Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

I absolutely did NOT equate them to a mandate.   Maybe in your vivid imagination or in your interest to obfuscate the matter YOU have chosen to believe I wrote or meant that -- but I did NOT write that nor did I imply that.
-- and NO they do not exist at the pleasure of the taxpayers.  Metroplex was created by an action of the State Legislature and Governor --- and only the State Legislature and Governor can amend its charter, change the laws which apply to it and/or abolish it.  Furthermore, the taxpayers can NOT elect or remove the board of the entity.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Austerity budgets will only go so far since many of the services provided by a city or town are mandated by state law.  

The only way to resolve the ongoing STRUCTURAL fiscal problems in our counties, municipalities and other taxing districts (including school districts) is to fundamentally reform how we deliver these services.  Replacing the 19th century revenue collection and service delivery system (cities, towns, villages, counties, etc.) with a 21st century revenue collection and service delivery system is essential.

Counties, cities, towns, villages, school districts and other taxing districts are merely creations of the state legislature and governor to provide for service delivery.  New York State has redrawn, erased and modified county and municipal lines in the past.   Albany County used to include Schenectady County and Saratoga County in the 18th and early 19th centuries .. and Tryon County went from Amsterdam west to the Great Lakes and northwest to the Canadian border.   Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens and Staten Island were separate municipalities before being merged (unilaterally by the state legislature and governor) into the modern-day boundaries of New York City.  The villages of Scotia and Delanson did not exist as separate entities until the early 20th century.    
Changes were made in the past because the old boundaries and old system of revenue collection and delivery of services was not working and/or to reflect population shifts and/or numerous other factors.  The time has long past for the state legislature and governor to take bold action, throw out the obsolete 19th century system and replace it with something that will work in the 21st century.

Quoted Text

Executive Summary
Unlike the State and local governments, New York State’s public authorities are
permitted to structure bond issues with the payment of principal heavily weighted to the
end of the repayment schedule. This “back-loading” of debt is often contrary to the
public’s interest,  frequently  placing the financial burden on  a future generation of
taxpayers and ratepayers, and should be substantially restricted.  
The repayment or amortization structure of a bond issue is critical in determining the
overall cost of the borrowing.   Debt issuances structured with substantially  deferred
principal payments, rather than with a level debt service structure, are typically more
expensive over the life of the issue.  Furthermore, the taxpayers or ratepayers who pay
the majority or the entire principal amount at the end of the debt term may be
substantially different than those who benefited from the asset.  The asset itself may no
longer be functional or may have a significantly diminished remaining useful life.  Backloaded debt structures  also  allow authorities to issue more debt than they could
otherwise afford in the near term.
In three recent examples, authorities seeking the Comptroller’s approval of back-loaded
debt structures have, after further discussion with the Office of the State Comptroller,
restructured the issues, resulting in substantial  public benefits.   When combined, the
restructured transactions resulted in total debt service savings of $456.9 million on a
cash flow basis and $175.9 million on a net present value basis over the life of the
bonds.
The Comptroller strongly discourages public authorities from substantially deferring
principal payments when issuing debt.  While there are some instances that justify some
deferral of principal, the Comptroller recommends that all authorities develop debt
policies that prohibit the inappropriate deferral of principal. Furthermore, the State
should consider developing a consistent debt policy in statute for all public authorities to
ensure the use of prudent practices and  ensure that  public resources are used
effectively.2
Public Authority Debt and Debt Structures
New York’s public authorities exist for diverse purposes, such as  providing  local
water, operating  regional transportation systems,  supplying  energy and  promoting
economic development.  The number of State and local public authorities now totals
just over 1,100.  Collectively, these authorities currently have more than $214 billion
in debt outstanding.  The proliferation of the number and influence of State and local
public authorities and the increase in the amount of debt they have issued have been
the subject of many recent publications, including Comptroller DiNapoli’s Debt Impact
Study, which was issued in March 2010.
1
  The rapid growth in the overall amount of
authority debt has been the subject of much discussion and concern, but is not the
focus of this report.
2
  
