[THEME MUSIC] WELCOME TO THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF NEW YORK NOW.

I'M SHANTEL DESTRA.

GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL AND LEGISLATIVE LEADERS HAVE COME TO A GENERAL AGREEMENT ON THE FINAL STATE BUDGET.

THIS AGREEMENT, OF COURSE, COMES ABOUT THREE WEEKS AFTER THE INITIAL APRIL 1ST BUDGET DEADLINE AND TOTALS TO ABOUT $254 BILLION.

IN A RED ROOM ANNOUNCEMENT AT THE STATE CAPITOL, THE GOVERNOR TOUTED THE MANY PROPOSALS THAT SHE'S BEEN PUSHING THAT ULTIMATELY DID MAKE IT INTO THE BUDGET DEAL.

THOSE PROPOSALS INCLUDE CHANGES TO DISCOVERY LAWS, CELL PHONE RESTRICTIONS IN SCHOOLS, INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT AND REFUND CHECKS.

BUT THE FINAL BUDGET IS NOT QUITE DONE JUST YET.

STATE LEADERS ACKNOWLEDGE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES THAT STILL NEED TO BE WORKED OUT.

AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE ALSO NEED TO VOTE ON THE ACTUAL BUDGET BILLS BEFORE THE FINAL BUDGET CAN OFFICIALLY BE ENACTED.

LEADERS SAY THEY ARE HOPEFUL THAT CAN HAPPEN AS SOON AS NEXT WEEK ALTHOUGH NOT CONFIRMED.

TO DISCUSS THIS YEAR'S BUDGET CYCLE AND THE GOVERNOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT, WE ARE JOINED BY JIMMY VIELKIND OF WNYC AND THE NEW YORK PUBLIC NEWS NETWORK, AS WELL AS AUSTIN JEFFERSON OF CITY AND STATE NEW YORK.

THANK YOU BOTH SO MUCH FOR JOINING ME HERE TODAY.

HAPPY TO BE HERE.

THANKS FOR HAVING US.

NOW, NATURALLY, I WANTED TO START WITH THE GOVERNOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF A GENERAL BUDGET DEAL BETWEEN LEADERS.

WE KNOW THAT THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN A FINAL STATE BUDGET.

LAWMAKERS STILL NEED TO VOTE ON THE ACTUAL BUDGET BILLS BEFORE THE BUDGET CAN BE ENACTED, BUT I WANTED TO JUST GET YOUR GENERAL REACTION TO THAT ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE TIMING OF IT.

WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF IT?

WELL, GOVERNORS HAVE THE PREROGATIVE OF ANNOUNCING THE BUDGET, KIND OF ON THEIR OWN TERMS, AND THAT'S CERTAINLY WHAT WE SAW GOVERNOR HOCHUL DO THIS WEEK.

SHE WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE MAIN POLICY PRIORITIES THAT SHE SAW IN THIS SPENDING PLAN, IN HER ESTIMATION, SHE HAS ACHIEVED.

THAT INCLUDES SOME KIND OF AN AFFORDABILITY AGENDA, WHICH WILL INCLUDE REBATE CHECKS FOR MIDDLE CLASS NEW YORK FAMILIES.

IT INCLUDES A BELL TO BELL BAN ON STUDENTS' CELL PHONE USE.

IT INCLUDES CHANGES TO THE DISCOVERY PROCESS.

THAT'S THE WAY THAT EVIDENCE IS SHARED BEFORE A CRIMINAL TRIAL.

AND IT ALSO INCLUDES CHANGES TO THE STANDARD BY WHICH A PERSON CAN BE INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED FOR MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT.

AND I GUESS THE FIFTH ONE IS RESTRICTIONS ON THE WEARING OF MASKS IN PUBLIC.

SO, HOCHUL ACHIEVED GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH LEGISLATIVE LEADERS ON THOSE THINGS.

SHE DECLARED VICTORY, SHE STARTED TOURING THE STATE TO GAIN POLITICAL POINTS, AND SHE'S LEFT IT TO LAWMAKERS TO WORK OUT THE REST.

NOW, THAT IS A BREAK FROM OTHER YEARS OF COVERING THE BUDGET, IN WHICH YOU HAVE A GUBERNATORIAL ANNOUNCEMENT, GENERALLY ABOUT 36 HOURS BEFORE BILLS START GETTING PRINTED AND ALL THE FINER POINTS GET WORKED OUT.

