executive
Proposal
Dollar
Growth
Percentage
Growth
SFY 2015-16
Actual
SFY 2016-17
Enacted
Dollar
Growth
Percentage
Growth
31,983
6,781
6,202
1,466
46,432
34,242
7,089
5,776
986
48,093
2,259
308
(426)
(480)
1,661
7.1%
4.5%
-6.9%
-32.7%
3.6%
31,957
6,819
5,647
1,540
45,963
33,870
7,087
5,750
1,045
47,752
1,913
268
103
(495)
1,789
6.0%
3.9%
1.8%
-32.1%
3.9%
5,820
-
2,642
-
(3,178)
-
-54.6%
0.0%
5,842
-
2,813
-
(3,029)
-
-51.8%
0.0%
18,042
70,294
18,048
68,783
6
(1,511)
0.0%
-2.1%
17,871
69,676
18,411
68,976
540
(700)
3.0%
-1.0%
Receipts:
Personal Income Tax
Business Taxes
Other Taxes
Total Taxes
Federal Grants
Transfers from Other Funds
Total Receipts
Difference SFY Difference SFY

2015-16
2016-17
Estimate to
Proposed to
Actual
Enacted
(26)
38
(555)
74
(469)
(372)
(2)
(26)
59
(341)
22
171
-
(171)
(618)
363
193
530
Disbursements:
44,153
45,427
1,274
2.9%
43,314
45,957
2,643
6.1%
(839)
8,222
8,234
12
0.1%
7,955
8,299
344
4.3%
(267)
65
5,188
5,472
284
5.5%
5,397
5,425
28
0.5%
209
(47)
Total Transfers to Other Funds

Total Disbursements
15,020
11,503
(3,517)
-23.4%
11,376
12,160
784
6.9%
(3,644)
657
72,583
70,636
(1,947)
-2.7%
68,042
71,841
3,799
5.6%
(4,541)
1,205
General Fund Current Services Gap

The Executive Budget projected a current services gap, the difference between expected
revenues and the estimated cost of current services, of $1.8 billion. In addition to that gap, the
Enacted Budget included $1.2 billion in new initiatives and restorations. The Enacted Budget
Financial Plan reflected $389 million in re-estimates of certain receipts and spending. Overall
changes of $1.6 billion from the Executive Budget Financial Plan to the Enacted Budget
Financial Plan include the following: 6
$663 million in new spending added to the Executive Budget proposal, primarily in
school aid, other education and human services.
$518 million to restore various proposed Executive Budget reductions in local assistance
and spending for departmental operations, including elimination of proposals to increase
New York Citys share of Medicaid costs and to change financing for the City University
of New York.
$389 million in reduced projections for General Fund tax collections, largely in response
to lower-than-anticipated PIT collections in April 2016, as well as costs associated with
higher public assistance caseloads and the minimum wage increase.
See Figure 11 for outyear projections of the impact of gap-closing actions.
10
$17 million in additional tax reductions in SFY 2016-17. The tax changes added to the
Enacted Budget are projected to decrease receipts more than $1 billion in later years,
compared to the Executives proposal.
DOB identifies $1.6 billion in new General Fund resources to cover the additional spending,
restorations, tax reductions, and revised estimates of receipts. These include:
$576 million in updated aid claims for expense-based school aid and School Tax Relief
(STAR) in which reimbursable costs are anticipated to decline compared to initial
projections.
$256 million in prepayments made in SFY 2015-16 that will lower costs in SFY 2016-17
(in addition to already planned prepayments).
$300 million in additional transfers initially expected in SFY 2015-16 that DOB now
anticipates will occur in SFY 2016-17.
$455 million associated with the use of reserves, and anticipated savings from other
spending revisions and management actions.
According to the estimates provided in the Financial Plan, the General Fund gap-closing plan
contains actions to keep the General Fund in balance for SFY 2016-17. Figure 5 compares
the Executives proposed gap-closing plan to the plan included in the Enacted Budget Financial
Plan. The largest categories of change from the Executive Budget are the use of non-recurring
resources and actions (which reduce the gap on a temporary basis), recurring new revenue
actions, and new initiatives (which add to the gap, typically on a recurring basis).
Figure 5
Comparison of Current Services Gap-Closing Plan
SFY 2016-17 Executive Budget and SFY 2016-17 Enacted Budget
Current Services Gap - SFY 2016-17

Non-Recurring and Temporary Resources and Costs
Proposed
Enacted
(1,781)
(1,781)
709
Recurring Revenue Actions (including revenue re-estimates)

State Operations Reductions
Remaining Gap In Enacted Budget Financial Plan

11
956
(579)
(350)
397
200
(197)
91
185
94
1,177
1,420
243
Recurring New Initiatives

All Other (Including re-estimates)
(229)
Capital and Debt Management

Local Assistance Reductions
1,665
Difference
(4)
(631)
(627)
(360)
(479)
(119)
State Operating Funds Projections Adjusted for Prepayments and Other Actions
The Executive has instituted a nonstatutory goal of limiting annual growth in spending from
State Operating Funds to 2 percent or lower, and has worked with the Legislature for the past
five years to enact budgets intended to reflect that goal. Spending from State Operating Funds
grew at an annual average rate of 4.2 percent from SFY 2003-04 through SFY 2012-13.
Changes to school aid, Medicaid, State agency operations and other expenditure areas over
the last five years have significantly reduced actual and projected spending growth.
However, these reported and projected levels of spending growth are influenced by the use of
budget management and other actions to shape apparent levels of growth. Such factors
include: the use of prepayments which, under the cash basis of accounting used in the State
Financial Plan and Capital Plan, show spending in the year that the disbursement occurs rather
than the year in which it was initially planned; certain program restructurings which result in
costs being reflected as lower receipts rather than as disbursements; shifting of spending to
capital projects funds; and the use of off-budget resources to pay for certain program costs.
Figure 6 illustrates that prepayments made in SFY 2015-16 have the effect of increasing
spending or reducing receipts (in the case of PIT refunds) in that year and reducing spending
and increasing receipts in SFY 2016-17, making disbursement growth appear smaller and
receipts growth appear larger than they would have been had the payments been made when
due or originally expected. While prepayments may be both an indicator of improved cash
position and a fiscal management tool, the impact of such actions should be clearly identified,
to avoid the presentation of a potentially misleading picture of growth trends. If projections
were adjusted to offset the impact of implemented and planned prepayments identified in the
Financial Plan, projected spending growth from State Operating Funds in SFY 2016-17 would
increase from 2 percent to 3.6 percent.
The Enacted Budget includes several other actions that further complicate the analysis of
spending growth from SFY 2015-16 to SFY 2016-17. Such actions include the STAR program
restructuring that shifts costs from spending to revenue ($184 million), the use of off-budget
funds for certain workers compensation expenses ($140 million), and shifts in spending to the
capital projects funds, including $44 million for Supportive Housing, $5 million for Dedicated
Mass Transportation purposes, $3 million in expenses to the Dedicated Highway and Bridge
Trust Fund and $12 million for certain Agriculture and Markets programs that were moved offbudget. These actions have the effect of changing the spending growth picture in the entire
budget, not just State Operating Funds.
12
Figure 6
SFY 2016-17 Enacted Budget Financial Plan
State Operating Funds Adjusted to Reflect Prepayments 7
SFY 2015-16
Actual
SFY 2016-17
Projected
Dollar
Growth
Percentage
Change
96,607
94,639
(1,968)
-2.0%
73,279
800
74,079
76,340
(800)
75,540
3,061
4.2%
1,461
2.0%
23,255
18,733
(4,522)
-19.4%
73
74
Adjusted State Operating Funds Receipts
97,407
94,347
(3,060)
-3.1%
Unadjusted State Operating Funds Disbursements
94,288
96,180
1,892
2.0%
62,653
64,889
18,583
18,534
(49)
-0.3%
99
1.3%
173
2.3%
(395)
-7.1%
965
19.7%
200.0%
Unadjusted State Operating Funds Receipts

Receipts:
Total Taxes
Adjustment for SFY 2015-16 PIT Refund Prepayment
Total Adjusted Taxes
Federal Funds
Disbursements:
Grants to Local Governments
State Operations
Adjustment for 2016-17 Workers' Compensation Prepayment
Adjusted General State Charges
7,452
(37)
7,415
7,551
37
7,588
Debt Service
Adjustment for SFY 2016-17 Debt Service Prepayment
Adjustment for SFY 2017-18 Debt Service Prepayment
Adjusted Debt Service
5,598
(710)
5,203
710
(60)
5,853
4,888
Capital Projects
Adjusted State Operating Funds Disbursements
93,540
96,867
2,236
3,327
1.4%
3.6%
3.6%
An overall measure of such changes is difficult to determine and analyze because several of
these actions are not clearly delineated, and the Financial Plan does not include an overall
summary of their impact on year-to-year growth. For example, while the DIIF was created as a
capital projects fund, and DIIF appropriations are contained in the Capital Projects budget bill,
resources in the DIIF are not limited to capital purposes. Certain spending or transfers from the
DIIF could be used for previous or future operating purposes, including ongoing costs.
However, since the disbursements are being made from a capital projects fund, they would not
be captured within reported State Operating Funds spending or reported growth in such
spending.
As noted above, the Enacted Budget Financial Plan relies on at least $388 million in additional
identifiable items that change the reported growth in State Operating Funds disbursements
7
All figures in this report are as projected by the Executive (not adjusted) unless otherwise indicated.
13
from SFY 2015-16 to SFY 2016-17. If reported disbursement growth were adjusted to reflect
both the prepayments and these additional items, annual growth from SFY 2015-16 to SFY
2016-17 would be even higher than the adjusted growth in spending from State Operating
Funds shown in Figure 6. These timing-related actions are important factors in keeping
reported spending growth from State Operating Funds within the 2 percent target.
Figure 7 illustrates how State spending as measured by General Fund, State Funds and All
Funds disbursements is projected to grow significantly more than the 2 percent growth in State
Operating Funds disbursements presented in the Financial Plan.
Figure 7
Annual Spending Growth By Fund Proposed and Enacted SFY 2016-17
6.0%
5.3%
This area is limited by the Executive's policy

of holding annual growth to 2 percent or less
5.0%
4.0%
3.6%
3.1%
2.7%
2.0%
2.0%
1.7%
1.6%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
-2.0%
-2.3%
-4.0%
-6.0%
-7.0%
-8.0%
General Fund (not
including transfers)
State Special
Revenue
Debt Service Funds State Operating

