The other question I have because you were very clear that this is a great time to put money into the reserves I'm glad

you understood.

And again, I'm sure you were listening to OMB's hearing earlier and Jacques said something very interesting.

He said two things that I thought was interesting.

One thing he said was essentially they don't want to tip the city's hand, right?

They don't want to give off this impression that you know we have the money and we can deal with cuts and then he also kind of alluded to this idea that it kind of doesn't matter if we put things in reserve funds because there's no way that the city could cover any type of potential federal loss, so how do you kind of explain and further double down on the need to put away money in the reserve funds because I think he was again clear on two things, like one this idea of like we don't want to create this narrative that could be used against us, but then this other thing that I kind of took from it was like it doesn't really matter because we don't have enough money anyway to be able to fill in the gap.

Nobody knows what the gap is, it would be very hard to pretend that we have enough money to fill in the gap.

So our recommendation to add money to reserves is simply to have money to lessen the blows when they come.

We are not under the impression that the Trump administration is perusing the city's reserve funds as they make decisions about immigration policy or cuts to human services or changes to academic funding in New York City which then result in lesser tax collections and the many other policy changes that are being made.

Perhaps director Jieha has more insight as to what the Trump administration is considering as they make their policy changes.

I would also add that, you know, I think one thing we point out is that our estimates, for example, know uniformed overtime do assume the same level of expenditure year over year.

That's one area that we've identified could be, you know if better management practices were put in place, those costs would be lower and that would reduce the gap in the future.

So and again some of these areas of additional savings that we highlighted could also affect or bring down that gap.

And I'm actually gonna build on what my colleague just said.

So as Sarita mentioned, one thing that is unusual in many of the federal changes right now is that they are being enacted immediately or close to

immediately.

Generally, they're step downs in time and when a government is making reduction choices, it recognizes that, for example, partners like in the nonprofit community providing services who are obliged to lessen need to have time to meaningfully reduce those services so that the employees and the clients can be as best taken care of.

So money in reserves could lessen how much is reduced and or allow for a time for a reasonable close down as opposed to doing it in say thirty days, which is what city contracts basically allow.