ERIE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
State is asked to take away board control of borrowing
The detente didn’t last.
Erie County’s elected leaders are now waging a Hail Mary effort to free themselves from the control board’s clutches when it comes to borrowing money.
They have asked the State Senate and the Assembly to let Erie County borrow without control board approval as long as the county maintains its investment-grade credit.
Assemblyman Mark J. F. Schroeder, D-Buffalo, a former county lawmaker, introduced such a bill Monday. State Sen. Dale
M. Volker, R-Depew, followed with a companion bill Tuesday, giving the effort majority- party sponsors in both houses.
Next, a letter will go from County Hall to Albany requesting “expeditious passage” of those bills limiting the control board’s power. The letter was signed by County Executive Chris Collins; County Comptroller Mark C. Poloncarz; Legislature Chairwoman Lynn M. Marinelli, D-Town of Tonawanda; Majority Leader Maria R. Whyte, D-Buffalo; and Minority Leader John J. Mills, R-Orchard Park.
Then at 2 p. m. Friday, the County Legislature will meet in a special session to approve the home-rule request that will formally ask state lawmakers to pass the bills in the waning days of this year’s session and send them to Gov. David A. Paterson for his signature.
If Paterson signs them into law, he would take the state-appointed financial control board out of the picture when it comes to borrowing the millions of dollars needed for Erie County’s road and bridge repairs and upgrades to county-owned buildings and amenities.
Control board chairman Anthony J. Baynes called the governor’s office Wednesday to determine whether Paterson would sign the bills. He repeated that the control board could save Erie County taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars by acting as the government’s borrowing agent — which the elected officials do not want to allow.
He chiefly blamed Collins for the turnaround.
"This is the move of a career politician," Baynes said. "I think it's a shame that anyone in political office should want to not save county taxpayers money."
Collins, Poloncarz and lawmakers agree that the control board can save money on repayment costs because it has a superior credit rating. But the elected officials argue that the savings are not worth letting the control board exist, at a cost of $600,000 a year, for the decades it will take to repay a long-term loan.
With the Fiscal Stability Authority now in a “control period” over county finances, the elected leaders need its approval to borrow money. Similarly, the control board needs approval from the Legislature and county executive to borrow.
Collins, Poloncarz and the control board happily announced May 29 that they had cobbled together a partial compromise to their year-old stalemate. They would take out a one-year loan to finance the current crop of sorely needed improvement projects and then refinance that loan in a year with long-term bonds.
But who would sell those long-term bonds next year, the control board or the government? The answer, as explained May 29, would depend on the condition of county finances and whether the control board develops confidence in Collins’ first budget, for 2009, and his coming four-year financial plan.
And who would take out the loan? That would depend on whether the control board could save a significant amount of money compared with Poloncarz.