Funds - Total
Executive Proposal
State Funds - Total All Funds - Total
Enacted Budget

Note: The significant decline in debt service funds spending is caused by administrative actions changing the timing of
payments.
14
III. Structural Imbalance

Recent budgets have reduced the structural imbalance between recurring revenues and
expenditures that has long plagued the State. Despite such progress, the Enacted Budget
Financial Plan is not balanced on a structural basis, and spending growth in future years is still
projected to significantly outpace revenue growth. Continued reliance on temporary and nonrecurring resources, as well as administrative actions that may make trends in spending and
revenue growth less clear, indicate that more progress is needed to put the State on a strong
financial footing in the longer term.
As previously noted, the Executive has articulated an intention to adhere to a nonstatutory cap
on annual State Operating Funds spending growth of 2 percent. As with the SFY 2016-17
Executive Budget Financial Plan, the Enacted Budget Financial Plan includes an adjustment
line in each summary table titled Adherence to 2% State Operating Funds Spending
Benchmark. This line provides the difference between projected spending based on current
law and assumptions, and spending limited to 2 percent annual growth over the previous years
levels.
In recent years, using this presentation, the Executive has portrayed surpluses in the outyears
of the Financial Plan period as a projection of what would happen if spending were limited to 2
percent. However, in a departure from plans in recent years, the Enacted Budget Financial
Plan indicates that even if State Operating Funds spending growth in future years is held to 2
percent, outyear gaps will occur.
Figure 8 illustrates current projected growth for receipts and disbursements from State
Operating Funds. The two columns on the far right show average annual growth for the whole
Financial Plan as enacted (growth after SFY 2015-16) and average annual growth in outyears
only (growth after SFY 2016-17). This presentation does not reflect the 2 percent spending limit
goal, which is not statutory and was not included in enacted budget legislation, and also is not
otherwise reflected in the disbursement figures in the Financial Plan.
Based on spending and receipt estimates included in the Enacted Budget Financial Plan,
without adherence to the 2 percent spending growth target for State Operating Funds, the
Office of the State Comptroller estimates that projected budget gaps would total $2.6 billion in
SFY 2017-18 and rise to $6.9 billion in SFY 2019-20. The three-year total of nearly $15 billion
in projected gaps during the Financial Plan period is 90.3 percent higher than the four-year
total of projected gaps the Office of the State Comptroller estimated based on the SFY 201617 Executive Budget Financial Plan. Figure 12 provides additional details on projected outyear
gaps.
15
Figure 8
SFY 2016-17 Enacted Budget Financial Plan
Projected Growth in Receipts and Disbursements State Operating Funds
(Before adherence to 2% spending benchmark)
6.0%
5.1%
5.0%
4.1%
4.0%
3.7%
3.6%
3.6%
3.4%
2.9%
3.0%
2.4%
2.0%
2.0%
1.3%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
-1.0%
-2.0%
-2.0%
-3.0%
SFY 2016-17 Enacted
SFY 2017-18
Projected
SFY 2018-19
Projected
State Operating Funds Receipts
SFY 2019-20
Projected
Average Annual
Growth 2016-17
through 2019-20
Average Annual
Growth 2017-18
through 2019-20 (outyears)
State Operating Funds Spending
Figure 9 compares average annual growth in various spending areas for the period from SFY
2006-07 through SFY 2015-16 to projected growth in SFY 2016-17, as well as to projected
average annual growth from SFY 2017-18 through SFY 2019-20. These outyear projections
can illustrate the impact of changing spending priorities within the Financial Plan, as well as
the impact of budget management actions. As shown, projected growth in school aid this year
is anticipated to outpace the average annual increase over the previous decade, a trend that
is projected to continue. Medicaid spending growth is below the 10-year average this year, but
is expected to accelerate in coming years. Total State Operating Funds disbursements are
projected to grow at more than twice the Executives 2 percent benchmark. (The figures are
not adjusted for the timing of payments or certain other budget management actions.)
16
Figure 9
Annual Spending Growth Comparisons from State Operating Funds
11.6%
15.0%
0.9%
1.5%
3.2%
0.7%
2.6%
1.3%
2.9%
5.0%
4.5%
4.5%
3.5%
4.8%
5.3%
2.4%
2.3%
2.0%
5.0%
3.4%
4.1%
10.0%
-0.3%
0.0%
-7.1%
-5.0%
-10.0%
Total
Disbursements
School Aid
Medicaid (DOH
inc. admin.)
General State
Charges
State-Supported
Debt Service
Other Aid to
Localities
State Operations
Average Annual Growth SFY 2006-07 through SFY 2015-16

SFY 2016-17 Growth
Average Annual Projected Growth SFY 2017-18 through SFY 2019-20 Growth
Temporary and Non-Recurring Resources

Over several decades, the State has largely managed structural imbalances through the use
of temporary and non-recurring resources, a practice which persists today. Although some use
of such resources is to be expected, given the size and complexity of the States budget, these
resources should be matched with non-recurring or temporary expenditures so as not to create
or exacerbate structural imbalances. In the short term, the use of these resources contributes
to budget balance in the current year and in any future years in which such resources are
available. However, by definition, temporary and non-recurring resources do not improve the
States structural balance between recurring levels of revenue and spending.
17
Figure 10
Non-Recurring Resources, Adjustments, Prepayments and Advances
SFY 2016-17
SFY 2017-18
SFY 2018-19
Total
SFY 2019-20
Prepayments and Use of Reserves

800
710
59
37
112
60
-
800
710
60
59
37
112
1,718
60
1,778
120
295
140
86
200
38
150
20
15
100
196
200
-
100
200
-
35
-
1,064
496
300
35
Commercial Gaming Licenses

Temporary Utility Assessment
Mortgage Settlement
State Insurance Fund
Limit Deductions for Charitable Contributions (1)
Budget Relief from Monetary Settlements
Temporary PIT Provisions (2)
137
173
23
250
70
102
2,379
139
70
1,640
137
312
23
250
140
102
4,018
Subtotal
3,134
1,849
4,982
Total State Temporary, Non-Recurring and Prepayments
5,916
2,405
300
35
8,656
Temporary Federal Disaster Assistance (3)
1,160
549
264
264
2,237
Total State and Federal Temporary and Non-Recurring

Resources
7,076
2,954
564
299
10,893
PIT Refund Prepayment

SFY 2015-16 Debt Service Prepayment
SFY 2016-17 Debt Service Prepayment
SFY Dedicated Highway and Bridge Trust Fund Prepayment
SFY 2016-17 Workers' Compensation Prepayment
Use of Reserves
Subtotal
Enacted in SFY 2016-17
Environmental Protection Fund From Settlement
Sweeps from Other Funds
New State Insurance Fund
STAR Conversion
Sales Tax Asset Receivable Corporation Refunding
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (including SUNY)
Mortgage Insurance Fund
New York Power Authority (1)
Warrentless Wage Garnishment
Subtotal
120
295
375
282
600
38
150
20
15
1,895
Previously in Law or Outside Budget Process
Extraordinary Temporary Federal Funding
(1) Extended in SFY 2015-16 Enacted Budget.

(2) Projections for the existing temporary PIT provisions were not updated in the Enacted Financial Plan. These projections are based on actual collections relative to Plan.
(3) The Financial Plan does not separately detail spending for Disaster Assistance, but the projected spending is included in the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency
Services disbursement totals. These figures assume approximately $400 million annually for other federally funded Homeland Security costs.
Sources: Division of the Budget, Office of the State Comptroller.

