Exclusive Interview: Staten Island Secession From New York City, Remaining In NY State: Discussion With Asm. Pirozzolo About Possibilities, Budget

Staten Island Secession From New York City, Remaining In NY State: Discussion With Asm. Pirozzolo About Possibilities, Budget

The video here is a discussion with Assemblymember Pirozzolo regarding the idea of secession from the greater City of New York, allowing Staten Island to become its own city within the state instead of a borough within the city.  There are many changes that this would set in place due to the services currently provided by the city, which would be balanced with the possible attraction of more businesses into this borough, which again would be its own city.  At this point there are more questions than answers, so it remains to be seen what the overall financial cost or benefit would be for this proposal.  This is also something that islanders would have to get behind and support, if they want to start the process.  

Below is the memo about the report on the feasibility of Staten Island seceding from New York City and becoming its own city within the greater state of New York.  Readers may also remember Assemblymember Pirozzolo’s opinion piece on the matter, from back in 2019.  Learn about the folklore related to how Staten Island became part of New York City and State – instead of part of New Jersey – which may be more fiction than fact.  

Staten Island Secession – Financial and Policy Record  

Purpose & Scope 

This memo provides a consolidated factual record on the feasibility of Staten Island seceding  from the City of New York, based exclusively on official state-authorized documents produced  between 1991 and 1994. These materials include the New York State Charter Commission for  Staten Island Final Report submitted to the Governor and Legislature in February 1993, the  Official Transcript of the Public Meeting on Secession held on February 25, 1993, and the New  York State Senate Research Service Issues in Focus report issued in April 1994. 

These documents were produced pursuant to state law and relied on audited New York City  financial records, expert economic consultants, and extensive public testimony. Together, they  represent the most complete official record on Staten Island secession ever assembled. 

Threshold Question Considered by the State 

The New York State Legislature charged the Charter Commission with addressing a narrow but  critical threshold question: whether Staten Island could function as an independent city without  fiscal collapse or a breakdown in essential public services. 

The Commission was not tasked with advocating for or against secession, forecasting future  political decisions, or recommending a particular policy outcome. Its mandate was limited to  assessing feasibility under existing fiscal, legal, and governmental conditions. 

Throughout its work, the Commission emphasized that it was conducting a status quo analysis.  The objective was to determine what Staten Island already generated in revenue and what New  York City already expended to provide services to the borough, rather than speculating about  how a future city government might choose to operate. 

Financial Findings 

Revenue Base 

The Charter Commission’s fiscal consultants reconstructed actual revenues attributable to Staten  Island using New York City end-of-year closeout data, including reports from the Financial  Information Services Agency, the Comptroller, and individual operating agencies.

Based on this analysis, the Commission determined that Staten Island generated a substantial and  recurring annual revenue base. That revenue base consisted of property taxes paid by Staten  Island homeowners and businesses, income and business taxes attributable to Staten Island  residents and employers, other locally generated revenues, intergovernmental aid, and interfund  transfers. 

The Commission described this revenue base as stable, recurring, and diversified. It did not rely  on a single industry, commercial district, or volatile revenue source. Importantly, the general  scale and composition of this revenue base were not disputed during public hearings. Even  opponents of secession referenced similar baseline assumptions when presenting their testimony. 

Advertisement

Expenditures & Service Costs 

The Commission rejected simple population-based allocation methods and instead employed  functional cost accounting to determine what New York City actually spent to deliver services to  Staten Island. 

Expenditures were grouped into three broad categories. The first consisted of direct on-island  services, including police precinct operations, fire services, sanitation collection, public schools  and related educational programs, parks and recreation, social services, transportation, and the  Richmond County District Attorney. These costs represented the clear majority of municipal  spending attributable to Staten Island and were derived from agency reports tied directly to  Staten Island operating units. 

The second category included citywide services benefiting Staten Island residents, such as  centralized police laboratories, arterial highways, and systemwide administrative functions.  These costs were allocated based on service usage or functional relevance rather than population  alone. 

The third category encompassed administrative overhead and shared obligations, including  executive functions, pension contributions, judgments and settlements, and debt service.  Allocation formulas were designed to be conservative and consistent with standard public  finance practices. 