SO HOCHUL MAY HAVE TAKEN THAT VICTORY LAP A LITTLE EARLIER THAN PREVIOUS GOVERNORS, AND AS WE RECORD THIS, WE STILL HAVE NOT SEEN FINALIZED BUDGET LEGISLATION AND YOU'RE STARTING TO HEAR SOME MORE GRUMBLING BY RANK AND FILE LAWMAKERS WHO ARE WONDERING WHEN THERE ACTUALLY WILL BE A FULL BUDGET DEAL.

YEAH, AND I WANTED TO GET INTO SOME OF THE POLICY THAT HAVE BEEN DRIVING NEGOTIATIONS.

WE SAW A BIG FOCUS THIS YEAR AROUND DISCOVERY REFORM.

THE GOVERNOR WANTED TO CHANGE HOW AND WHEN PROSECUTORS MUST TURN TURN OVER EVIDENCE IN COURT CASES.

MEANWHILE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE FELT THAT THERE WERE OTHER WAYS TO ADDRESS COURT DISMISSALS WITHOUT NECESSARILY TINKERING WITH THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.

SO WHY WAS THIS SUCH A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE THROUGHOUT BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS THAT ULTIMATELY STALLED NEGOTIATIONS FOR SOME TIME?

I THINK FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORMERS, IT REALLY FELT LIKE GOING BACK ON THAT PROMISE TO MAKE A MORE EQUITABLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

BECAUSE THE IDEA BEHIND I THINK DISCOVERY INITIALLY WAS JUST THAT WE WANT TO GIVE PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN JUSTICE SYSTEM A CHANCE AT A FASTER TRIAL, A BETTER CHANCE AT GETTING THEIR SIDE HEARD WITHIN A TRIAL.

AND TO GO BACK ON THAT BY SAYING, WELL, ONLY CERTAIN KINDS OF INFORMATION NEED TO BE SHARED, AND ONLY ON A CERTAIN TIMELINE, AND NOW THE JUDGE HAS FAR MORE LEEWAY OF DECIDING WHAT IS OR ISN'T A SORT OF, YOU KNOW, A MALPRACTICE ON THE SIDE OF A PROSECUTOR.

I THINK TO A LOT OF PEOPLE IT FELT LIKE WE'RE KIND OF GIVING UP ON THE IDEA OF GIVING NEW YORKERS A CHANCE AT GETTING THEIR SIDE HEARD IN COURT.

I UNDERSTAND WHY THIS WAS IMPORTANT TO THE GOVERNOR, BUT I THINK IF YOU ARE SOMEONE WHO HANGS THEIR HAT ON, YOU KNOW, MAKING A BETTER JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR NEW YORKERS, IT DEFINITELY FEELS LIKE WE'RE GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.

ABSOLUTELY.

I WAS SURPRISED THAT THIS DEBATE OCCUPIED SO MUCH OXYGEN IN BUDGET TALKS BECAUSE IT IS VERY, VERY, VERY MUCH IN THE WEEDS.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND.

I'VE STRUGGLED AS A BROADCASTER TO QUICKLY CONVEY TO PEOPLE WHAT WE'RE EVEN TALKING ABOUT.

AND AUSTIN, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS CRITICAL AND A RED ALERT FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE ADVOCATED FOR A FAIRER CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT GIVES MORE RIGHTS TO CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS.

I THINK FROM GOVERNOR HOCHUL'S PERSPECTIVE, SHE WANTED TO BE SEEN AS TAKING A STANCE THAT WOULD IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY.

AND SO BY STANDING WITH PROSECUTORS, BY STANDING WITH NEW YORK CITY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS SPECIFICALLY, WHO HAVE SAID THAT THIS LAW RESULTED IN AN INCREASE IN CASE DISMISSALS, HOCHUL IS ABLE TO SAY THAT SHE TOOK AN ACTION THAT WILL HELP INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY, WHETHER IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO WORK, WHETHER IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO DRAG THINGS DOWN, THAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN.