Note: The amount of PIT refunds paid in the final quarter of the fiscal year influences reported revenue growth. DOB increased the
administrative cap on PIT refunds by $800 million for the fourth quarter of SFY 2015-16, and reduced projected SFY 2016-17 refunds. DOB
has varied the level of the administrative cap in recent years.
As shown in Figure 10, the Financial Plan uses temporary and non-recurring resources totaling
$5.9 billion (excluding just under $1.2 billion for extraordinary temporary federal disaster
assistance). More than $1 billion of that total results from changes enacted as part of this years
Budget. Another $1.7 billion in adjustments, prepayments and advances that have been or are
expected to be achieved administratively will benefit the General Fund during SFY 2016-17.
18
Finally, the Enacted Budget also relies upon non-recurring resources added in previous
budgets that total $3.1 billion, for which no resources are assumed in the Financial Plan after
SFY 2017-18. The use of non-recurring or temporary resources to meet recurring expenses
exacerbates the States structural deficit, making it more difficult to achieve budget balance in
the future.
Effects of the General Fund Gap-Closing Plan on Outyears

The SFY 2016-17 Executive Budget included actions intended to eliminate a projected $1.8
billion current services deficit in SFY 2016-17, while reducing cumulative outyear gaps from
SFY 2017-18 through SFY 2019-20. As shown in the first column of Figure 11 below, $3.3
billion in new initiatives proposed in the Executive Budget would have increased the cumulative
multiyear gap (including SFY 2016-17) to nearly $16.5 billion before gap-closing actions.
Offsetting actions in the Executive Budget Financial Plan would have brought the cumulative
gap down to $7.9 billion. The Executives proposed gap-closing plan included approximately
$7.2 billion in cumulative gap-closing measures, reflecting 43.4 percent of the total. Nonrecurring or temporary resources made up 9 percent of the gap-closing plan, while 47.7 percent
of the outyear projected gap was not addressed in the Executive Budget.
Figure 11
SFY 2016-17 Proposed and Enacted Budget Financial Plan Gap-Closing Measures
Proposed
Enacted
SFY 2016-17 SFY 2016-17
through SFY through SFY
2019-20
2019-20
Total Cumulative Gap to Be Closed
(13,202)
(13,202)
Additions to Gap
Recurring Additions/Restorations/Initiatives
Recurring Revenue Reductions
Other
Total After Gap Additions
(1,266)
(1,690)
(336)
(16,494)
(3,936)
(4,435)
(1,348)
(22,921)
Re-Estimates
Share of Total After Gap Additions
(9)
-0.1%
(359)
-1.6%
Recurring Spending Actions (including Debt and Capital)

7,159
43.4%
5,945
25.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1,481
9.0%
2,360
10.3%
(7,863)
47.7%
(14,973)
65.3%
Recurring Revenue Enhancements

Temporary or Non-Recurring Resources/Cost
Remaining Gap
As shown in Figure 11, the Enacted Budget Financial Plan projects $3.9 billion in new recurring
spending, reduces recurring revenue reductions by $4.4 billion over the next four years
compared to the Executive Budget, and includes approximately $1.3 billion in other actions, all
of which increased the four-year gap total (before this years gap-closing actions) to nearly $23
billion. The gap-closing plan in the Enacted Budget Financial Plan relies upon $2.4 billion in
19
non-recurring resources to address gaps, or 10.3 percent of the total. 8 Recurring spending
reductions comprise 25.9 percent of the gap-closing plan, while 65.3 percent of the projected
gaps are not addressed, thus adding significantly to the structural deficit. As shown in Figure
11, the Enacted Budget projects just less than $15 billion in cumulative outyear gaps, not
including any savings that could be achieved by limiting annual spending growth from State
Operating Funds to 2 percent.
New Spending Initiatives

The SFY 2016-17 Enacted Budget Financial Plan includes $3.9 billion in new General Fund
spending through SFY 2019-20, representing an increase of $2.6 billion over new spending
proposed in the Executive Budget. Compared to an impact of $533 million in SFY 2016-17,
the newly added spending is projected to increase to nearly $1.4 billion in SFY 2019-20, offset
by spending reductions of approximately $829 million, for a net increase of $540 million.
Taxes and Fees

The Enacted Budget includes $4.4 billion in tax reductions over the life of the Financial Plan,
primarily reflecting PIT rate changes, which is approximately $2.7 billion higher than the $1.7
billion in reductions initially proposed by the Executive. The other significant tax actions were
changes in the School Tax Relief (STAR) program from an expenditure to a tax credit. This
transition will phase in over many years, perhaps decades, because the change occurs only
as individual STAR-eligible residences are sold or transferred. The State will receive a
temporary fiscal benefit over two years due to the differences in timing of State payments to
New York City under the existing program and taxpayers receipt of credit benefits due to the
shift. The other STAR action will not result in a temporary benefit to the State because credits
will be advance-refunded, meaning the reduction in revenue will occur in the same year as the
reduction in spending.
Spending Changes and Other Actions

The Enacted Budget includes actions that are projected to reduce spending growth by a total
of $5.9 billion through SFY 2019-20, including debt and capital actions. This total includes $5.4
billion from local assistance reductions from levels otherwise expected, primarily in education
and health care. Also included are actions that are expected to increase costs in departmental
operations and employee benefits by approximately $551 million through SFY 2019-20,
including increases in health insurance and workers compensation costs, offset by the use of
$375 million in non-recurring resources from off-budget State Insurance Fund reserves to pay
for State workers compensation costs and savings associated with the timing of the States
pension payment. Cost savings associated with debt and capital include prepayments of debt
service made in SFY 2015-16 of payments originally planned for SFY 2016-17, thereby
lowering costs in SFY 2016-17, and prepayments to be made in SFY 2016-17 that will lower
costs in SFY 2017-18.
The Enacted Budget includes $1.7 billion in non-recurring or temporary resources for the SFY
2016-17 gap-closing plan, compared to $709 million in the Executive proposal. Over the four8
This includes a non-recurring cost of $250 million to replace certain federal resources.
20
year period of the Financial Plan, the Enacted Budget is expected to use $2.4 billion in nonrecurring actions, as compared to just under $1.5 billion anticipated in the Executive Budget.
See Appendix A for more details regarding the gap-closing plan.
Unaddressed Structural Imbalance

The Enacted Budget includes a significant amount of new spending as well as tax actions that
add to the structural deficit and increase projected gaps after SFY 2016-17. Based on
disbursements and receipts projections in the Enacted Budget Financial Plan, the Office of the
State Comptroller estimates the Enacted Budget leaves nearly $15 billion in projected outyear
gaps, compared to $7.9 billion projected in the Executive Budget.
For the first time since DOB began illustrating savings associated with holding future growth to
2 percent annually in State Operating Funds, the Enacted Budget Financial Plan shows that
meeting the 2 percent benchmark will not be sufficient to eliminate potential outyear gaps. DOB
projects gaps beginning in SFY 2018-19, even after assuming unidentified savings associated
with limited growth. This is due to significantly higher outyear General Fund spending growth
(4.4 percent compared to 3.9 percent in the Executive Budget) and lower outyear projected
growth in receipts (2.4 percent compared to 3.1 percent in the Executive Budget).
Figure 12 shows projections of outyear gaps or surpluses under different scenarios, comparing
the Executive Budget to the Enacted Budget. The Enacted Budget Surplus/Gap Estimate
column shows DOBs Financial Plan estimates of surpluses and gaps, reflecting the impact of
a contemplated 2 percent annual limit on growth in future State Operating Funds expenditures.
The Enacted Projected Savings from 2 Percent Spending Benchmark column shows savings
that DOB projects from unspecified actions to hold spending within the 2 percent limit, while
the Outyear Gaps Without 2 Percent Offset column provides the Office of the State
Comptrollers calculation of projected gaps based on DOBs figures for outyear expenditures
and receipts. This figure corresponds with the cumulative outyear gap shown in Figure 11.
Figure 12
Outyear General Fund Surplus / (Gap) Estimates
Estimated
SFY 2016-17
Current
Enacted
Services
Projected
Gap from SFY 2016-17
Savings SFY 2016-17
Enacted
from 2 Outyear Gaps
SFY 2015-16
Budget
Without 2
Percent
Mid-Year
Percent
Spending
Financial Surplus/Gap
Estimate Benchmark
Offset
Plan
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
Total
Average
(1,781)
(2,802)
(4,414)
(4,205)
(13,202)
(4,401)
355
(841)
(399)
(885)
(295)
2,956
4,634
6,498
14,088
4,696
21
(2,601)
(5,475)
(6,897)
(14,973)
(4,991)
Use of Monetary Settlement Funds for Debt Management

Of the $8.7 billion in monetary settlement revenues received since the beginning of SFY 201415, the SFY 2015-16 Enacted Budget Financial Plan projected that $4.55 billion would be
transferred from the General Fund to the DIIF in SFY 2015-16. The SFY 2016-17 Executive
Budget also projected a transfer of $4.55 billion in SFY 2015-16, along with an additional $1.8
billion transferred in SFY 2016-17 for total transfer authority of just under $6.4 billion. The
actual transfer in SFY 2015-16 was $856.9 million, leaving the General Fund with an unusually
high balance of $8.9 billion at the end of the fiscal year.
Instead of transferring all of the funds to the DIIF right away, DOB now plans to transfer $1.35
billion to the DIIF in SFY 2016-17. Further, $1.3 billion is expected to be transferred to the
State Capital Projects Fund in SFY 2016-17. According to DOB, this is being done in
conjunction with a deferral of the issuance of $1.3 billion in bonds that were otherwise
scheduled to be issued in SFY 2016-17. DOB now plans to issue these bonds in SFY 201718 ($800 million) and SFY 2018-19 ($500 million).
According to DOB, transfers from the General Fund to the State Capital Projects Fund in SFY
2017-18 and SFY 2018-19 will be $800 million and $500 million lower, respectively, reflecting
the recapture of the $1.3 billion transfer in SFY 2016-17. This leaves nearly $2.9 billion in
monetary settlement resources remaining in the General Fund in SFY 2016-17 that had initially
been planned for transfer to the DIIF. The remaining amount ($4.2 billion) planned for transfer
to the DIIF is anticipated to occur over the life of the capital plan period through SFY 2020-21.
For more information on how this will affect the States Financial Plan and its Capital Program
and Financing Plan, refer to the SFY 2016-17 Financial Plan Overview and Debt and Capital
sections of this report.
22
IV. Reserves
The State ended SFY 2015-16 with a General Fund closing balance of $8.9 billion, representing
an increase of over $1.6 billion from SFY 2014-15, and $3.9 billion over the Executives
amended Financial Plan issued in February 2016. The majority of this variance is due to the
significantly lower transfer of certain monetary settlement revenues to the DIIF discussed
previously. Outside of the reduced transfer, the General Fund ended the year approximately
$240 million over the latest projections from February.
DOB has stated an intention to use $500 million in unrestricted reserves for debt management
purposes in SFY 2016-17, although there are no disbursements from reserves included in the
Enacted Budget Financial Plan. Figure 13 below compares restricted and unrestricted reserve
levels within the General Fund. The figures for SFY 2017-18 through SFY 2019-20 are OSC
estimates based on the projected use of reserves in the Enacted Budget Financial Plan. 9 The
Financial Plan does not provide projections of outyear General Fund balances. The SFY 201617 Enacted Budget Financial Plan uses $112 million in restricted and unrestricted reserves,
including $10 million from the Community Projects Fund, $15 million from funds put aside by
DOB for labor agreement costs and $87 million from undesignated fund balance. This does
not include monetary settlement funds that are planned for transfer to the DIIF or are currently
unappropriated.
DOB projects that there will be $3.5 billion in settlement funds in the General Fund at the end
of the current fiscal year, of which $665 million is currently not appropriated or designated for
any use. Additional settlement resources are expected to be spent or transferred from the
General Fund over the next several years, as shown in Figure 13. The SFY 2016-17 Enacted
Budget Capital Program and Financing Plan indicates that an additional $49 million will be
transferred to the DIIF in SFY 2020-21.
Figure 13
Statutory and Unrestricted Reserves - Actual and Projected Year End
2014-15
Actual
2015-16
Actual
(unaudited)
2016-17
Enacted
2017-18
Projected
2018-19
Projected
2019-20
Projected
1,892
1,881
1,871
1,871
1,871
1,871
Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund

