FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 2011 1:47 P.M. - New York State Assembly · 24/6/2011 · NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 24,...

1

FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 2011 1:47 P.M.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: The House will come

to order.

In the absence of clergy, let us pause for a moment of

silence.

(Whereupon, a moment of silence was observed.)

Visitors and members are invited to join members in the

Pledge of Allegiance.

(Whereupon, Acting Speaker P. Rivera led members and

visitors in the Pledge of Allegiance.)

A quorum being present, the Clerk will read the Journal

of Thursday, June 23rd.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Mr. Speaker, I move to dispense

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 24, 2011

2

with the further reading of the Journal of June 23rd and ask that the same

stand approved.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Without objection, so

ordered.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: In terms of the schedule for the

foreseeable future, the members have on their desks the main Calendar

and the A-Calendar. I move at this time to advance the A-Calendar.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Without objection,

the A-Calendar is advanced.

MR. CANESTRARI: I understand there are

introductions. If you have any introductions and housekeeping, I believe

there was to be one, maybe it hasn't materialized. All right. If there are

no introductions or housekeeping, we will go directly to the A-Calendar

and begin consenting the bills.

Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Proceeding to Page 3

of the A-Calendar, Rules Report No. 621, the Clerk will read.

THE CLERK: Bill No. 4643-A, Rules Report No. 621,

Burling. An act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in relation to

establishing a residential-commercial exemption program in certain

counties; and providing for the repeal of such provisions upon the

expiration thereof.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: On a motion by Mr.

Burling, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced.


3

Read the last section.

THE CLERK: This act shall take effect immediately.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: The Clerk will record

the vote.

(The Clerk recorded the vote.)

Mr. Burling to explain his vote.

MR. BURLING: Yes, please, to explain my vote, Mr.

Speaker. I want to thank Sandra Galef for moving this bill out of her

committee.

There's an article in one of our papers about what's going

on with Mount Morris and this Village. Greg O'Connell was a retired

detective from New York City. He got into the real estate business. He

did a project in Red Hook and in Brooklyn. He's going to do the same

thing in Mount Morris. He buys up properties -- this is a tax abatement.

He buys up properties that are rundown, that are depleted. He refurbishes

them and then he brings people in with small businesses at low rents and

he's revitalized different areas. This is a true economic resurgence in

Mount Morris and, to be honest with you, this would make a great model

bill for the whole State of New York to take a look at.

But, I thank my colleagues and everyone who was

involved. I thank the Speaker. This is very significant and it's going to

really help a small community that needs it.

Thank you very much.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Are there any other

votes?


4

The Clerk will announce the results.

(The Clerk announced the results.)

The bill is passed.


Abbate. An act to amend the Education Law and the General Municipal

Law, in relation to allowing school districts the option of amortizing

future payments to the New York State Teachers' Retirement System.


Abbate, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced

and the bill is laid aside.

THE CLERK: Bill No. 6766-C, Rules Report No. 623,

Brennan, Maisel, Benedetto, Rosenthal, Weisenberg, Colton, Paulin,

Jacobs, Meng, Stevenson, Cahill, Weprin, Linares, Millman, Robinson,

Schimel, Scarborough, Castro, P. Rivera, Kavanagh, Crespo, Jeffries,

Lancman, Clark, Moya, Abinanti. An act to amend the Executive Law,

in relation to a prohibition on diversion of resources from dedicated funds

derived from taxes and fees that support the Metropolitan Transportation

Authority or the New York City Transit Authority and their subsidiaries

in certain instances.


Brennan, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is

advanced.





5

the vote.


Mr. Brennan to explain his vote.

MR. BRENNAN: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. This

bill is supported by a coalition of organizations in New York State called

the Empire State Transportation Alliance, which ranges from the

straphangers to the New York Building Congress and would protect

future mass transit funding from sweeps by the Division of the Budget

and require an impact statement upon enactment of any further sweeps,

impact on mass transit and mass transit service in the metropolitan area

of the City of New York. I want to thank the organizations involved in

assisting my office and Senator Golden's office in producing this

legislation and I certainly prefer the debate we've just had to last night's

debate.

Thank you so much.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Malliotakis to

explain her vote.

MS. MALLIOTAKIS: Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. I rise to, number one, commend the sponsor of this legislation.