BUT GOING INTO A 2026 EXPECTED RE ELECTION CAMPAIGN FOR GOVERNOR HOCHUL, SHE WANTED TO USE THIS BUDGET TO GAIN ACHIEVEMENTS, UPON WHICH SHE COULD BUILD A REELECTION MESSAGE.

AND I THINK, AGAIN, HAVING THAT ABILITY TO SAY I STOOD WITH PROSECUTORS IS SOMETHING THAT I EXPECT WE'RE GOING TO BE HEARING A LOT MORE OF FROM THE GOVERNOR, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF A CAMPAIGN NEXT YEAR.

YEAH.

I AGREE WITH THAT.

I MEAN, I THINK THIS YEAR, MORE THAN EVER, WE SAW THE GOVERNOR APPLY MORE FORCE THAN USUAL, RIGHT?

LIKE SHE BROUGHT IN DISTRICT ATTORNEYS FROM ACROSS THE STATE TO DRIVE HOME THAT MESSAGING THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE REFORMS TO DISCOVERY LAW AND SHE SORT OF DOUBLED DOWN ON HER TAKE THAT A GOOD BUDGET IS BETTER THAN AN ON TIME ONE.

SO THAT WAS SUPER INTERESTING TO ME AND WE'LL SEE WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY.

BUT I WANTED TO TURN TO MASS BANS ACROSS THE STATE.

JIMMY, I KNOW YOU'VE DONE SOME REALLY AWESOME AND THOROUGH REPORTING ON THIS ISSUE.

SO CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE IMPETUS OF THE PROPOSAL BY THE GOVERNOR?

WELL, THIS ACTUALLY STARTED LAST YEAR.

THERE WERE SOME VIDEOS THAT CIRCULATED ON SOCIAL MEDIA SHOWING PRO PALESTINIAN PROTESTERS ON NEW YORK CITY SUBWAY CARS, I THINK THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE IT IS HARASSING RIDERS, AND THESE PEOPLE WERE WEARING MASKS.

AND SO THAT LED TO CONCERN AND OUTCRY, PARTICULARLY FROM JEWISH GROUPS WHO SAID THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED THAT PEOPLE ARE WEARING MASKS UNDER THE CLOAK OF ANONYMITY AND HARASSING, HARASSING PEOPLE WHO ARE JEWISH, WHO APPEAR TO BE JEWISH BY WEARING A SKULL CAP OR OTHER RELIGIOUS GARB.

AND HOCHUL AT THE TIME DENOUNCED THAT.

AND THEN OVER THE COURSE OF BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS, THIS WAS SORT OF A LATE ADD FOR HER.

THERE HAD BEEN A PIECE OF LEGISLATION PERCOLATING IN THE STATE SENATE AND THE ASSEMBLY, WHICH WOULD HAVE DONE TWO THINGS.

IT WOULD HAVE CREATED A NEW CRIME OF QUOTE UNQUOTE MASKED HARASSMENT AND IT ALSO WOULD HAVE INCREASED THE PENALTIES FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE WEARING A MASK TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY WHILE THEY ARE PERHAPS COMMITTING HARASSMENT OR ASSAULT OR SOME OTHER UNDERLYING CRIME.

HOCHUL KIND OF WENT ALL OVER THE PLACE IN THE COURSE OF BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS ON THIS ISSUE.

FIRST SHE SAID SHE BACKED THAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

THEN WE HEARD THAT SHE WAS SOFTENING TO SAY WE JUST WANT TO HAVE SOME KIND OF A PENALTY ENHANCER, AND THAT SOFTENING HAPPENED BECAUSE IT WAS REALLY DIFFICULT FOR HER TO EXPLAIN AND FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO EXPLAIN, WELL, YOUR INTENT IS THAT YOU'RE WEARING A MASK FOR MEDICAL REASONS.

YOUR INTENT IS THAT YOU'RE WEARING A MASK FOR MEDICAL, FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES.

BUT JIMMY, YOU WEARING A MASK, YOU'RE CLEARLY GONNA HARASS SOMEBODY.

YOU'RE UNDER ARREST, YOU'RE NOT UNDER ARREST, YOU'RE NOT UNDER ARREST.

AND THAT POTENTIAL FOR DISPARATE ENFORCEMENT, AND PARTICULARLY HOW WE'VE SEEN OVER TIME, LAWS WHERE THERE'S DISCRETION FOR ENFORCEMENT HAVE IMPACTED BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE AND LOW INCOME PEOPLE, THAT LED STATE LAWMAKERS TO REALLY PUSH BACK.