Rainy Day Reserve
Contingency Reserve Fund
Community Projects Fund
1,258
540
21
74
1,258
540
21
63
1,258
540
21
53
1,258
540
21
53
1,258
540
21
53
1,258
540
21
53
Refund Reserve (Unrestricted)
5,407
7,052
4,197
3,295
2,095
1,364
50
500
190
4,667
15
500
237
6,300
150
500
3,547
150
500
2,645
150
500
1,445
150
500
714
7,299
8,934
6,069
5,166
3,966
3,235
Statutory Reserves
Prior Year Labor

Debt Management
Other
Monetary Settlement Proceeds
Total

Note: Figures assume use of reserves as shown in the FY 2017 Enacted Budget Financial Plan, May 2016, page T-1.
9
For projected use of Fund Balances, see FY 2017 Enacted Budget Financial Plan, May 2016, page T-1.
23
Figure 14 illustrates trends in restricted and unrestricted General Fund reserves from SFY
2000-01 through SFY 2015-16. Unrestricted reserve levels in SFY 2009-10 and SFY 2010-11
were affected by the delay of $2.06 billion in school aid payments and $500 million in PIT
refunds from the last quarter of SFY 2009-10 to the first quarter of SFY 2010-11.
As shown by the green line in Figure 14, total reserves have declined from approximately 7
percent of General Fund disbursements in SFY 2005-06 to less than 4 percent in fiscal years
2010-11 through 2013-14. Reserves rose sharply over the past two years, primarily because
of settlement resources, but are projected to decline in the current fiscal year.
Figure 14
General Fund Restricted and Unrestricted Reserves,
Total and as a Percentage of General Fund Disbursements,
SFY 2002-03 through SFY 2019-20
(dollars in millions)
$10,000
20%
$8,000
16%
$6,000
12%
$4,000
8%
$2,000
4%
$0
0%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Unrestricted Reserves
Restricted Reserves
Reserves as Percentage of General Fund Disbursements
Sources: Division of the Budget, Office of the State Comptroller. Figures for SFY 2016-17 and thereafter are projected; all others
are actual results.
24
V. Debt and Capital

The SFY 2016-17 Enacted Budget Capital Program and Financing Plan (Capital Plan)
increases the States total amount of projected capital spending to nearly $63.5 billion over the
next five years, compared to $60.7 billion in the Executives proposed Capital Plan for the same
five-year period, an increase of just under $2.8 billion, as illustrated in Figure 15. This
represents an increase of nearly $7 billion over the previous years Enacted Budget Capital
Program and Financing Plan (SFY 2015-16 through SFY 2019-20). 10 The total includes $3.8
billion in off-budget capital spending, in which State-Supported bond proceeds are expended
directly by public authorities.
Figure 15
SFY 2016-17 Capital Program and Financing Plan
Actual and Projected Disbursements, Executive Budget and Enacted Budget
(in thousands of dollars)
2015-16
Project/Actual
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
Total
Average
Executive
10,769,026
11,856,600
12,756,035
12,613,619
12,262,710
11,223,496
60,712,460
12,142,492
Enacted
9,548,602
12,724,385
13,730,794
13,126,126
12,432,211
11,454,249
63,467,765
12,693,553
(1,220,424)
867,785
974,759
512,507
169,501
230,753
Difference
2,755,305
551,061
Source: Division of the Budget. For SFY 2015-16, Executive Budget figure reflects Executive projection and Enacted Budget figure reflects
actual results as reported by DOB. Other years show DOB projections in the SFY 2016-17 Executive and Enacted Budgets.
Over the life of the Capital Plan, annual capital spending is projected to average $12.7 billion,
one-third higher than actual spending in SFY 2015-16 and 41 percent higher than the average
of the last five years. Actual spending in SFY 2015-16 was $1.2 billion lower than estimated in
the Executive Budget, primarily in transportation and education spending categories.
Approximately $760 million, or 6 percent, of the annual average for the Capital Plan period is
projected to be off-budget. Excluding off-budget spending, the Financial Plan projects capital
spending will increase 19 percent this year.
Over the five-year period, 40.6 percent of annual spending on average is projected to address
transportation purposes, up from 39.9 percent in the Executives proposed Capital Plan, and
down from the 49.2 percent average of the last five years. Education and Higher Education
represent the next largest shares of capital spending, comprising 15.1 percent of the total over
the next five years.
10 Capital spending can be measured in two ways. First, in the Capital Program and Financing Plan, capital spending is measured as spending
from capital projects funds, one of the four fund groups that make up All Governmental Funds. This measure also includes some local
assistance grants that are deemed capital in nature. Additionally, spending may be made from capital projects funds for non-capital purposes.
In addition, the Capital Program and Financing Plan includes off-budget capital spending in which public authorities issue State-Supported
bonds on behalf of the State and spend directly from those proceeds. Beginning with SFY 2013-14, capital spending for SUNY dormitories
is no longer counted in capital spending figures within the Capital Program and Financing Plan or in the Financial Plan. Capital spending for
SUNY dormitories averaged approximately $170 million annually over the five years ending with SFY 2012-13. Second, the Enacted Budget
Financial Plan measures capital spending across fund groups (although the vast majority comes from the capital projects fund group) and
does not include local assistance spending or off-budget spending.
25
The category of Economic Development and Government Oversight is projected to comprise

10.9 percent of the total disbursements over the Capital Plan period. The remaining amount is
divided among health, mental hygiene, social welfare, parks and environment, public protection
and other governmental purposes.
Figure 16 compares projected spending for capital projects over the five-year Capital Plan
period to the previous 10 years of actual spending. Relative to the previous 10 years,
proportionally large increases are projected in transportation; economic development; mental
health, health and social welfare; and general government and other.
Figure 16
Capital Program and Financing Plan Actual and Projected Spending by Function
(in millions of dollars and percentage of total)
49.2%
$25,000
49.2%
40.6%
$30,000
$20,000
11.4%
12.1%
4.3%
2.3%
3.1%
3.5%
3.6%
8.6%
8.8%
6.8%
7.3%
7.9%
10.9%
7.8%
0.9%
5.3%
3.6%
$5,000
7.1%
18.5%
15.5%
$10,000
11.5%
$15,000
$0
Transportation
Education
Higher
Education
Economic
Development
Parks and
Environment
Mental Health,
Health and
Social Welfare
Public
Protection
General
Government
and Other
The comparison in Figure 16, based on categories of spending within the Capital Program and
Financing Plan, understates planned spending in certain specific programs. This is because
DOBs projections of spending in the General Government and Other category includes most
spending from the Dedicated Infrastructure Investment Fund (DIIF) and the State and Municipal
Facilities Program.
In the Enacted Budget Capital Program and Financing Plan, DOB projects more than $1.3
billion will be spent from the DIIF this fiscal year. This includes $689 million for the Thruway
as well as $40 million for the Department of Transportation. In addition, spending from DIIF
26
includes economic development, housing, health care and various other purposes. 11
Resources from the State and Municipal Facilities Program to date have been used for
economic development, transportation and other purposes. However, the Capital Plan presents
all spending for that program in the General Government and Other category.
Figure 17
Capital Program and Financing Plan Actual and Projected Financing Sources
(percent of total capital spending)
$35,000
51.5%
$30,000
$25,000
49.0%
49.6%
30.8%
$20,000
$15,000
27.2%
$10,000
23.7%
22.5% 21.2%
13.6%
$5,000
4.0%
4.2%
2.6%
$0
State PAYGO
Federal PAYGO
Authority Bonds
General Obligation Bonds