This report addresses the structure of the debt issued by public authorities.  Some
public authorities issue debt that is structured so that principal payments are deferred
for more than 30 years.  This review evaluates the practice of substantially deferring
the payment of principal until the end of the repayment schedule, and concludes that
such “back-loading” repayment of debt is contrary to the public’s interest and should
be substantially restricted.  (Debt structured with substantial deferred principal comes
in a variety of forms and with different names, including balloons, bullets and backloaded debt repayment structures, all of which are used interchangeably  in this
report.)
Comptroller’s Review of Public Authority Debt
Various New York State statutes require the  Office of the  State Comptroller to
approve the terms and conditions of notes and bonds  offered by certain  public
authorities and local governments at private or negotiated sale.  The requirements
are imposed separately in dozens of provisions of the Public Authorities Law and in
several provisions of the Local Finance Law.    However, many authorities are not
subject to a review of the terms and conditions of the debt they issue.
The Office of the State Comptroller issued  its “Debt Issuance Approval Policy
Statement and Guidelines,” which  is available on the Comptroller’s website.  The
Guidelines summarize the process and criteria for the review of the terms and
conditions of municipal and public authority debt issuances that require approval by
the Office of the State Comptroller.
The purpose of the Comptroller's approval function is to protect the interests of the
taxpayers by ensuring that the total cost of the borrowing is reasonable and
appropriate. These reviews have identified areas where costs could be reduced,
resulting in savings to localities, the State and public authorities. However, the Office
                                      
1
See  Debt Impact Study, released by the Office of the State Comptroller. The report is available at

Quoted Text

Since 1969, Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs) have played a role in fostering economic
development in New York. Like other public authorities, however, issues regarding IDA transparency
and accountability persist, and inconsistent project monitoring continues to raise questions about the
costs versus benefits of IDA job creation.
Over the last several years, the Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) has increased its oversight of
IDA operations through audits and performance reports. The Comptroller also began suspending
State tax exemption powers for IDAs that failed to file financial reports. OSC also enhanced its review
procedures and expanded training for IDA filers to help reduce reporting errors and improve the
quality of data submissions. In 2007, OSC working in cooperation with the New York State Authorities
Budget Office (ABO), created the Public Authorities Reporting Information System (PARIS), a
standardized electronic financial reporting system. Additionally, the Public Authorities Reform Act
that became effective in March 2010, will further enhance IDA transparency by requiring additional
reporting on governance, operating structure and financial condition.
These efforts have clearly improved IDA reporting, but the most critical project performance metric –
job creation and retention – still suffers from poor tracking and verification. IDAs often complain that
they cannot get independent access to jobs data, or that data supplied by project operators is incomplete
or misleading. This creates inconsistencies when comparing project performance within or across IDAs.
Reported jobs gained have fluctuated widely over the years.
For example, total job gains reported statewide declined by over
31,000 from 2007 to 2008. However, this appears to be primarily
a reporting issue; actual jobs were not reported or could not be
verified for one reason or another. For example, the New York
City IDA did not report over 17,000 jobs associated with just one
project because it could not verify the actual job data.  The New
York City IDA has indicated that if they are unable to obtain or
verify employment information from operators of completed
projects, the number of current jobs associated with the project is
reported as zero.  There are as many as 14 projects assisted by the New York City IDA that were completed
in 2008 where the current employment information may be incomplete.
When prior year jobs data is compared with 2008 reported project information, it appears that as many
as 45 IDA projects statewide that were completed may have failed to collect and report jobs data.
Similarly, salary and wage data is often incomplete, making it difficult to gauge the quality of the jobs
created.  To help address these various issues, Comptroller DiNapoli is again advancing legislation that
would standardize IDA project applications, require project operators to provide employment data to
IDAs or lose benefits, and mandate “clawback” provisions in IDA project agreements so that benefits
can be recaptured if job creation/retention goals are not met.
Year
Cumulative Reported
Jobs Gained
2008 195,466
2007 226,602
2006 228,925
2005 300,944
2004 164,094
2003 133,6782 Industrial Development Agencies  Offi ce of the State Comptroller
As New York emerges from the Great Recession and seeks to rebuild its economy, it is critical that IDAs
provide accurate, consistent and transparent analysis of job creation and retention so that the costs and
benefits of IDA tax expenditures can be adequately justified, and decision makers can properly evaluate how
to best invest taxpayer resources. Detailed information on the projects sponsored by each  IDA (for which
data is available) can be found at the Division of Local Government and School Accountability website.
Highlights for the 2008 Reporting Year
• In 2008, 102 of the 115 IDAs in New York State reported supporting nearly $66 billion in projects,
an increase of nearly $5 billion, or about 8 percent, over the $61 billion reported in 2007. Of this
increase, approximately $3.9 billion was due to new projects and the remainder was due to more
accurate reporting.
• Five IDAs have had their ability to offer exemptions from State taxes suspended because they have
not filed with OSC for the 2008 reporting year. Data from four IDAs is not included in this report
because of late filing and four IDAs reported no projects.  
• The most significant changes in 2008 are attributable to the New York City IDA which reported
through PARIS for the first time. The transition to standardized reporting by the State’s largest
IDA resulted in significant changes in the total gross tax exemptions and payments in lieu of taxes
(PILOTs). The New York City IDA assisted 17 new projects in 2008, valued at a total of $113 million,
which were estimated to create 332 new jobs and retain 2,080 jobs over the life of these projects.
IDA Summary Statistics
Year PARIS IDAs Projects Total Project Amount Net Tax Exemptions
2008 Yes 115 4,471 $65,621,175,274 $644,955,386
2007 Yes-Partial 116 4,130 $60,745,321,393 $592,845,290
2006 No 116 3,813 $41,020,744,110 $455,493,469
2005 No 117 3,693 $39,386,476,860 $386,538,965
2004 No 117 3,475 $34,302,069,906 $388,005,975
2003 No 117 3,294 $33,945,336,005 $353,579,036
Change 2007 to 2008 -1 341 $4,875,853,881 $52,110,096
Percentage Change -0.9% 8.3% 8.0% 8.8%
Change 2003 to 2008 -2 1,177 $31,675,839,269 $291,376,350
Percentage Change -1.7% 35.7% 93.3% 82.4%Division of Local Government and School Accountability Industrial Development Agencies 3
• Overall, the reported number of projects receiving IDA assistance, total project amounts and net tax