SO WHERE LAWMAKERS HAVE APPARENTLY FINALLY LANDED, AND I HAVE TO SAY WE HAVE NOT ACTUALLY SEEN THE LANGUAGE ON THIS DEAL, WAS TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE AGAINST A PERSON WHO COMMITS AN UNDERLYING SERIOUS OFFENSE, SOMETHING LIKE PETTY LARCENY, SOMETHING LIKE HARASSMENT, AND THAT IF THEY ARE WEARING A MASK TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY WHILE THEY ARE COMMITTING SAID UNDERLYING OFFENSE, THERE CAN BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE AGAINST THEM.

SO, THE GOVERNOR CAN SAY, AS SHE DID THIS WEEK, THAT SHE IS GETTING TOUGH AND PUTTING PENALTIES ON PEOPLE WHO ARE USING MASKS TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY, BUT HOPEFULLY AND PERHAPS AVOIDING SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS ABOUT DISCRETION AND DISPARATE IMPACT IN THE ENFORCEMENT.

> AND ANOTHER BIG ISSUE WITH CELL PHONES IN SCHOOLS.

THE GOVERNOR WANTED TO IMPLEMENT WHAT WAS CALLED A BELL TO BELL BAND ON CELL PHONES FOR STUDENTS AND PARENTS ARGUED, YOU KNOW, THEY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEIR CHILDREN IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY.

ULTIMATELY, THE GOVERNOR DID GET THAT IN THE FINAL BUDGET DEAL FROM WHAT SHE'S ANNOUNCING, BUT I WANTED TO DISCUSS WITH YOU ALL, HOW DID THAT ISSUE TAKE SHAPE THROUGHOUT THE BUDGET PROCESS THIS YEAR?

SO I THINK IT HELPED HER A LOT THAT STATE LAWMAKERS AND THE TEACHERS UNIONS WE'RE PRETTY MUCH ON BOARD FROM THE BEGINNING.

IT WAS MORE GETTING DISTRICTS AND PARENTS TO UNDERSTAND, I GUESS, HOW THIS WOULD PLAY OUT.

I MEAN, HER STRATEGY OF HAVING LAW ENFORCEMENT GO TO SCHOOLS AND SORT OF EXPLAIN, LIKE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT YOUR KIDS IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE'S NO ONE THERE TO HELP THEM.

IT'S JUST THAT TEACHERS AND THE POLICE, WE ARE THE RESOURCES, NOT THE PHONES.

I THINK THAT MESSAGE TOOK A WHILE TO COMMUNICATE, BUT I THINK THEY GOT THERE OVER TIME WHERE LAWMAKERS FELT VERY COMFORTABLE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS.

RIGHT AND ANOTHER BIG ISSUE OF COURSE WAS INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT BEING USED AS A MEANS TO HELP OR ADDRESS PEOPLE BATTLING MENTAL ILLNESS.

SO HOW DID THAT ISSUE ULTIMATELY TAKE SHAPE?

REALLY AND AGAIN THIS IS REALLY DIFFICULT TO DESCRIBE HAVING NOT SEEN THE EXACT BUDGET LANGUAGE BUT WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM MY REPORTING IS THAT HOCHUL'S PUSH TO BROADEN THE STANDARD FROM SOMEONE WHO IS DEMONSTRATING THAT THEY WILL BE A REPRESENT A RISK OF IMMINENT HARM TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS THAT'S EITHER SOMEONE TALKING ABOUT SELF HARM OR SUICIDE OR SOMEONE THREATENING VIOLENCE AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON TO SOMEONE WHO ESSENTIALLY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT IS EVINCING THAT THEY CANNOT CARE FOR THEIR BASIC NEEDS, NOT FEEDING, NOT CLOTHING, NOT SEEKING MEDICAL CARE FOR THEMSELVES.

WHAT LAWMAKERS SEEM TO HAVE DONE IS PUT MORE SERVICE REQUIREMENTS ON THE FRONT AND THE BACK END OF THAT.