Note: Percentage figures at the top of the bars represent shares of total spending.
The largest share of projected financing for the Capital Plan is public authority bonds, averaging
51.5 percent of the total over the next five years. This is higher than the 49.3 percent average
share from the previous 10 years. The SFY 2016-17 Enacted Budget includes the first year of
planned spending from the $2 billion Smart Schools Bond Act, which was approved by voters
in 2014. The Capital Plan projects $350 million in spending from the Smart Schools program
in SFY 2016-17, with the entire $2 billion being disbursed over the five-year plan period. As a
result of this program, the proportion of financing from voter-approved, General Obligation
11
DOB reports spending from DIIF for Upstate Revitalization within Economic Development and Government Oversight, and spending from
DIIF for a specific housing appropriation within Social Welfare.
27
bonds is projected to increase from 3.4 percent during the previous 10 years to 4 percent over
the Capital Plan period. From SFY 2006-07 to SFY 2015-16, capital spending supported by
State cash resources (pay-as-you-go or PAYGO spending) averaged approximately 25.5
percent of total capital spending, a figure DOB projects will increase to 30.8 percent of the total
in the next five years.
Figure 17 illustrates how financing sources for the Capital Plan have changed over the last
decade and how they are projected to change over the next five years. Most of the growth in
capital spending is projected to occur in State PAYGO and authority bond financing. Much of
the growth associated with State PAYGO is spending from the DIIF (over $6.6 billion or more
than 10 percent of total capital spending through SFY 2020-21). The total amount of federally
funded PAYGO spending is projected to drop slightly over the plan period, compared to the
preceding five years. With overall growth in capital spending, however, the federal share of
total capital financing is expected to decline from over 21 percent in the last five years to 13.6
percent over the next five years.
Debt Outstanding
The SFY 2016-17 Enacted Budget Capital Plan projects that total State-Supported debt will
increase $10.7 billion, or 21.3 percent, from SFY 2016-17 through SFY 2020-21. The Office of
the State Comptroller estimates that overall State-Funded debt 12 would increase $8.2 billion,
or 13 percent, to over $71.2 billion, during the same time frame. 13 The larger increase in StateSupported debt is primarily attributable to the scheduled repayment of more than $1.3 billion in
outstanding debt of the Tobacco Settlement Financing Corporation, which is included in the
State-Funded measure but not in State-Supported debt, as well as lower issuances in nonState-Supported debt categories (the only categories which include projected additional
issuances are Building Aid Revenue Bonds issued by the New York City Transitional Finance
Authority, or TFA BARBs, and SUNY Dormitories). Further, projected new issuance figures for
TFA BARBs and SUNY Dormitories, which are included in State-Funded but not StateSupported debt, are available only through SFY 2019-20.
Significant borrowing since enactment of the Debt Reform Act of 2000, coupled with weak
economic conditions as well as an actual decline in personal income, have depleted much of
the States statutory debt capacity. DOB projects that available State-Supported debt capacity
as defined by the Debt Reform Act of 2000 will decline from $4.9 billion in SFY 2015-16 to $105
million in SFY 2019-20, before rising slightly to $284 million in SFY 2020-21. Figure 18
illustrates State-Supported and State-Funded debt outstanding from SFY 2015-16 through SFY
2020-21.
12
State-Funded debt was defined by the Office of the State Comptroller in its February 2005 report, New York States Debt Policy: A Need for
Change. State-Funded debt represents a more comprehensive accounting of the States debt burden by including State-Supported obligations
as well as obligations that fall outside the narrow definition of State-Supported debt enacted in the Debt Reform Act of 2000. These additional
obligations include: bonds issued by the Sales Tax Asset Receivable Corporation (STARC) to refinance New York City's Municipal Assistance
Corporation; bonds issued by the Tobacco Settlement Financing Corporation (TSFC) to finance deficits in SFY 2003-04 and SFY 2004-05;
bonds issued to finance prior year school aid claims by the Municipal Bond Bank Agency (MBBA); Building Aid Revenue Bonds (BARBs)
issued by New York City's Transitional Finance Agency (TFA); bonds issued by the Dormitory Authority for SUNY dormitories; and a portion
of the secured hospital program. Some State-Funded debt does not appear in the Capital Program and Financing Plan and is, therefore,
illustrated separately in the tables of this section. See the Comptrollers Debt Impact Study for more information on State-Funded debt, at
www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/debt/debtimpact2010.pdf.
13
This is based on projections of debt issuances, retirements and debt service for State-Supported debt contained in the Capital Plan as well
as estimates for the issuance, retirement and debt service for the other categories of debt which make up State-Funded debt.
28
Figure 18
State-Funded Debt Outstanding SFY 2015-16 through SFY 2020-21
Enacted Capital Plan
SFY 2015-16
SFY 2016-17
SFY 2017-18
SFY 2018-19
SFY 2019-20
SFY 2020-21
Total
Percentage
Change
Total Dollar
Change
SFY 2016-17
through
SFY 2020-21
SFY 2016-17
through
SFY 2020-21
44.6%
1,216,280
2,727,460
3,071,304
3,535,445
3,802,421
3,891,438
3,943,740
Other State-Supported Public

Authority
47,501,761
48,000,539
51,443,157
53,956,682
56,081,402
56,965,116
19.9%
9,463,355
State-Supported
50,229,221
51,071,843
54,978,602
57,759,103
59,972,840
60,908,856
21.3%
10,679,635
180,950
985,000
1,378,000
8,044,000
1,961,000
233,670
156,680
142,480
127,500
111,715
95,090
1,081,215
1,035,335
7,397,259
1,888,205
203,375
1,141,336
680,080
7,585,820
1,811,050
171,605
1,317,197
7,633,025
1,729,890
138,605
1,369,832
7,442,660
1,644,405
104,165
1,321,503
7,238,750
1,554,475
67,985
-47.4%
34.2%
-100.0%
-10.0%
-20.7%
-70.9%
(85,860)
336,503
(1,378,000)
(805,250)
(406,525)
(165,685)
Total Other State-Funded
12,782,620
11,762,069
11,532,371
10,946,217
10,672,777
10,277,802
-19.6%
(2,504,818)
Projected Outstanding (StateFunded)
63,011,841
62,833,912
66,510,973
68,705,320
70,645,617
71,186,658
13.0%
8,174,817
General Obligation
State-Funded Secured Hospitals

New SUNY Dormitories
TSFC
TFA BARBs
STARC
MBBA
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. TSFC is the Tobacco Settlement Financing Corporation; TFA BARBs are New York City
Transitional Finance Authority Building Aid Revenue Bonds; STARC is the Sales Tax Asset Receivable Corporation.; MBBA is the State of
New York Municipal Bond Bank Agency. SFY 2015-16 figures are actual, and others are projected. Projected issuances for TFA BARBs and
SUNY Dormitories are available only through SFY 2019-20.
Sources: Division of the Budget, Office of the State Comptroller, New York City Office of Management and Budget
Reported State-Supported debt declined slightly in each year from SFY 2011-12 through 201415, as shown in Figure 19. Unaudited figures for SFY 2015-16 indicate that State-Supported
debt declined again in that year by a total of $1.6 billion, more than the previous three years
combined ($906 million). State-Funded debt has declined in SFY 2013-14 and SFY 2014-15
and unaudited figures for SFY 2015-16 indicate that it will decline again by approximately $176
million. These declines may reflect a number of factors, including DOBs changing classification
of certain debt so that it is no longer counted in the State-Supported debt measure, the timing
of debt issuances and the issuance of premium bonds. In addition, DOB has indicated that it
is managing the level of debt issuances in light of the States declining statutory debt capacity.
Both State-Supported and State-Funded debt outstanding are projected to increase again
beginning in SFY 2016-17, with debt projected to exceed the previous high point by the end of
SFY 2017-18 and to surpass $71 billion in SFY 2020-21. Figure 19 illustrates the history of
and projections for State-Supported and State-Funded debt outstanding.
29
Figure 19
State-Supported and State-Funded Debt Outstanding SFY 2006-07 through SFY 2020-21
$80,000
The aggregate of State-Supported and Other
State-Funded is equal to State-Funded Debt
outstanding.
Projected
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
State-Supported
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Other State-Funded
Note: Projected issuances for TFA BARBs and SUNY Dormitories are available only through SFY 2019-20.
New Debt Issuance and Retirement

