IBO was designed to democratize the city's budget process. We were created to provide elected officials outside the mayor's office with better budget information, to increase budget oversight among the institutions of the city, and to allow all New Yorkers to play a greater role in policy debates and decisions. Very laudable objectives. But when I started work as IBO's first employee in 1996, it was far from certain that the agency would survive long enough to meet those goals. Three years later, not only is the agency still around, but it is moving closer to meeting its mission with each passing day.

Not that 1998 was a particularly safe or easy year for the agency. In fact, IBO faced three separate challenges to its existence.

In January, Mayor Giuliani proposed to eliminate funding for IBO, notwithstanding a city charter requirement that the agency be funded each year. The City Council rejected the mayor's proposal and restored funding for the agency at the statutorily required level.

During the Spring, legislation was introduced in the State Legislature to permit the abolishment of IBO without a public referendum-which would otherwise be required under the city charter. Thanks to the opposition of 59 members of the New York City delegation in Albany, led by Assembly Member Richard Gottfried and State Senator Franz Leichter, the legislation never advanced beyond introduction. Moreover, civic groups such as NYPIRG, the Citizens Budget Commission, Common Cause, the City Club of New York, Citizens Union, and the League of Women Voters opposed the legislation and lobbied Albany lawmakers to ensure IBO's continuation.

The third threat arose from the creation of a Charter Revision Commission appointed by the mayor in June. While the Commission's agenda was quite limited, one of its tasks was to consider whether IBO should be eliminated or revised. Ultimately, the Commission concluded that IBO had not been operational long enough to draw a reasoned conclusion concerning its value and the matter was ultimately deferred.

Although we fully expect to face similar challenges in the future, we are emboldened by several facts.

IBO'S ROLE IN THE CITY'S GOVERNMENT IS UNIQUE. IBO is doing work that others are unable to do for political reasons or lack of technical expertise. Moreover, some topics are too politically charged to be dispassionately studied by organizations with a particular partisan viewpoint. IBO is not constrained or motivated by politics, which has allowed it to study hot topics like public subsidization of professional sports stadiums and the City Council's adoption of a non-negotiated budget for 1999.

IBO HAS DONE ITS JOB. Efforts to keep the agency from getting off the ground after voters approved the new city charter in 1989 delayed IBO's creation for six years. During that time, the new city government structure evolved without an IBO. Since being funded in 1996, IBO has worked diligently to inject itself into the city's government and budget processes as mandated by the charter. Notwithstanding efforts to keep information from IBO-we recently successfully sued Mayor Giuliani for interfering with our charter-guaranteed access to agencies-we have added value to the city government.

IBO IS MAKING A DIFFERENCE. The agency has built a strong foundation to allow it to comment authoritatively on city budget issues, to empower non-mayoral elected officials to participate more effectively in the city's budget process, and to open up city government and make it more representative. The most visible sign of our success is the work we are doing for elected officials, civic groups, the media, and members of the general public who are using IBO every day. Clearly, the city's investment in IBO has begun to pay dividends; we hope you agree.

Despite efforts to terminate the agency, IBO had a very productive 1998. As illustrated throughout this report, IBO staff produced studies on a wide variety of topics important to the city's residents. Needless to say, IBO's staff deserves all of the credit for the agency's accomplishments. Although I have worked at other government organizations where the staff were truly hardworking and dedicated, IBO's staff has excelled under significantly more adverse circumstances: little job security; angry responses to our work products (by at least one official at City Hall), and opposition to our existence-even by some of the officials we were established to assist. Through it all, IBO's staff has continued to produce high-quality work without regard for political considerations or consequences.

In the year ahead, IBO will be tackling issues such as business retention incentives, the effects of an economic downturn on the city's budget, utility taxes, education finance, and the city budget for fiscal year 2000-just to name a few. As always, we would welcome any suggestions you might have for IBO research products. We hope you find our work useful and will stay tuned for more work from IBO in the months and years ahead.