I think this is a very, very good piece of legislation and I was proud to

join you as a co-sponsor. You know, in 2009, when the State Legislature

voted to take away funding that was dedicated for transit funds and

moved it to the General Fund, I thought that was a wrong move. As a

result of that, the people in my district, who I didn't represent at the time,

lost eight buses designated in their community between Bayridge and


6

Staten Island. That was eight buses either completely lost or service cut.

So, I think that this is a very important measure to make

sure that money that we allocate for certain things stay there and are used

for those things and not taken for other purposes.

So, again, I commend the sponsor and I'm proud to see

that there are all green lights on the board. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Malliotakis in

the affirmative.

Are there any other votes?



The bill is passed.

THE CLERK: Bill No. 8424, Rules Report No. 624,

Crouch, Finch. An act to authorize the County of Broome to offer an

optional 20-year retirement plan to Deputy Sheriffs Richard Merrell and

Frederick Akshar.


Crouch, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced

and there's a home rule message at the desk.




the vote.




7


(The Clerk announced the result.)

The bill is passed.


Weprin. An act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to preventing certain

people from lawfully possessing certain rifles, shotguns, and firearms.


Weprin, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced

and the Senate bill is live.


THE CLERK: This act shall take effect on the first day

of November next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a

law.


the vote.


Mr. Weprin to explain his vote.

MR. WEPRIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like

to be excused from voting to explain my vote. This bill will close a

loophole in the law which will save lives. Under current law, felons can

legally possess certain muzzle loader guns and antique guns which

actually have been fitted to shoot. There have been two incidents of State

Troopers being shot in the last couple of years with these

legally-possessed guns. I just want to thank the Speaker and the Codes

Chair, Joe Lentol, and our Counsel, Jim Yates, for their work on this, as


8

well as the New York State Troopers' Association, who has been very

strongly advocating this bill for a number of years due to the two

incidents where two State Troopers were shot with one of these weapons.

I vote in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Castelli to

explain his vote.

MR. CASTELLI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in

support of this legislation. As you know, it was predicated, as the

sponsor mentioned, by the shooting of two State Troopers by black

powder weapons. As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and

the NRA, I want all my colleagues to realize that this is not an assault on

the Second Amendment; rather, it is a protective measure to close the

loophole that exists in the Penal Law under Section 265, criminal

possession of a weapon, to preclude people who are convicted of felonies

from possessing a black powdered-type firearm, which they already

would have been prohibited from possessing, were it a cartridge-type

firearm.

So, I am in support of this. I know the State Police are

in support of this. I thank them for their assistance. I want to

compliment the sponsor and I am voting in the affirmative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Saladino to

explain his vote.

MR. SALADINO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to

thank the sponsor and all of our members on both sides of the aisle for


9

this very important legislation. This bill is being forwarded and passed

now by true leaders, all of you, working together to correctly protect our

State Troopers and all in law enforcement. These men and women are

true heroes who protect us on our streets and everywhere from dangerous

felons. Also, the thoughtfulness in having legislation that is complete is

so important.

So, I, again, thank our sponsors and I thank people on

both sides of the aisle who continue to fight for the rights of hunters and

gun owners, but recognize that it, too, is very important that our

legislation protects those people who protect the rest of us.

So, thank you to all of you and I appreciate all you have

done on this legislation, especially at the harried time at the very end of

Session.

I will be voting in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Saladino in the

affirmative.

Mr. Joel Miller to explain his vote.

MR. J. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's

wonderful; it's wonderful, all you guys voted for this particular thing, as

did I. And to think that black powder guns are, of course, the most

dangerous things, I join with my colleague in thanking every one of you

from the bottom of my heart. I truly do. It is absolutely a terrific day in

Albany, a great day in New York and certainly, for all of those people

who face the dangers of felons running around with guns, this is

absolutely ridiculous -- important.


10

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Miller in the

negative -- I mean, in the affirmative.

(Laughter)

Mr. Gottfried to explain his vote.

MR. GOTTFRIED: I just thought it would be

appropriate to note that Mr. Bing is also voting for this bill.

(Laughter)


votes?



The bill is passed.


Lavine. An act to amend Chapter 474 of the Laws of 1996, amending the

Education Law and other laws relating to rates for residential health care

facilities, in relation to utilization of certified public expenditures for

certain payments to public general hospitals.