The growth in the overall level of State-Funded debt illustrated above is attributable to the fact
that the State is projected to issue $1.9 billion more in State-Funded debt on average annually
over the Capital Plan period than it retires. State-Funded debt issuances are projected to be
$32.5 billion over the next five years (an average of approximately $6.5 billion annually),
including $31 billion in new State-Supported issuances. Over the last five years, new StateFunded debt issuances have averaged $4.4 billion annually, including State-Supported debt
issuances of $3.7 billion. In SFY 2015-16, the State-Supported debt issuance of $3.1 billion
represented the lowest level since SFY 2005-06.
State-Funded debt retirements are projected to be $23.1 billion (an average of $4.6 billion
annually), including $20 billion in State-Supported retirements (averaging $4 billion annually),
over the Capital Plan period. State-Funded debt retirements have averaged $4 billion over the
last five years, including State-Supported debt retirements of $3.6 billion.
30
Figure 20 illustrates State-Funded debt issuance and retirement from SFY 2000-01 through
SFY 2020-21. There are only two years since SFY 2001-02 where debt retirements exceeded
issuances, SFY 2014-15 and SFY 2015-16.
Figure 20
Actual and Projected State-Funded New Debt Issuance and Retirement
$9,000
Projected
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
2000-01
2002-03
2004-05
2006-07
2008-09
2010-11
New Issuance
2012-13
2014-15
2016-17
2018-19
2020-21
Retirement
Projected issuances for TFA BARBs and SUNY Dormitories are available only through SFY 2019-20.
Debt Service
State-Supported debt service is projected to grow to $7.4 billion by SFY 2020-21, an increase
of more than $1.8 billion or 33.4 percent over the life of the Capital Plan, as illustrated in Figure
21. State-Funded debt service is expected to approach $8.5 billion by SFY 2020-21 after
growing approximately 23.1 percent, or 4.2 percent annually on average, for the same time
period.
31
Figure 21
Projected State-Funded Debt Service SFY 2015-16 through SFY 2020-21
Enacted Capital Plan
SFY 2015-16
General Obligation
Other State-Supported Public Authority
2016-17 Capital Plan (State-Supported)
412,788
5,166,421
SFY 2016-17
381,000
4,796,681
SFY 2017-18
397,257
5,844,993
SFY 2018-19
421,554
6,335,600
SFY 2019-20
SFY 2020-21
450,355
6,767,520
464,092
6,980,248
Total
Percentage
Change
Total Dollar
Change
SFY 2016-17
through
SFY 2020-21
SFY 2016-17
through
SFY 2020-21
12.4%
35.1%
51,304
1,813,827
5,579,209
5,177,681
6,242,250
6,757,154
7,217,875
7,444,340
33.4%
1,865,131
33,402
148,141
447,488
477,374
170,000
40,780
33,584
153,752
399,294
524,952
170,000
40,966
22,212
163,253
398,022
568,947
170,000
40,986
22,221
170,750
247,909
596,899
170,000
40,964
22,213
180,137
612,659
170,000
41,204
22,211
189,608
622,242
170,000
41,263
-33.5%
28.0%
-100.0%
30.3%
0.0%
1.2%
(11,191)
41,466
(447,488)
144,869
483
Total Other State-Funded
1,317,185
1,322,548
1,363,419
1,248,743
1,026,214
1,045,324
-20.6%
(271,861)
Projected Debt Service (State-Funded)
6,896,394
6,500,229
7,605,669
8,005,897
8,244,089
8,489,664
23.1%
1,593,270
State-Funded Secured Hospitals

SUNY Dorms (All)
TSFC
TFA BARBs
STARC
MBBA
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. TSFC is the Tobacco Settlement Financing Corporation; TFA BARBs are New York City
Transitional Finance Authority Building Aid Revenue Bonds; STARC is the Sales Tax Asset Receivable Corporation; MBBA is the State of
New York Municipal Bond Bank Agency.
Sources: Division of the Budget, Office of the State Comptroller, New York City Office of Management and Budget.
Capital Planning in an Era of Limited Statutory Debt Capacity

As the State faces increasing needs for capital investment along with decreasing debt capacity,
effective management of debt and capital resources is vital. As mentioned above, recent
declines in the States debt outstanding reflect a number of factors. One essential component
of the States debt picture is the Debt Reform Act of 2000, which established statutory caps on
the levels of both debt outstanding and annual debt service.
Annually, DOB must calculate dollar limits reflecting the debt outstanding and debt service caps
defined in Section 67-b of the State Finance Law to determine if additional debt can be issued,
based on levels of outstanding debt and debt service at the end of the preceding fiscal year.
If, as of October 31, DOB determines that debt outstanding and debt service as of the end of
the previous fiscal year were below the caps on State-Supported debt outstanding and debt
service, additional debt can be issued. If not, additional debt cannot be issued at least until the
next October 31, when the annual determination regarding the amounts of debt outstanding
and debt service relative to the statutory caps is made again. The limit on State-Supported debt
outstanding is 4 percent of reported personal income in New York State during the previous
calendar year, and the limit on State-Supported debt service is 5 percent of All Funds receipts
for the previous fiscal year.
As of April 1, 2016, $32.7 billion in State-Supported debt had been authorized but not issued,
including $8.7 billion in new authorizations included in the SFY 2016-17 Enacted Budget. 14 Not
14
New York State Annual Information Statement, June 29, 2016, p. 205.
32
all the authorized borrowing is expected to occur within the next five years. Still, average
annual issuances of State-Supported debt over the Capital Plan period are projected to be $6.2
billion, a significant increase (by an annual average of $2.5 billion) when compared to average
annual issuances over the last five years of $3.7 billion. State-Supported debt issuances are
projected to total $31 billion over the next five years, compared to the previous five years total
of $18.5 billion.
DOB uses various actions to manage capital and debt resources and stay within statutory debt
limits. According to DOB, Capital spending priorities and debt financing practices may be
adjusted from time to time to preserve available debt capacity and stay within the statutory
limits. 15
In documents accompanying this years Executive Budget, as well as in the updated Financial
Plan released February 17, 2016, DOB projected that $3.6 billion in debt would be issued
during SFY 2015-16. However, debt issuance totaled only $3.1 billion by the end of the fiscal
year. State-Supported debt outstanding at the end of the fiscal year was projected in February
to total $50.9 billion, but the actual level at the years end was $50.2 billion. Partially as a result,
DOBs estimate of available debt capacity projections at the end of SFY 2015-16 increased by
nearly $500 million from earlier projections. Similar increases in reported debt capacity, from
earlier projections to actual year-end results, have occurred in each of the last five years.
Changes to personal income projections can also change the projection for available debt
capacity. For example, the Enacted Budget Financial Plan includes a reduction to the personal
income forecast which, according to DOB, translates into $854 million in reduced debt capacity
over the life of the Capital Plan period compared to the Executive Budget Financial Plan as
updated for 30-day amendments.
The Financial Plan and the Capital Plan also include administrative actions that limit new debt
issuance from levels that were otherwise planned, and thus preserve debt capacity while still
allowing capital spending to occur. Since the State ended SFY 2015-16 with an unusually high
General Fund balance due to monetary settlements that have yet to be transferred to the DIIF
as originally planned, the Financial Plan and Capital Plan include a revised plan for the initial
use of monetary settlement resources and the timing of their transfer to the DIIF (see the
sections of this report entitled SFY 2016-17 Financial Plan Overview and Structural Imbalance
for more information about how these actions affect the Financial Plan).
The revised plan assumes that the transfer of these resources to the DIIF will occur over the
five-year Capital Plan period between SFY 2016-17 and SFY 2020-21, rather than more
immediately in SFY 2015-16 and SFY 2016-17 as previously planned. In the interim, the
Enacted Budget Financial Plan and the Capital Plan include the transfer of $1.3 billion in
monetary settlement proceeds from the General Fund to the State Capital Projects Fund to
support spending planned for SFY 2016-17 that otherwise would have been supported through
the issuance of bonds in SFY 2016-17. Under this plan, the issuance of bonds is deferred until
SFY 2017-18 ($800 million) and SFY 2018-19 ($500 million), thereby leaving additional
statutory debt capacity. According to DOB, General Fund transfers to the Capital Projects Fund
in SFY 2017-18 and SFY 2018-19 will be lower by $800 million and $500 million, respectively,
and replaced with bond proceeds. Such use of settlement proceeds also means these
15
FY 2017 Enacted Capital Program and Financing Plan, May 2016, p. 17.
33
resources are not immediately available for other potential purposes, including appropriations
that are intended to be financed with settlement revenues. Although this plan may allow for a
closer alignment of the transfer of resources to the DIIF with the planned spending from the
DIIF as well as additional budget flexibility, it leaves greater uncertainty as to whether future
DIIF expenditures will be funded as intended, than had the transfer and dedication of such
resources occurred as initially planned.
Similarly, the Enacted Budget included a new $1 billion appropriation from the DIIF for
renovation costs associated with the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center. Spending for the
renovations, which is projected to begin in SFY 2017-18 and to end in SFY 2020-21, will be
paid initially with transfers from the General Fund, with such spending being subsequently
reimbursed with bond proceeds. Bonds are projected to be issued in SFY 2019-20 and SFY
2020-21, also delaying the impact on the States level of outstanding debt.
In addition to the above-described items, the Enacted Budget Financial Plan and the Capital
Plan incorporate other elements that contribute to managing available debt capacity. These
include an additional $2.8 billion in actions related to management of debt issuances, $6.3
billion in capital spending re-estimates, and $606 million related to refunding of SUNY
Dormitory Authority bonds under the bond program that is not subject to the statutory debt
caps. If such actions to manage debt capacity are not implemented as planned and/or if
personal income growth is lower than projected, absent other actions, available debt capacity
could be further diminished or planned capital spending may be delayed. The potential impact
on capital investments in individual program areas is uncertain.
Some of the above-noted actions are short-term in nature, such as the temporary use of
resources planned to finance the DIIF to delay the need to borrow. Other actions are recurring
and have a longer-term impact, such as the creation of a new financing program associated
with SUNY dormitories and the refunding of old SUNY dormitory debt into the new program in
SFY 2013-14. Although this action creates additional statutory debt capacity, it does not
change the States overall debt burden, as the same resources are used to repay the bonds.
Capital Projects Funds Balance

Spending from capital projects funds is often funded by transfers from the General Fund and
reimbursed with bond proceeds, federal receipts or dedicated tax collections.
Over the last ten years, including unaudited results for SFY 2015-16 (excluding the DIIF), the
capital projects funds aggregate closing balance at the end of the fiscal year averaged a
negative $508.1 million. Figure 22 compares the historical aggregate closing balance of capital
projects funds with projections associated with the Executive Budget as well as the Enacted
Budget. Because spending from the DIIF is not included in historical levels and is isolated in
a specific capital fund or identified elsewhere, it is not included in Figure 22.
34
Figure 22
Actual and Projected Aggregate Closing Balances
Capital Projects Funds
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
$0
-$200
-$400
-$600
-$800
-$1,000
-$1,200
Actual
Proposed Projections
Enacted Projections