THEY HAVE PUSHED TO HAVE MORE NON POLICE RESPONDERS BE INVOLVED IN CASES WHERE EMERGENCY CALLS COME IN FOR A PERSON IN SEEMING DISTRESS AND ALSO TO MAKE SURE THAT ONCE THAT PERSON IS TAKEN TO A HOSPITAL, THERE'S MUCH MORE PLANNING ON ON THE BACK END BEFORE THEY'RE RELEASED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE CONNECTED WITH SERVICES OVER THE LONG TERM AND NOT INVOLVED IN SOME SORT OF A REVOLVING DOOR.

IN THE LAST 30 SECONDS THAT WE HAVE LEFT, I WANTED TO HEAR FROM EACH OF YOU IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT SURPRISED YOU THIS YEAR IN THE BUDGET PROCESS.

I MEAN, I THINK TWOFOLD JUST HOW LONG THIS IS TAKING, ONLY BECAUSE I THINK THE START OF THE YEAR, A LOT OF US WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS WAS A NO FRILLS BUDGET, JUST SOME PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD PUBLIC SAFETY REFORMS, MAYBE THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT.

IN THEORY SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THAT MUCH LONGER THAN THE APRIL 1ST DEADLINE, BUT HERE WE ARE IN MAY.

AND BEYOND THAT, I MEAN, I THINK THE HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM THAT SHE'S BEEN AGAINST FOR YEARS TO BRING THAT BACK AT THE LAST SECOND SEEMINGLY, EVEN AT THE FUNDING LEVEL IS MUCH LOWER THAN THE LAWMAKERS HAD INITIALLY HAD IN MIND, IT'S A VERY SURPRISING ABOUT FACE FOR HER, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE POINT BEING MADE THAT AFFORDABILITY COULD BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THIS, IT DIDN'T SEEM TO FAZE HER.

JIMMY?

I AGREE EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, AUSTIN.

THE HOUSING ACCESS VOUCHER PROGRAM WAS A SURPRISE, AND THE TARDINESS OF THIS BUDGET WAS STRIKING TO ME.

THAT ALSO HAPPENED AT A TIME WHERE WE'RE SEEING MAJOR FISCAL RISKS TO NEW YORK UNFOLD.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS TALKING ABOUT REDUCING FUNDING FOR STATES THROUGH BUDGETARY PROGRAMS.

THAT'S WHAT THE RHETORIC IS FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

NEW YORK RECEIVES MORE THAN $90 BILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDS IN A $250 PLUS BILLION SPENDING PLAN.

AND ALSO WE'RE SEEING THE ECONOMIC CONDITION BECOME MUCH MORE UNCERTAIN AS THE IMPACT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TARIFFS ROLL THROUGH THE ECONOMY AND CAUSE GYRATIONS IN THE STOCK MARKET.

SO I WAS SURPRISED THAT THAT WAS REALLY NOT PART OF THE CONVERSATION AS LAWMAKERS WERE CRAFTING THIS BUDGET.

WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S ALL THE TIME THAT WE HAVE FOR THIS MORNING, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SPEAK WITH US.

THANKS, SHANTEL.

AND WE WERE SPEAKING WITH JIMMY VIELKIND OF WNYC AND THE NEW YORK PUBLIC NEWS NETWORK, AS WELL AS AUSTIN JEFFERSON OF CITY AND STATE NEW YORK.

AND FOR MORE ON THE GENERAL BUDGET AGREEMENT, YOU CAN VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT NYNOW.ORG.

NOW TURNING TO ANOTHER IMPORTANT TOPIC.

LAST WEEK, ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES JOINED LAWMAKERS AT THE STATE CAPITOL TO PUSH FOR THE BIGGER BETTER BOTTLE BILL.

THIS IS A MEASURE THAT WOULD INCREASE THE STATE'S BOTTLE DEPOSIT AMOUNT FROM FIVE TO TEN CENTS PER BOTTLE.

SUPPORTERS ARGUE IT'S AN IMPORTANT MEASURE IN ADDRESSING POLLUTION ACROSS THE STATE.

IN THIS NEXT SEGMENT, WE SIT DOWN WITH STATE SENATOR RACHEL MAY TO UNPACK ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSUMER PROTECTION PRIORITIES AT THE CAPITOL THIS YEAR.

HERE'S THAT INTERVIEW.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY, SENATOR.

OH, IT'S MY PLEASURE.