Quoted Text

HEVESI & SPITZER CALL FOR MAJOR REFORM OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

Hevesi Proposes Legislation That Improves Accountability,
Imposes Procurement & Lobbying Rules,
Strengthens Independence & Effectiveness Of Authority Boards,
Creates Commission To Evaluate Major Authorities

Citing the many serious problems discovered at public authorities, New York State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today called for major reform of authorities. Comptroller Hevesi issued omnibus legislation to make public authorities more accountable, which proposes new laws regarding awarding of contracts, strict requirements for registration and disclosure by lobbyists, governance reforms of authority boards including a majority of independent members, and increased oversight powers for the Comptroller's Office. The Comptroller also issued a report detailing many gaps in current oversight.

“Authorities have made major contributions to New York, including building and expanding our transportation systems, our public universities and water systems. But authorities have become a semi-secret fourth branch of government with little or no accountability and many have developed a culture of arrogance. It's time for a major reform to bring authorities under control and ensure that they use their resources to serve the important public tasks they have been given, unhindered by waste and corruption,” Hevesi said.

"We need to put the word ‘public' back into the phrase ‘public authorities'", said Attorney General Spitzer. "These entities supposedly were created to benefit the public, but they operate without any real oversight by, or accountability to, the people they are supposed to be serving. The time has come for sweeping reforms to the entire system."

In addition to the 113-page reform legislation, Hevesi released a study which found that there are more than 640 authorities in the State, including 169 major State public authorities and affiliated subsidiary corporations, 43 authorities that are affiliated with State agencies, 425 local authorities and three interstate authorities with three subsidiaries. Authorities issue more than 90 percent of State debt. State general obligation debt makes up the remaining 10 percent. The 17 authorities that have issued at least $100 million in debt have a total of $105 billion in debt outstanding, including $33.8 billion in State supported debt.