Note: Excludes the Dedicated Infrastructure Investment Fund; years indicate end of the State Fiscal Year.
Negative balances in capital projects funds are one illustration of the States incurring costs
that must be repaid in future years, even when debt is not issued currently. Figure 22 illustrates
that for the last five years, the negative aggregate balance of capital projects funds has grown
significantly. The SFY 2016-17 Executive Budget Capital Plan would have resulted in an
average aggregate negative balance of $545 million, an increase of approximately 15 percent
over the previous ten-year average. Although the Enacted Budget Capital Plan projects
modest improvement from the $1 billion negative balance at the end of SFY 2015-16, the
average aggregate negative closing fund balance over the Capital Plan period is projected to
be $953.4 million, an increase of nearly 87 percent over the previous ten-year average. Such
use of resources from capital projects funds is another means by which the Executive can
temporarily limit planned borrowing and preserve statutory debt capacity. Further, since capital
projects funds are also funded in part through transfers from the General Fund and other funds,
these balances effectively move a gap from one fund to another by reducing the need for
additional transfer support.
35
Dedicated Infrastructure Investment Fund

The State has received over $8.7 billion in monetary settlement revenues since April 1, 2015.
Of this amount, just over $1.6 billion has been used for non-DIIF purposes. Just under $6.4
billion is expected to be deposited in the DIIF within the five-year Capital Plan period, and DOB
considers the remaining $665 million currently unallocated.
The SFY 2016-17 Enacted Budget changed the nature of the DIIF by including spending that
could be financed with bond proceeds (for the Javits Convention Center Expansion Project) as
well as administrative actions that use settlement dollars for other non-DIIF capital
appropriations in the near term. General Fund transfers to the DIIF are now planned to be
spread out over the Capital Plan period rather than being made in SFY 2015-16 and SFY 201617 as originally planned. Rather, these funds are being used in the near term to finance other
capital appropriations (in place of bond financing, as previously discussed).
Appendix B compares detailed plans for spending from the DIIF as presented in this years
Executive Budget and Enacted Budget. Figure 23 illustrates DOBs five-year spending plan for
the DIIF, based on the Enacted Budget. However, statutory language governing the use of the
DIIF allows resources deposited into the Fund to be transferred back to the General Fund under
certain conditions, and some appropriations from the Fund are for broadly defined purposes.
Given those provisions, the DIIF remains a potential source of budgetary flexibility for the State.
Figure 23
Dedicated Infrastructure Investment Fund Five-Year Spending Plan
Fiscal Year Ending
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
110
110
111
111
109
500
500
320
184
160
1,037
1,702
392
231
350
728
1,700
320
101
320
491
1,232
319
170
170
659
1,702
1,700
731
49
111
111
109
Opening Balance
Miscellaneous Receipts (bond proceeds)
Upstate Revitalization
Housing from DHCR
Javits
Other DIIF
Total Disbursements
21
726
747
128
74
1,149
1,351
Transfers from General Fund
857
1,351
Closing Balance
110
110
36
VI. Economic Overview

National Economy
At the end of 2015, the national economy was exhibiting slower growth. In the fourth quarter,
growth in real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) slowed to 1.4 percent, as compared to 2.0
percent during the preceding quarter and 2.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2014. For the
year, real GDP growth was 2.4 percent, the same as in 2014.
May estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis showed economic growth softening
further in the first quarter of 2016, increasing by 0.8 percent. A slowdown in growth is not
unusual for the first quarter of the year due to the seasonality of certain components of the
economy, such as holiday spending (which increases personal consumption expenditures in
the final quarter of the year).
Non-farm employment at the national level increased by approximately 769,000 jobs from
December to April, an increase of 0.5 percent. However, job growth in the month of April was
slower than that of a year earlier, an increase of 160,000 jobs as compared to an increase of
251,000 jobs in April 2015, and slower than job growth in February and March. The national
unemployment rate remained unchanged over the same period, at 5.0 percent.
Wage growth accelerated in the first quarter of 2016, with an increase of 5.3 percent on a yearover-year basis from the first quarter of 2015 compared to a gain of 4.5 percent over the
preceding year. Personal income rose 4.4 percent in the first quarter of 2016.
As a result of slowing overall economic conditions in the first quarter, projections for real GDP
growth for calendar year 2016 have been revised downward from the beginning of the year.
The following table shows the current projections by DOB, IHS Global Insight, and the Blue
Chip Economic Indicators as compared to projections made in February.
Figure 24
Projections of Calendar Year 2016 Real GDP
DOB
IHS
Blue Chip Consensus
May 2016
1.8%
1.7%
1.8%
February 2016
2.0%
2.4%
2.1%
DOB reduced its projection of U.S. personal income growth for calendar 2016 from 4.4 percent
to 4.1 percent, while IHS Global Insight reduced its forecast from 3.9 percent to 3.8 percent.
DOBs projection for national employment growth increased slightly between February and
May, with 1.9 percent forecasted in May as compared to the previous forecast of 1.8 percent.
37
New York State Economy

Based on the most recent data available from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the New
York State economy realized a slight acceleration in 2015, with growth in real State GDP
increasing to 1.4 percent from 1.2 percent in 2014. New York ranked 32nd in the nation for
change in GDP in 2015.
New York ended 2015 with a calendar-year increase of over 152,000 jobs, or 1.6 percent.
Through April of this year, New York has gained nearly 45,000 jobs from December 2015. This
was stronger than the gain of 38,000 jobs during the same period in 2015. Over the year
ending in April 2016, New Yorks employment increased by over 121,000 jobs, or 1.3 percent.
The decline in the unemployment rate was minimal, from 5.0 percent in December to 4.9
percent in April, because some of the increase in the number of individuals employed was
offset by a rising number of individuals in the labor force.
With year-over-year growth of 1.3 percent, New York ranked 29th in the nation for job growth
from April 2015 to April 2016. In comparison, Idaho, the highest ranking state, had job growth
of 3.8 percent for the same period. New York ranked 29th in the nation in unemployment with
an April rate of 4.9 percent compared to the nations 5.0 percent.
In 2015, personal income in New York grew by 4.0 percent, with wages growing by 4.1 percent.
However, most of this growth took place in the second and third quarters of the year. Both
personal income and wage growth slowed to less than 1.0 percent in the fourth quarter, each
noticeably below the national gains mentioned above.
DOBs projections for New Yorks economy for SFY 2016-17 have not changed significantly
between February and May. Projections for employment and wage growth are unchanged at
1.3 percent and 4.3 percent, respectively. However, personal income growth has been revised
down slightly, with current projections forecasting growth of 4.7 percent as compared to 4.8
percent in February.
38
VII. Risks to the Financial Plan

As with any financial plan, the SFY 2016-17 Enacted Budget Financial Plan is subject to various
risks and uncertainties. DOB identifies matters that affect the Financial Plan, including
complex economic, social, financial, political, and environmental risks and uncertainties, many
of which are outside the ability of the State to control. In recent years, DOB has expanded
upon its assessment of budget risks and uncertainties, and this years Plan identifies a variety
of issues, both general and specific, that could negatively affect the States projections. Such
risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to:
general economic and business conditions;

changes in political, social, economic, and environmental conditions, including climate
change and extreme weather events;
impediments to the implementation of gap-closing actions;
regulatory initiatives and compliance with governmental regulations;
litigation; and
actions by the federal government to reduce or disallow expected aid.
The Financial Plan appropriately notes that actual results may differ materially and adversely
from DOBs projections, and that in certain fiscal years collections of actual receipts have been
substantially below forecasted levels. In addition to the broad-scoped risks and uncertainties
identified with respect to revenue and economic projections, DOB has recognized many of the
transactional risks identified by the Office of the State Comptroller in annual budget reviews in
recent years.
Potential risks beyond those identified by DOB include the Budgets reliance on revenue from
certain public authorities (of which more than $262 million is expected in SFY 2016-17), as well
as transfers of available fund balances from dedicated funds to the General Fund.
As noted earlier in this report, All Funds PIT collections in the first three months of SFY 201617 were nearly $600 million lower than projected in the Enacted Budget Financial Plan issued
in May 2016 and nearly $1.2 billion lower than February 2016 projections. Overall tax receipts
through June 2016 were approximately $454 million below May projections. Although variances
to forecast levels may occur throughout the year, ongoing monitoring of actual collections will
be needed to mitigate budgetary risks.
Spending-side concerns identified by DOB include cash flow projections and funding of other
postemployment benefits. The Financial Plan includes the limitations of the Debt Reform Act
of 2000 on new State-Supported debt and debt service as a risk and/or uncertainty, although
its expectation is that debt outstanding and debt service will continue to remain below the limits
imposed by the Act (with new actions designed to increase capacity). The Plan notes that
capital spending and debt financing practices may be adjusted to preserve debt capacity and
enable the State to remain under the caps.
Looking out further, the Enacted Budget includes a provision that the State will fulfill its
commitment to provide $8.3 billion in funding to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for
its 2015-2019 capital plan no later than SFY 2025-26 or by the completion of the MTA capital
program. However, the financing sources for the vast majority of this commitment have yet to
39
be identified, although the Enacted Budget does include a new $2.9 billion appropriation
beyond the $1 billion that was included in the SFY 2015-16 Enacted State Budget and the
Enacted Budget Capital Program and Financing Plan indicates that all $7.3 billion is planned
to be appropriated by SFY 2020-21. However, the Enacted Capital Program and Financing
Plan does not project any spending from these new appropriations through SFY 2020-21.
40
VIII. Appendices
Appendix A: General Fund Gap-Closing Plan SFY 2016-17 through SFY 2019-20
Current Services Gap Reported in Mid-Year Update