ABSOLUTELY.

AND, YOU KNOW, EARLIER THIS YEAR, YOU WERE APPOINTED CHAIR OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION SENATE COMMITTEE.

NOW I WANTED TO GET YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT ARE SOME OF THE BIGGEST THREATS TO CONSUMER PROTECTION IN THE STATE AND HOW ARE YOU HOPING TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AS CHAIR?

YEAH.

SO A FEW MONTHS AGO I MIGHT HAVE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION DIFFERENTLY.

I WOULD SAY THE BIGGEST THREAT TO CONSUMER PROTECTION IN THE STATE IS THE THREAT COMING FROM WASHINGTON BECAUSE THIS PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE EVERYTHING IT CAN TO GUT THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU AND A NUMBER OF OTHER KINDS OF PROTECTIONS THAT CONSUMERS HAVE COME TO EXPECT WITH THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.

YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST LIKE WE CAN'T HAVE AS MUCH TRUST IN SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE BUYING AS CONSUMERS.

AND SO THAT I THINK IT'S MADE STATE LEVEL LEGISLATION THAT MUCH MORE IMPORTANT.

BUT EVEN WITHOUT THAT, CONSUMERS ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THEIR DATA IS BEING USED AND SURPRISE FEES AND HIDDEN REQUIREMENTS.

WE JUST PUT A BILL ON THE AGENDA THAT ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES CARRIES BECAUSE APPARENTLY CAR DEALERS, CAR MANUFACTURERS ARE SELLING CARS WITH CERTAIN FEATURES TO THEM AND THEN THE CONSUMER GETS CHARGED TO HEAT THEIR SEATS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

LIKE YOU HAVE TO PAY A SUBSCRIPTION TO DO THAT AND NOBODY'S EXPECTING THAT WHEN THEY BUY IT.

SO SURPRISE CHARGES LIKE THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE AT THE VERY LEAST AWARE AHEAD OF TIME AND PREFERABLY PROTECTED FROM THOSE KINDS OF THINGS AT ALL.

AND OF COURSE, I WANTED TO TOUCH BASE ON SOME OF YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES, ONE OF WHICH IS THE PFAS DISCHARGE DISCLOSURE ACT, WHICH WOULD ESSENTIALLY MAKE INDUSTRIAL POLLUTERS HAVE TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION AROUND MONITORING AND INCREASED TRANSPARENCY.

SO, I WANTED TO GET YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON, YOU KNOW, WHY YOU DECIDED TO TAKE THAT ON AND WHY YOU THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

YEAH.

SO, I ACTUALLY WAS ON THE EPA'S LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL AND WE WERE, THE THING THAT I WAS MOST INVOLVED IN WAS THE PFAS REGULATIONS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

THESE ARE FOREVER CHEMICALS THAT GET INTO OUR BODIES.

WE ALL HAVE THEM IN OUR BODIES AND THEY HAVE OUR CARCINOGENIC PROPERTIES.

THEY ARE ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS.

AND SO FIGURING OUT HOW TO KEEP THEM OUT OF THE WATER IN PARTICULAR IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

BUT IF WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S COMING IN TO THE WATER, IT'S VERY HARD FOR THE PEOPLE WHO REGULATE OUR DRINKING WATER TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET IT OUT.

AND SO THIS IS A BILL THAT BASICALLY SAYS IF YOU ARE EMITTING PFAS INTO THE WATER, IF YOU'RE AN INDUSTRIAL PRODUCER IN SOME WAY, IF YOU MANAGE A PRIVATE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY OR A PUBLIC WATER TREATMENT FACILITY, YOU NEED TO DISCLOSE ANY PFAS DISCHARGES, AND THAT WAY, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY IN CHARGE OF TRYING TO MAKE OUR DRINKING WATER SAFE WILL KNOW HOW TO AT LEAST START KEEPING IT OUT OF THE WATER SUPPLY.

AND WHO WOULD BE IN CHARGE OF, YOU KNOW, ENSURING THAT THESE INDUSTRIAL POLLUTERS ARE ACTUALLY COMPLYING WITH THE LAW AND DISCLOSING THAT INFORMATION?

SO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION WILL HAVE TO SET UP A SET OF PROCEDURES FOR THAT BUT IT'S GOING TO BE THEIR JOBS.