Across multiple allocation methodologies, total expenditures attributable to Staten Island were  found to be broadly comparable to, and in many cases lower than, the revenues generated by the  borough under the status quo. 

Net Fiscal Position 

After testing multiple scenarios for allocating general obligation debt and other shared costs, the  Commission concluded that Staten Island’s fiscal position under existing conditions was  consistently positive.

Under every principal scenario reviewed, Staten Island was found to generate more revenue than  the City of New York expended in delivering services to the borough, even after accounting for  overhead and debt service. The Commission emphasized that this finding demonstrated fiscal  feasibility, not a guarantee of any specific surplus level. 

This conclusion formed the financial foundation of the Commission’s determination that Staten  Island could operate as an independent city without fiscal collapse. 

Economic Context & Comparative Analysis 

To test the realism of its findings, the Commission compared Staten Island to numerous United  States cities of similar population size. 

The Commission found that the revenue capacity attributable to Staten Island exceeded what  comparable cities typically required to provide a full range of municipal services. This  comparative analysis demonstrated that the Commission’s conclusions were consistent with  national municipal norms and not based on unrealistic or optimistic assumptions. 

Deficit Claims & Their Origin 

During public hearings, representatives of New York City and other opponents of secession cited  significant projected deficits. The official transcript makes clear that these projections were not  based on existing fiscal conditions. 

Instead, the deficit claims relied on forward-looking assumptions, including one-time startup and  transition costs, potential litigation over assets and liabilities, conservative assumptions regarding  the continuation of state and federal aid, and hypothetical service expansions or inefficiencies. 

Commission members acknowledged these risks but emphasized that the disagreement was  methodological rather than factual. Both sides generally accepted the same underlying revenue  and service cost baselines. The dispute centered on speculative future policy choices rather than  evidence of fiscal infeasibility. 

Public Support & Democratic Mandate 

The Charter Commission’s work occurred against a backdrop of sustained and measurable public  support for secession. Staten Island voters approved multiple referenda authorizing the secession  process, including the creation of the Charter Commission itself. 

Polling data cited in Commission materials and contemporaneous reporting showed consistent  majority support for secession across multiple years, driven by concerns over taxation, political  representation, land use decisions, transportation costs, and service equity. 

The Commission treated public support as an established fact and focused its work on feasibility  rather than voter motivation.

Legislative Review & Validation 

Following the Charter Commission’s final report and subsequent referenda, the New York State  Senate Research Service reviewed the full secession record. Its subsequent analysis did not  dispute or revise the Commission’s financial findings. 

Instead, legislative staff cited prior Senate Finance and Charter Commission analyses concluding  that Staten Island could survive fiscally as an independent city and could operate without  structural deficits. Deficit concerns were presented as political and policy objections rather than  adopted legislative findings. 

Legal & Structural Considerations 

The Commission acknowledged that Staten Island would remain jointly and severally liable for  pre-separation New York City debt, allocated based on assessed valuation. It proposed state  oversight mechanisms to ensure continued bondholder protection during any transition period. 

Physical assets located on Staten Island would transfer to the new city, while assets located  elsewhere would remain with New York City. Bond counsel advised that these arrangements  would not jeopardize credit markets if implemented under state supervision. 

Risks & Unresolved Issues 

The Commission and subsequent legislative documents acknowledged unresolved issues,  including startup and transition costs, labor agreements and pension obligations, mass transit  funding, toll revenues, landfill operations, and long-term intergovernmental relations. 

These matters were consistently described as issues for future elected officials to negotiate rather  than evidence that Staten Island lacked the capacity to govern itself. 

Conclusion 

Based on the full official state record, Staten Island possessed a large, stable, and recurring  revenue base and consistently generated more revenue than it received in municipal services  under the status quo. 

While secession would have required complex negotiations and difficult policy decisions, the  official findings support the conclusion that Staten Island had the fiscal capacity to function as an  independent city, subject to future policy choices and intergovernmental agreements. 

The decision not to proceed with secession reflected political considerations rather than a  determination of fiscal infeasibility.

Here you can see the report in its entirety that was submitted to the governor and legislature: Feasibility-Staten-Island-Secession-Report-To-Governor-And-Legislature-In-1993