OP-ED Legislator Trotta Urges Voters To Say NO To County Proposition # 5

Everyone loves open space and wants to protect our drinking water, but Proposition #5, which is on the ballot on Election Day, is much more about cash flow than it is about water quality.  While no one cares more than me about protecting our drinking water and preserving open space, in looking at the details of this Proposition, which, you pay me to do; I can tell you that the voters are being misled. You are not being given the whole story -

This Proposition would permit the county to potentially raid more than $100 million dollars from the Sewer Assessment Stabilization Reserve Fund over the next several years in order to pay the county’s bills. This while borrowing $30 million for other environmental programs, including sewer expansion. Why would we borrow for sewer expansion while spending the money that is already available in the fund on other things?   This is simply a way to balance the budget this year while pushing off paying our bills to our children and grandchildren!

Why are taxpayers “paying back” money to the open space program when no money was taken out of it?  The surplus sewer money should be used for installing sewers in our downtowns, which would stimulate economic development, create employment, and have a far greater impact on protecting our drinking water than buying open space (likely on the east end). Not to mention, open space is taken off the tax rolls!

Not surprisingly, there is no plan in place to repay the $100 plus million dollars that will be raided from the Reserve Fund, therefore, the county will likely have to borrow once again, creating even more debt to burden future generations.

Does this really give the voters a choice? A separate resolution, IR-1746, has been introduced in the Legislature, which creates an agreement between the county and the environmental community that would make the proposed amendments to the Drinking Water Protection Program whether the voters approve Proposition #5 or not.  So clearly they are not serious about giving voters a choice.    

If the County Executive says his number one concern is our drinking water, why is he taking money that could be used to expand sewers and protect our drinking water and using it to pay the county’s bills? The environment and the quality of our drinking water should not be used as bargaining chips and funds established to protect taxpayers and our environment should not be turned into ATM’s.  I recommend that you vote NO on Proposition #5.

Robert Trotta

Suffolk County Legislator, 13^th District

Comments

[James Olson]

In 2007, the voters approved Local Law No. 24-2007 which extended and accelerated the Suffolk Co. 1/4% Drinking Water Protection Program (1/4% Fund).

By 2011, the 1/4% Fund had an excess balance which prompted the Co. Legislature to pass Local Law 44-2011, without voter approval, authorizing the use of that excess fund balance for other purposes.

Approx. $29,400,000 was taken from the Fund, apparently, to pay for maturing bonds (past borrowing). But 44-2011 also included a 'sunset provision' for the use of Assessment Stabilization Reserve Fund (Reserve Fund) for "property tax relief" (a gentler way of saying, "pay expenses without raising taxes").

Proposition #5 does a number of things, incl.:
- borrows (through bonds) to pay back the $29.4M the Co. used from the 1/4% Fund to pay off previous borrowing (bonds),
- allows use of that $28.4M to purchase or lease (rent) land for environmental restoration and protection projects
- allows the Co. to continue dipping into the Reserve Fund until 2017, in order to avoid cutting expenses or raising property taxes
- allows the Reserve Fund, in excess of $140M, to be used for paying other bonds, retirement contributions, and projects outside the County Sewer District through FY2021.

My Opinion: It seems to me Local Law No 24-2007 (voter approved) was intended, by the County, to create a Fund to be used for other things. Local Law No. 44-2011 (not voter approved; which allowed dipping into the 1/4% Fund) was, therefore, inevitable.

I think the "dipping" should stop, the 1/4% Fund be spent on extending sewers (only), so there is no excess from which to "dip" into while upgrading our wastewater infrastructure, or returned to the taxpayer. The $29.4M be returned to the 1/4% Fund without borrowing. And the Reserve Fund be maintained, if possible, through responsible budget management.

I'm suspicious of most provisions of Proposition #5 because they allow an amount of latitude on how the money is used, who gets it, and why. Proposition #5 does too little to require fiscal responsibility or discipline. Smart planning, insightful zoning, and the courage to say, "no", to development that doesn't fit a Master Ground/Wastewater Plan are non-fiscal ways to achieve what Proposition #5 claims it can do with (our) money.