Lavine, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced

and the Senate bill is live.




the vote.


11





The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, we

will now go back to Page 3 of the A-Calendar, Rules Report No. 622

directly on debate, Mr. Abbate, please.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Proceeding back to

Page 3 of the A-Calendar, Rules Report No. 622, the Clerk will read.


Abbate. An act to amend the Education Law and the General Municipal

Law, in relation to allowing school districts the option of amortizing

future payments to the New York State Teachers' Retirement System.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Abbate, an

explanation is requested.

MR. ABBATE: Sure, Mr. Speaker. This bill would

allow school districts to amortize future payments to the Teachers'

Retirement System. I know there are some questions, so I'll go into more

detail, but right now it's very similar to what we did two years ago for the

counties.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Hayes.

MR. HAYES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the

sponsor yield for a few questions, please?


12

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Abbate?

MR. ABBATE: Sure.

MR. HAYES: Thank you. Mr. Abbate, you know, in

looking at this legislation, I have a couple of questions because it is

setting, to some degree, a precedent, a new and very dangerous

precedent, I believe, and so I want to make sure that we get on the record

a couple of key facts about this legislation. But, let me first begin by

saying I think you and I both agree that it's important to try to do

everything we can to help our school districts and, through them, the

taxpayers who support public education in this State and that you and I

are on the same page about that. Would you agree with me that that's the

overriding goal?

MR. ABBATE: That's what we're trying to do with this

legislation.

MR. HAYES: Okay. I agree with that very much,

except I don't believe that what's contained in this legislation actually will

help our school districts. What are the estimated costs to the local school

districts who would opt in to a borrowing process such as this? Is there

any indication of the additional interest costs that would be added, the

costs for bond counsel, the underwriting expenses of these bonds? What

is the actual estimate of the premium that will be added to the pension

payment as a result of this borrowing scheme?

MR. ABBATE: We assume with the market rate it

would be about five percent.

MR. HAYES: Five percent. Now, this is at a time when


13

the municipal market pays interest on municipal bonds much, much,

much lower than five percent because of their ability to offer bond

investors tax-exempt interest payments. So, the bond that gets offered to

those particular investors would take into account the fact that they don't

have to pay State or Federal income tax on that bond interest, but these

bonds are taxable; is that what you're telling me?

MR. ABBATE: These bonds are taxable, but this is no

different for ERS and the police and fire that we did on the county level

about 18 -- well, two years ago now. It's the same rate at five percent.

MR. HAYES: So, we're going to take the exorbitant

amount of increase in the pension costs that school districts are going to

face, we're going to add to that underwriting costs, costs of bond counsel,

all the costs of going into the bond market and borrowing this money,

analogous to somebody who goes and takes out a mortgage and pays

closing costs, then we're going to ask the school districts to come up with

a five percent coupon in interest to pay to the individual bondholders who

buy this, and this cost will then amount, at the end of the day, after the

15-year term, to be, what, double the cost that would initially be assessed

on the contribution?

MR. ABBATE: First of all, Mr. Hayes, we're not asking

the school districts to do anything. They have an option to go into this

program, and they have to decide when they look long range -- of course,

the pension payments are supposed to spike in maybe another two or

three years. It's their determination whether they want to enter into this at

all. We're not telling them they have to do it. And there is support. I


14

mean, the bill came to us by the Big Five school districts asking for this

legislation. It didn't come from anywhere else. They're asking; I'm sure

some school districts will opt in, other school districts will not opt in. We

assume that they have the appropriate people working at the school

boards to make decisions on a local level whether they should do this and

whether it helps the children in the school district, whether it helps the

taxpayer in the district, which way to go. So, we're just giving them an

option to do it. If it's not a good idea for them, they shouldn't do it.

MR. HAYES: And under normal circumstances, if the

school board or the local governing board decided that they were going to

go out in the bond market and take on indebtedness, that would be

subject, in a school district, to a mandatory referendum. I know every

year I get called out to go vote on a bond issue that's put out by my local

school district to buy a bus, to rehabilitate the cafeteria, to build an

addition on to the library. They ask me, as the taxpayer who's on the

hook for making these interest and principle payments, what I think about

it. But this particular bill would allow school districts to go into the bond

market and attain this indebtedness over a 15-year period without voter

approval; is that right?