Non-Recurring and Temporary Resources and Costs
Debt Service Prepayment
Additional Personal Income Tax Refund Prepayment
Fund Sweeps and Other Transfers
STARC Refunding
Workers' Compensation Reserves
Prepayment to Dedicated Highway and Bridge Trust Fund
Replace Federal DSHP Healthcare Resources
Reserves
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
(1,781)
(2,802)
(4,414)
(4,205)
1,665
610
550
261
200
140
57
(250)
97
360
60
200
100
300
200
100
35
35
Recurring State Operations Reductions

Executive Agencies, University and Independent
Other Benefits and Costs
200
147
53
(56)
55
(111)
(172)
82
(254)
(523)
18
(541)
Debt Management and Capital
185
294
328
293
(579)
(44)
164
100
1,352
Resource Changes
Recurring Local Assistance Reductions
1,420
1,300
1,324
STAR (including resource change)

Education
Mental Hygiene
184
576
174
477
407
90
575
459
16
670
464
(54)
Health Care
Human Services/Housing
Higher Education
287
150
49
201
74
51
154
71
49
174
60
38
Recurring New Tax Actions

Middle Class Tax Reductions
STAR Conversion
(98)
(98)
(517)
(236)
(281)
(1,645)
(1,071)
(574)
(2,175)
(1,504)
(671)
New Spending Initiatives

School Aid
Other Education/Higher Education
Minimum Wage
SUNY/CUNY Performance Incentive
Charter School Funding
(533)
(382)
(132)
(19)
-
(898)
(587)
(128)
(126)
(30)
(27)
(1,137)
(612)
(113)
(355)
(30)
(27)
(1,368)
(640)
(83)
(588)
(30)
(27)
All Other
(479)
(238)
(223)
(406)
(2,601)
(5,475)
(6,897)
Remaining Gap In Enacted Budget Financial Plan Prior to

Assumed Savings Associated with 2% State Operating Funds
Growth Benchmark
41
Appendix B: Dedicated Infrastructure Investment Fund

Planned Disbursements Executive Proposal and Enacted Budget
Executive Budget
Broadband Initiative
Municipal Restructuring (1)
Health Care Providers
Security and Emergency Response
MTA Capital Plan (Penn Station Access)
Thruway Stabilization SFY 2015-16
Thruway Stabilization SFY 2016-17 (2)
Long Island Transformative Projects
Infrastructure Improvements, Transportation, Upstate Transit, Economic Development
Southern Tier Agriculture and Hudson Valley Farmland Protection
Municipal Consolidation (1)
Statewide Multiyear Housing Program
Upstate Revitalization Initiative SFY 2016-17 (3)
DOT Capital Plan Contribution
Other Economic Development or Infrastructure Projects
Empire State Poverty Reduction Initative
Roswell Park Cancer Institute
Community Health Care Revolving Loans
Behavioral Health Grants
Upstate Revitalization Initiative SFY 2015-16
Javits Convention Center Expansion (bonded)
Total
2016
5,000
17,805
63,900
591,000
13,330
5,935
15,500
19,500
10,000
741,970
Enacted Budget
Broadband Initiative
Municipal Restructuring (1)
Health Care Providers
Security and Emergency Response
MTA Capital Plan (Penn Station Access)
Thruway Stabilization SFY 2015-16
Thruway Stabilization SFY 2016-17 (2)
Long Island Transformative Projects
Infrastructure Improvements, Transportation, Upstate Transit, Economic Development
Southern Tier Agriculture and Hudson Valley Farmland Protection
Municipal Consolidation (1)
Upstate Revitalization Initiative SFY 2016-17 (3)
DOT Capital Plan Contribution
Other Economic Development or Infrastructure Projects
Empire State Poverty Reduction Initative
Roswell Park Cancer Institute
Community Health Care Revolving Loans
Behavioral Health Grants
Upstate Revitalization Initiative SFY 2015-16
Javits Convention Center Expansion (bonded)
Total
2016
2,500
80,279
608,420
7,337
2,556
15,500
9,000
21,000
746,592
2017
59,350
32,040
85,000
45,000
439,000
250,000
17,805
24,240
10,680
10,000
78,000
13,333
27,000
10,000
74,000
128,050
1,303,498
2017
59,350
32,040
85,000
45,000
439,000
250,000
17,805
24,240
10,680
10,000
78,000
40,000
27,000
10,000
19,500
1,000
74,000
128,050
1,350,665
2018
106,800
39,150
105,000
41,100
255,000
250,000
32,040
29,900
13,050
10,000
10,000
92,000
33,605
27,000
10,000
184,200
320,400
1,559,245
2018
106,800
39,150
105,000
24,721
237,580
250,000
32,040
29,900
13,050
10,000
10,000
92,000
50,000
27,000
10,000
184,200
320,400
160,000
1,701,841
2019
130,500
32,040
85,000
100,000
200,000
39,150
24,240
10,680
10,000
10,000
41,843
31,000
5,000
230,800
391,500
1,341,753
2019
130,500
32,040
85,000
100,000
200,000
39,150
24,240
10,680
10,000
10,000
50,000
31,000
5,000
230,800
391,500
350,000
1,699,910
2020
106,800
28,965
80,000
150,000
32,040
23,290
9,655
10,000
45,650
101,000
320,400
907,800
2020
106,800
28,965
80,000
150,000
32,040
23,290
9,655
10,000
50,000
101,000
320,400
320,000
1,232,150
2021
91,550
28,965
10,000
34,242
339,650
504,407
2021
94,050
17,805
28,965
5,993
3,379
10,000
10,000
318,650
170,000
658,842
Total
500,000
150,000
355,000
150,000
250,000
1,285,000
700,000
150,000
115,000
50,000
20,000
50,000
170,000
168,673
85,000
25,000
15,500
19,500
10,000
590,000
1,500,000
6,358,673
Total
500,000
150,000
355,000
150,000
250,000
1,285,000
700,000
150,000
115,000
50,000
20,000
50,000
170,000
200,000
85,000
25,000
15,500
19,500
10,000
590,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
7,390,000
(1) New appropriation language enacted in SFY 2016-17 changed from the previous year. Language was added to SFY 2015-16
reappropriation that extends funding to Downtown Revitalization Program, including the Healthy Foods/Healthy Community initiative. In
addition, funding was extended to other municipal entities.
(2) New appropriation language enacted in SFY 2016-17 changed from the previous year by adding debt service and related payments as a
purpose, but did not include reporting requirements that were included in the allocation enacted in SFY 2015-16.
(3) New appropriation language enacted in SFY 2016-17 changed from the previous year by removing language requiring the allocation to be
made pursuant to a competitive process among the Regional Economic Development Councils and limiting awards to projects in regions that
did not receive Upstate Revitalization Initiative Best Plan awards in SFY 2015-16 or eligible to receive funding from the Buffalo Regional
Information Cluster.
42
Contact
Office of the New York State Comptroller
110 State Street, 15th Floor
Albany, New York 12236
(518) 474-4015
www.osc.state.ny.us
Prepared by the Office of Budget and Policy Analysis

2016 17 Enacted Budget Finplan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 17 Enacted Budget Finplan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 17 Enacted Budget Finplan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report on the

State Fiscal Year 2016-17

Message from the Comptroller

Each year when the States budget is enacted, much attention

II. SFY 2016-17 Financial Plan Overview

The FY 2017 Enacted Budget Financial Plan is available at https://www.budget.ny.gov/budgetFP/FY2017FP.pdf.

All Funds Disbursements

All Funds Receipts

Source: Division of the Budget

State Operating Funds Disbursements

General State Charges

Local Assistance Grants

Total Local Assistance Grants

Total Departmental Operations

Sources: Division of the Budget, Office of the State Comptroller

General State Charges

Total Departmental Operations

Source: Division of the Budget

State Operating Funds Receipts

General Fund Disbursements

General Fund Receipts

Difference SFY Difference SFY

Total Departmental Operations

General State Charges

Total Transfers to Other Funds

Source: Division of the Budget

General Fund Current Services Gap

See Figure 11 for outyear projections of the impact of gap-closing actions.

Current Services Gap - SFY 2016-17

Recurring Revenue Actions (including revenue re-estimates)

Remaining Gap In Enacted Budget Financial Plan

Recurring New Initiatives

Capital and Debt Management

Adjusted State Operating Funds Receipts

Unadjusted State Operating Funds Disbursements

Unadjusted State Operating Funds Receipts

Sources: Division of the Budget, Office of the State Comptroller

This area is limited by the Executive's policy

Debt Service Funds State Operating

State Funds - Total All Funds - Total

Sources: Division of the Budget, Office of the State Comptroller

III. Structural Imbalance

State Operating Funds Receipts

State Operating Funds Spending

Source: Division of the Budget

Average Annual Growth SFY 2006-07 through SFY 2015-16

Sources: Division of the Budget, Office of the State Comptroller

Temporary and Non-Recurring Resources

Prepayments and Use of Reserves

Commercial Gaming Licenses

Total State Temporary, Non-Recurring and Prepayments

Temporary Federal Disaster Assistance (3)

Total State and Federal Temporary and Non-Recurring

PIT Refund Prepayment

Previously in Law or Outside Budget Process

Extraordinary Temporary Federal Funding

(1) Extended in SFY 2015-16 Enacted Budget.

Sources: Division of the Budget, Office of the State Comptroller.

Effects of the General Fund Gap-Closing Plan on Outyears