“New Yorkers pay for public authorities in the form of rates, tolls and fees, and our taxes offset authority-related tax-exemptions and pay the debt service on authority-issued bonds. In most cases, New Yorkers have no choice but to use authority facilities. But they do not have even indirect control over how these billions of their dollars are used. Authorities have created a system of taxation without representation,” Hevesi said.

The study includes a partial list of major cases of corruption, waste, mismanagement and other significant problems, including 55 that have occurred just since 1990. “A review of past practices by authorities reveals substantial mismanagement, as well as a history of unethical and, at times, illegal activity. Concern regarding the lack of oversight has intensified recently in light of these widespread scandals, resulting in a public cry out for reform,” Hevesi said.

The proposed reform legislation includes the following provisions:

Sets a new broader definition of what an authority is to help identify all of them for the first time.
Defines four classes of authorities: Class A larger State authorities and their affiliates, Class B State affiliated authorities, Class C local authorities and Class D international and bi-state authorities.
Imposes strict new procurement, lobbying and governance rules on Class A and B authorities.
Creates a temporary commission with the power to review the mission and operations of Class A and B authorities and then decide if it is necessary to revise their functions or merge them with other authorities or state agencies, subject to legislative disapproval. The Commission would make similar recommendations to the Governor and Legislature about Class C and D authorities.
Strengthens oversight by giving the Comptroller's Office the power to approve authority contracts before they are awarded, as is the case for State agencies.
“There has been enormous growth in the number of authorities, but there has been no systematic effort to provide oversight or review existing authorities and make sure their mission still makes sense. That's the purpose of the proposed commission,” Hevesi said.

Authorities are largely unaccountable to State government. Out of more than 640 entities with State and local functions:

Only 11 must receive approval by the Public Authorities Control Board before issuing debt;
Few are subject to debt caps established by the Legislature.
The 2004-05 Executive Budget and State financial plan reports on finances of only 31.
The State Comptroller receives financial data and other reports from only 53.
The Office of the State Comptroller posts on its website ( http://www.osc.state.ny.us ) the limited information it receives about authority finances and operating costs such as staff salaries, but much information is not readily available to the public.

The recent efforts of the Office of the State Comptroller have led to meaningful reforms in the budget process at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, new internal controls at the Long Island Power Authority, the pending appointment of an Independent Private Sector Inspector General for the New York Racing Association and the cancellation of a contract that granted exclusive development rights along much of the New York State Canal System for $30,000. But the pattern of problems makes it clear that broad reform is necessary.

The Attorney General's Office conducted a lengthy investigation into criminal conduct at NYRA, which resulted in arrests and convictions, and is currently conducting an investigation of alleged contract improprieties at the Canal Corporation. Spitzer has repeatedly urged adoption of improved procurement, lobbying, ethics and operational reforms for all authorities.

“It is time to rein in this large semi-secret unsupervised government empire. Authorities provide crucial services and borrow and spend enormous sums. They must be accountable to the public,” Hevesi said.

“These authorities must be responsive to the principles of openness, transparency, fairness and efficiency. There is too much at stake to let this opportunity for reform pass us by,” Spitzer said.

It is currently difficult to obtain detailed information about authority contracting in order to estimate how much money contract reforms could save. However, in 2002, nine large State authorities spent $3.95 billion through contracts. It is generally accepted that competitive bidding can save from 10 percent to 37 percent. Assuming only one percent savings from improved competitive bidding, total savings for just those nine authorities could be $39 million a year. That does not include potential savings from reduced waste and mismanagement. Those savings would clearly more than offset the minor cost of the Commission, estimated at $1.5 million a year for three years, or the additional Comptroller's Office staff, estimated at $1.5 million a year.



Click Here for a copy of the Report.

# # #


Fact Sheet: The Public Authority Reform Act of 2004

Comptroller Hevesi's legislation will increase accountability, deter misconduct and reduce waste and inefficiency at the more than 640 State and local public authorities operating in New York.