MR. ABBATE: That's correct. And I assume, and I'm

not so sure, but since it was supported by the Big Five school districts, I

think they were looking, you know, how it was done in other areas and in

New York City, maybe they were going to copy that because in New

York City they do not have to have a vote on that. So, I'm assuming

that's where they came up with this language to do it that way.


15

MR. HAYES: Well, for the majority of the school

districts that are outside of New York City that would see the new

precedent set by this, I'm sure that the taxpayers in those districts would

see the precedent-setting nature of this, where operating costs of a school

district were bonded out over a 15-year term without voter approval, I

believe that most of those citizens would see this as a step backward into

back-door borrowing, that heinous practice that the State has employed

over many decades, and I'm not sure we want to set that precedent at the

local level with school districts. And since we both agree we want to

help school districts, isn't it true that legislation that was adopted in last

year's budget already allows school districts, if they choose, to amortize

their pension contributions to the system without going into the bond

market and paying that kind of interest rate over 15 years? They already

have the option to do this against the pension system; isn't that right?

MR. ABBATE: I'm being told that they do not fully

have it all. They do in some instances, not all, and they want a

clarification so they can do that now. You mentioned that, you know,

this is new and done. I mean, what we're trying to do this year -- and

we've had some success and hopefully in the next day we'll even have

greater success. You know, this is something new and different. We're

about to do a tax cap. Some people support it wholeheartedly. This is

the first time in the State in New York that we're trying something like

that. We are trying to give relief and mandate relief to our counties. As a

matter of fact, there was some discussion, when you talk about mandate

relief, that this might have been put in the mandate relief bill, but since


16

the bill wasn't done yet, it was brought up on a single piece of legislation.

So, I think people are looking at this as some mandate relief.

MR. HAYES: Well, it seems ironic that only in Albany

would a bill to increase the costs over 15 years exorbitantly on a school

district be sold to them as, in fact, mandate relief and something helpful.

We agreed we want to help the school districts; I disagree with you that

this would be something helpful. And it seems particularly ironic that a

bill like this would come before the House before the ink is even dry on

the agreement between the Speaker of this House, the leader in the other

House and the Governor on a two percent tax cap legislation. We're just

hearing now that that agreement is set in concrete. One has to wonder if

this bill is being rushed before us in order to do an end run or to

circumvent the intent of what Governor Cuomo has said to us that every

municipality and school district has to do in this State, and that is what

every business and every family has had to do, and that's to find a way to

streamline their costs, not simply put it on another new credit card.

So, it seems, you know, strange to me the timing of this

and the fact that this would be sold to school districts as an attempt to

help them, because the opportunity that we've already given them,

information I have says that very few, only 57 municipalities out of the

3,000 or so municipalities in the State, took advantage of the opportunity

afforded to them in last year's budget to amortize these costs. I think the

local-level people are looking at it, they're closest to the people, they

have to answer to them when they see them in the grocery store and in

the drugstore and they're not opting for this. They're telling the State this


17

is not helpful to us to be able to do this.

MR. ABBATE: Mr. Hayes, that is exactly what I said

before. We're giving them the local option to do it. If they do not want to

do it, that's fine. Some areas need it. I know there's been a lot of requests

from the City of Yonkers and the Mayor of Yonkers who actually put it in

his budget for next year. So, if a locality -- if only a handful of school

districts opt in to this, that's fine. But for those handful of districts, it

might be helpful. For other districts, you know, it might not be helpful,

they do not have to opt in to it. I think you made a good point there, that

56, you said, opted in to it. So, obviously, 56 localities thought it was

important for them to do it. Hopefully, the rest of those counties are

getting their house in order and figure they don't need to do this right

now.

MR. HAYES: Well -- and, hopefully, it's not a millstone

that got thrown to them rather than a life raft because, certainly, I think

that there are those of us who are very concerned about what that actually

means in added costs to them. It may be a short-term relief, but long

term it's going create all kinds of more difficult problems that will come

back to the taxpayer or come back to this Body and have to deal with.

I want to ask you, are you aware of what the rate of

increase is expected to be in pensions going forward over the next year or

the next two years, local pension contributions in the TRS system?

