Previously Published in The Messenger
By Raheem Soto
In government, delays have costs—and in New York, the bill often lands on someone else’s desk. As Albany continues to stall on a final state budget this year, Suffolk County is again left waiting to see how much it will receive, what it must cut, and what projects it will be forced to delay.
Initially due on April 1, the state budget is now weeks overdue. With a proposed total of $233 billion, the 2025 spending plan contains everything from education funding to housing policy, and nearly all of it is still tied up in political negotiations behind closed doors. This lack of clarity for Suffolk County—home to over 1.5 million residents—is more than frustrating. It’s a fiscal liability.
Consider the facts. Under Governor Kathy Hochul’s (D) proposed budget, thirty-four Suffolk school districts face State Aid reductions. One district, Three Village, is staring at a cut of nearly $9 million. And yet, the same County that may be asked to tighten its belt is one of the state’s largest revenue generators. According to the New York State Comptroller’s Office, Suffolk County contributes over $8.5 billion in personal income tax revenue to Albany’s coffers. That’s more than many upstate regions combined.
Local school officials are now forced to plan budgets for voter approval in May—without knowing how much state support they’ll actually receive. This isn’t just poor planning; it’s planning made impossible.
At the County level, the situation is no better. Suffolk’s adopted 2025 budget shows a $46 million shortfall in sales tax revenue and a 21% jump in mandated pension obligations. Long-term projections show a general fund deficit approaching $552 million by 2028.
County Executive Ed Romaine (R-Center Moriches) has proposed a $1 billion infrastructure plan to expand the sewer system—a project intended to address environmental concerns and future housing growth. However, projects of this scale require reliable backing from the State, and when that backing is wrapped in Albany’s indecision, local governments are left juggling risk instead of managing progress.
Some may argue that the State has larger concerns—and it does. But the issues holding up the budget are not simply fiscal. They are political. Hochul’s administration is seeking changes to criminal justice laws, specifically around the 2019 Discovery Reforms. The new proposal would reduce the burden on prosecutors by scaling back the timeline and scope of required evidence disclosure. Critics argue this undermines due process. Supporters say it corrects a reform that went too far.
Then there’s education funding itself. Disagreements over the Foundation Aid formula—how the state allocates money to school districts—have halted consensus. Some lawmakers want to revise the formula to reflect updated needs. Others insist on preserving the “hold harmless” clause, ensuring districts never receive less aid than the previous year. What began as a matter of arithmetic has turned into a tug-of-war of interests.
Housing has emerged as another sticking point. Hochul’s support for “Good Cause Eviction” legislation would limit a landlord’s ability to evict tenants without court justification has divided lawmakers. Tenant advocates support it. Property owners, especially on Long Island, warn that it will discourage investment and limit new housing supply.
And through it all, most of these policy debates are being negotiated not through public committee hearings or open-floor votes—but behind closed doors by a small circle of State leaders.
The result? Rank-and-file legislators are sidelined, and local governments are left to adjust to outcomes they didn’t help shape.
What’s at stake isn’t just Suffolk’s next budget cycle— it’s the principle of fiscal governance. When a county that contributes heavily to the state’s revenues is left in the dark and potentially short- changed, it raises a deeper question: is this about needs or priorities?
Suffolk is not asking for a favor. It’s asking for fairness—and some measure of predictability. Local governments can manage setbacks. What they can’t manage is being kept out of the loop. At the same time, their obligations continue to rise, and their funding remains uncertain.
In the private sector, delayed decisions come with opportunity costs. In government, they come with real-world consequences: fewer services, higher taxes, and delayed development.
If Albany’s current budget strategy has a lesson, it’s this: the longer the State takes to decide, the more local taxpayers are left to clean up the mess.