Specifically, the bill:

Classifies and Names Authorities

Prior to this legislation, there has been no formal definition of a public authority or a centralized listing of the public authorities in New York State. This legislation defines authorities' characteristics, and specifies more than 640 authorities in New York State.
Mandates Strengthened Corporate Governance

Requires major statewide public authorities to establish stronger corporate governance standards, including rotating auditing firms or partners every five years and requiring external audits to be conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles,
Requires public authorities' annual reports to include greater detail about executive officers' compensation
Mandates that authorities' board must have a majority of “independent” members, prohibits any member of an authority's governing body from serving simultaneously as an executive officer, and requires CEOs and CFOs to certify every public authority's annual financial statements.
Improves Procurement Practices

Strengthens the existing requirement that public authorities establish and enforce procurement guidelines, in areas such as competitive bidding and contracting.
Requires the major statewide public authorities to adopt guidelines that are at a minimum equal to the statutory requirements applicable to State contracts, and gives the Comptroller authority to review public authorities' contracts before they can become effective, at his discretion
Expands Lobbying Disclosure

Expands the definition of lobbying to include attempts to influence contracting decisions.
Requires all lobbyists to disclose any contracts, invitations for bids, requests for proposals or other solicitations they have attempted to influence or intend to influence.
Creates Commission on Public Authority Reform

The Commission would gather information about each of the State's public authorities and make decisions about needed changes, including the possibility of consolidations and eliminations of State authorities. Its decisions could be overridden only by a resolution of either house of the Legislature.
For local, bi-state and international public authorities, the Commission would recommend changes for consideration of the Governor and the Legislature, but would not have the authority to decide on the elimination of such authorities.
The Commission would consist of 11 members: three appointed by the Governor, two appointed by the Senate Majority Leader, two appointed by the Assembly Speaker, and one each to be appointed by the Senate Minority Leader, the Assembly Minority Leader, the Comptroller, and the Attorney General. The Governor would designate the chairperson.
Creates Authority Oversight Responsibility

Authorizes the Comptroller to designate a Deputy Comptroller to supervise public authorities; these would be funded by an assessment on authorities.




Albany Phone: (51 474-4015  Fax51 473-8940
NYC Phone: (212) 681-4825  Fax212) 681-4468
Internet: http://www.osc.state.ny.us
E-Mail:press@osc.state.ny.us

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Since I am philosophically opposed to unelected boards spending taxpayer monies, I stated that those elected by the taxpayers -- the County Legislature -- should be the ones voting on that spending.  Eliminate the separate board for Metroplex and let the County Legislature make the decisions (now made by the Metroplex board) and be accountable directly to the voters.

Quoted from rachel72

Are you kidding? Give MORE money for the County Leg to throw away? Did they REALLY listen to anyone before they spent $50 million for the County nursing home...NO! So what fiscal responsibility has the County Leg shown in order to be granted the millions the Plex has.

Guess the County Leg could have flushed it faster than Gillen.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

You obviously are either a) not capable of understanding the issue or b) just unwilling to understand the issue.  You insist on dragging in partisanship and personalities.     And --- you are obviously oblivious to the American values that founded this nation -- NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.    You'd rather have appointed boards who are not accountable to the voters making multi-million dollar decisions about our tax dollars.    

I would much rather have the authority vested in a body that is elected by and accountable to the voters than a body which is not.  I believe in government that is elected by and accountable to the voters.  I believe in the values upon which this nation was founded and which made us prosperous and great.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Cutting through the pile of stuff that Senders posted to obfuscate the matter - I never stated that Metroplex is a mandated service or should become a mandate service.  I simply stated that the Metroplex board is not elected by the taxpayers.  Since I am philosophically opposed to unelected boards spending taxpayer monies, I stated that those elected by the taxpayers -- the County Legislature -- should be the ones voting on that spending.  Eliminate the separate board for Metroplex and let the County Legislature make the decisions (now made by the Metroplex board) and be accountable directly to the voters.
This would in no way interfere with the planning process as the County already has an Economic Development Office that reports directly to the County Manager and County Legislature.  
And if one actually reads and thinks about the larger issue that I raised - namely that the governor and state legislature needs to reform ALL of the current system of delivering local and regional services.  This means the municipalities, counties, school districts, special taxing districts (fire, water, etc) and even entities such as I.D.A.s and Metroplex should ALL be reformed/replaced with a MORE EFFECTIVE and MORE EFFICIENT 21st Century system of local and regional government.