AND I KNOW THAT YOU'VE BEEN INTERESTED IN PUSHING FORWARD THE BIGGER BETTER BOTTLE BILL WHICH HAS BEEN GETTING A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT AND ENERGY AROUND IT.

THE BILL WOULD ESSENTIALLY ALLOW MORE BOTTLES TO BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT BOTTLE FEE AND ALSO INCREASE THE BOTTLE FEE.

SO CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THE ENERGY AROUND THAT BILL?

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

BUT I WANT TO STEER YOU AWAY FROM THE WORD FEE BECAUSE IT IS A DEPOSIT, PEOPLE PAY THE DEPOSIT BUT THEY CAN GET IT BACK AND THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO IT AND IN FACT A RECENT POLL SHOWED THAT NEW YORKERS FAVOR RAISING THE DEPOSIT FROM FIVE CENTS TO TEN CENTS.

THE BOTTLE BILL ORIGINALLY PASSED IN 1983 AND FIVE CENTS IN 1983 AND FIVE CENTS IN 2025 ARE TWO REALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

WE NEED 10 CENTS TO BE MORE OF AN INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM.

IT'S BEEN INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL OVER THOSE 42 YEARS.

BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF CONTAINERS HAVE BEEN PULLED OUT OF THE WASTE STREAM AND THEY ARE, BECAUSE THEY GET RETURNED, THEY'RE MUCH MORE USABLE FOR RECYCLING.

THEY'RE MUCH CLEANER OR UNCONTAMINATED, YOU KNOW, SO WE WANT MORE OF THOSE CONTAINERS.

BUT RIGHT NOW, EVERY TIME A NEW BEVERAGE IS INTRODUCED, LIKE ICED TEAS OR SPORTS DRINKS AREN'T COVERED RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T EXIST AS BEVERAGES THAT PEOPLE BOUGHT IN SINGLE USE CONTAINERS, THE LAST TIME THE BILL WAS UPDATED.

SO WE HAVE TO UPDATE IT TO INCLUDE MORE AND MORE BEVERAGES.

FOR ME, THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE MY DISTRICT IS JUST EAST OF THE SENECA MEADOWS LANDFILL.

TRUCKS FROM NEW YORK CITY AND NEW ENGLAND COME THROUGH SYRACUSE EVERY MINUTE, PRACTICALLY, TAKING TRASH TO THAT LANDFILL AND THAT LANDFILL WANTS TO EXPAND, BUT WE DON'T WANT IT TO EXPAND.

BUT THE ONLY WAY WE STOP LANDFILLS FROM EXPANDING IS IF WE ARE FIGURING OUT HOW TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF WASTE THAT'S GOING, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, NEEDS A PLACE TO GO.

AND THE BOTTLE BILL IS ONE REALLY IMPORTANT WAY TO PULL A LOT OF MATERIAL OUT OF THE WASTE STREAM.

AND WHAT WAS THE THINKING BEHIND THE 10 CENTS NUMBER?

IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE THAT AMOUNT?

WELL, SO FIVE CENTS IN 1983 IS EQUIVALENT TO MORE LIKE 15 CENTS NOW.

BUT 10 SEEMED TO BE A ROUNDER NUMBER I GUESS AND EASIER TO EXPLAIN IN A WAY BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN GET IT BACK PEOPLE FEEL IT AT THE CHECKOUT COUNTER AND WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO FEEL A LOT OF SHOCK.

CONNECTICUT RAISED IT TO 10 CENTS.

IT'S BEEN EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL.

WE'RE HOPING THAT WE CAN MATCH THAT.

YEAH.

AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, OF COURSE, THIS ISN'T A NEW MEASURE.

THERE WAS A LOT OF ENERGY AROUND IT LAST YEAR.

SO WHY ARE YOU HOPEFUL THAT THINGS WILL PROGRESS THIS YEAR?

I THINK THE MAIN REASON FOR HOPE THIS YEAR IS BECAUSE WE'RE ALSO PUSHING TO PASS THE PACKAGING REDUCTION ACT.

IT DID PASS THE SENATE LAST YEAR AND ALMOST PASSED THE ASSEMBLY LAST YEAR.

