CM Wong questions OMB on out-year gaps and recurring vs one-time savings
Wong challenges that the $7.07 billion FY28 gap represents kicking the can down the road, asking what recurring spending was permanently aligned with recurring revenue. Solomon cites $17 billion in expenses from chronic under-budgeting, recurring state aid, and savings plans, noting the FY28 gap is in line with historical averages.
Okay, thank you, Chair.
I have a question about the executive budget over here.
Your own budget package says FY27 is balanced.
But the out-year gap jumps to $7.07 billion.
In the year after that, $9.07 billion.
What recurring spending did OMB permanently align with recurring revenue instead of just pushing the problem into FY28?
Because as I see it, this is kicking the can down the road.
Can you answer that?
Well, I think, you know, it's the number one, I think, when we look at over prelim and exec and what we've added, $17 billion in expenses because of chronic underbudgeting, and you see how that propagates out through the system.
And then when you look at sort of the revenue forecast, as my colleague talked about, which is more of a conservative estimate, you know, in the out years, there are a lot of recurring savings in here and recurring state aid from the road.
reversal of cuts and cost shifts that actually go into the out years and help us.
So there's a lot that's been baselined.
But you see in the fiscal 28 gap, that gap is more in line with historical numbers.
We know that there is continued work to do on savings in the out years that we'll do through the chief savings officers.
And revenue generating strategies that we need to continue to do so we can fund the affordability agenda.
Okay, thank you.
Let me squeeze in one more question.
Water revenue versus rental payments.