Establishes the disability care providers fund
A10252 would create a new “disability care providers fund” in New York state law and give taxpayers the option to make voluntary contributions to that fund on their personal income tax returns. The bill adds a new tax law section allowing individuals to donate whole-dollar amounts without reducing their tax liability, and directs the Department of Taxation and Finance to provide a contribution space on the return. All money collected through the checkoff would be credited to the new fund and used only for the purposes set out in the bill.
The bill also amends the state finance law to establish the fund in the joint custody of the commissioner of taxation and finance and the comptroller. The fund would receive revenue from the tax return checkoff and could also accept appropriations, transfers, grants, gifts, or bequests. Spending from the fund would be limited to the benefit of disability care providers, defined by reference to providers of services under the mental hygiene law, and payments would be made only with approval from the Office for People With Developmental Disabilities. The bill requires annual certification and reporting on deposits, disbursements, recipients, award amounts, and purposes, and includes a severability clause and a delayed effective date.
Its practical impact would be to create a dedicated funding stream for disability-related service providers and to add a new charitable-style tax contribution option on state income tax forms. It would not change tax rates or create a tax credit; instead, it would redirect voluntary donations into a special state fund. The measure would also impose administrative duties on the Department of Taxation and Finance, the comptroller, and OPWDD to manage, certify, and report on the fund.
Because the bill was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on People with Disabilities with no recorded votes or transcripts, there is no formal legislative debate reflected in the available materials. The overall sentiment appears supportive in concept, as the bill is framed as a targeted funding mechanism for disability care providers, but the absence of committee discussion means there is no documented opposition or endorsement from members in the record provided.
No specific points of contention are documented in the available history. Potential areas of policy interest, however, could include whether a voluntary tax checkoff is an effective way to fund services, how broadly “disability care providers” should be defined, and whether the fund’s administration and reporting requirements are sufficient to ensure transparency and timely spending.
The bill would amend the tax law and state finance law to create a new voluntary income tax contribution mechanism and a dedicated special fund for disability care providers. It would require the Department of Taxation and Finance to add a contribution line to personal income tax returns, direct all collected donations into the new fund, and limit expenditures to purposes benefiting providers of services under the mental hygiene law. It would also assign oversight and reporting responsibilities to the comptroller and OPWDD, affecting those agencies’ administrative processes and creating a new restricted funding source for disability services.
The available record suggests generally favorable or at least noncontroversial treatment of the bill, but only in the sense that it was introduced and referred without any recorded debate, votes, or amendments. The bill’s purpose—supporting disability care providers through a dedicated fund—indicates a sympathetic policy goal, yet there is no committee transcript or voting history to show active support, opposition, or negotiated changes.
No explicit contention appears in the provided materials. If debated, likely issues would include the effectiveness of a voluntary tax checkoff, whether the fund should be supported through general appropriations instead, how narrowly the term “disability care providers” should be interpreted, and whether the annual reporting and fiscal-year spending requirements are workable. Because there are no transcripts or votes, no member or stakeholder positions are documented.