AND THAT WOULD PUT THE ONUS ON PRODUCERS OF PACKAGING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO TAKE THAT PACKAGING BACK.

AND A LOT OF THE BOTTLERS WHO MAY HAVE BEEN RESISTING THE BIGGER BOTTLE BILL DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO BE IN THAT NEW SYSTEM, THEY WOULD RATHER BE IN A SYSTEM THAT THEY'RE FAMILIAR WITH EVEN IF IT INVOLVES A HIGHER DEPOSIT OR MORE BEVERAGES.

SO I THINK A LOT OF THE COMPANIES THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THIS ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO WANT TO BE IN THE BOTTLE BILL BECAUSE BETWEEN THOSE TWO, WE'RE TRYING TO COVER ALL THE PACKAGING THAT THERE IS OUT THERE.

AND YOU ALSO HAVE BEEN PUSHING FORWARD LEGISLATION KNOWN AS THE RAINWATER STORM MANAGEMENT BILL THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY ALLOW COMMUNITIES TO BETTER PREPARE FOR FLOOD EVENTS.

I KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN PASSED IN THE SENATE, BUT HAS NOT MADE IT ONTO THE FLOOR IN THE ASSEMBLY.

SO I WANTED TO GET YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE ASSEMBLY SPONSOR TO GET IT OVER THE STATE OF FINISH LINE BEFORE THE END OF THIS YEAR.

YEAH, SO THE RAIN READY BILL IS A REALLY IMPORTANT BILL.

RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE WATER, STORMWATER, OR WASTEWATER AUTHORITIES AROUND THE STATE THAT ARE GIVEN THEIR AUTHORIZATION BY THE LEGISLATURE, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE STORMWATER ONLY WASTEWATER.

BUT WE'RE SEEING IN THOSE MUNICIPALITIES AND ALL MUNICIPALITIES, THEY'RE DEALING WITH MORE AND MORE STORMWATER ALL THE TIME BECAUSE WE'RE HAVING MORE INTENSE, MORE INTENSE FLOODING, STRONGER RAIN EVENTS, THAT KIND OF THING.

AND STORMWATER HAS BECOME A HUGE EXPENSE DEALING WITH THESE SUDDEN INFLUXES OF WATER TO THEIR SYSTEMS.

SO, THE CITY OF NEW YORK IS ONE OF THOSE.

CUYHOGA COUNTY, WHICH I REPRESENT, IS ONE OF THOSE.

THERE ARE ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT OTHERS AROUND THE STATE THAT HAVE THIS PROBLEM THAT THEY AREN'T AUTHORIZED TO REGULATE STORM WATER IN ANY WAY, BUT THEY NEED THOSE TOOLS.

THEY EITHER NEED TO BE ABLE TO CREATE INCENTIVES FOR PEOPLE TO DO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WILL PULL SOME SOME OF THE STORMWATER OUT OF THE WASTE SYSTEM OR OTHER JUST TAKING OTHER MEASURES TO TO DISCOURAGE INCREASED FLOW OF STORMWATER INTO THEIR SYSTEMS SO IT'S A BIG DEAL.

IT'S A HUGE DEAL FOR NEW YORK CITY.

AND MY PARTNER IN THE ASSEMBLY, THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL, REPRESENTS NEW YORK CITY, AND SO SHE'S I THINK SHE'S GONNA HAVE A PRETTY EASY TIME GETTING THIS PASSED BECAUSE NEW YORK CITY WANTS IT TO.

WOW, WELL, SOUNDS LIKE VERY IMPORTANT WORK UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE FOR TODAY, BUT WE THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SPEAK WITH US TODAY, SENATOR.

ABSOLUTELY THIS HAS BEEN A PLEASURE.

AND WE WERE SPEAKING WITH STATE SENATOR RACHEL MAY, CHAIR OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON RURAL RESOURCES.

AND FOR MORE ON OUR CONVERSATION WITH STATE SENATOR RACHEL MAY, YOU CAN VISIT OUR WEBSITE.

AGAIN, THAT'S AT NYNOW.ORG.

WELL, THAT DOES IT FOR THIS EDITION OF NEW YORK NOW.

THANK YOU FOR TUNING IN AND SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

[THEME MUSIC] FUNDING FOR NEW YORK NOW IS PROVIDED BY WNET.