MR. ABBATE: Sure. If I'm not mistaken, the employee

contribution increase, it will be from 8.62 in 2010-2011, to 11.11 in 2011

and 2012.


18

MR. HAYES: And predicted the year following to be

over a 15 percent increase?

MR. ABBATE: Yes.

MR. HAYES: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.

Abbate.

Mr. Speaker, on the bill.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: On the bill.

MR. HAYES: Mr. Speaker, for all the wrong reasons,

this legislation is disguised as assistance to our local school districts.

This comes at a time when everyone in the State, from the average rank

and file property taxpayer straight up to our Governor of this great State,

has said municipalities and school districts have got to reform, they've got

to save money, they've got to find a way to right size their budgets to

what taxpayers can afford. I fail to see how issuing a brand-new credit

card and holding up in front of a distressed school district is something

that's going to help them, the children that they are serving or the

taxpayers who, ultimately, will have to foot the bill. If the State really

wants to help our school districts, we can get to the real business of

mandate reform and stop all of the cost increases that are being baked

into pieces of legislation that come from this Body and from the other

Body that heap cost after cost after cost onto the localities and the school

districts. The answer is not to simply give them a bright, shiny new

credit card, and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the

bill and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you.


19

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Molinaro.

MR. MOLINARO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the

sponsor yield for a few questions?


MR. ABBATE: Yes.

MR. MOLINARO: Thank you, Mr. Abbate. I want to

follow forward from where Mr. Hayes kind of left off in the area of how

this compares to other borrowing and how this compares to what this

Legislature did two years ago. And I want to do that because in

answering his question, and I'm sure you meant well, there's a little bit of

gray there.

MR. ABBATE: We always try to keep it gray.

MR. MOLINARO: Well, that's nice. In this case,

though, what this bill does is significantly different than that which we

approved two years ago. Two years ago, three years ago, this Legislature

approved a policy that would enable municipal entities to amortize their

pension contributions and your side of the aisle argued to level off or

smooth off the contributions; isn't that correct?

MR. ABBATE: Correct.

MR. MOLINARO: Okay. So, in that particular case, we

enabled municipalities to borrow against the fund, amortize their

payments, without any limit. In fact, they could do it year after year after

year after year until this Legislature revokes that policy; isn't that correct?

MR. ABBATE: That's correct.

MR. MOLINARO: Okay. And in that particular case,


20

when we allow those municipalities to do that, that was not at all subject

to the same approval process that borrowing under New York State

Finance Law for municipalities, school districts, what have you, would

require. A municipality in that case could merely pick up the phone and

say to the Comptroller, "We're going to amortize our payments;" isn't that

correct?

MR. ABBATE: That was correct.

MR. MOLINARO: Okay. But this bill, though, enables

for two years a school district to actually -- well, subsequent year, year

one, year two -- to go out into the open market and bond, actually

approve a 15-year bond to pay their pension costs; isn't that the case?

MR. ABBATE: Yes. It's a little vague. And I want to

tell you, you say two years. I'm not sure if it's just two years.

MR. MOLINARO: They could do it forever and ever?

MR. ABBATE: They can do it in a bond process. There

is an amount that they could borrow, at 125 percent. They can borrow a

little less one year, a little more, you know, bond out the next year. So, it

can be stretched out. It's the point, it might not be two years. But I know

what you're --

MR. MOLINARO: I understand that, and that actually is

another reason for concern because they can borrow 120 percent --

MR. ABBATE: 125.

MR. MOLINARO: -- 125 percent of the actual costs.

But what I'm trying to get at is this distinctly different. This is a school

board approving a bond, not merely amortizing their payment. They're


21

actually approving a bond, a debt mechanism, that they can then use to

pay 125 percent of their pension costs over the course of 15 years; isn't

that correct?

MR. ABBATE: That's correct.

MR. MOLINARO: Okay. So, isn't that different than

merely amortizing a percentage of one's pension costs? This is actual

indebtedness.

MR. ABBATE: I don't know if it's indebtedness. It's a

different way of doing it, but...

MR. MOLINARO: Not under New York State Finance

Law. Under New York State's Finance Law, for municipalities or

otherwise, in this case a school board would be empowered to vote to

actually get a bond and pay for operating costs.

MR. ABBATE: Right. And I think I explained before

that when they drafted the legislation and presented it to us, I think they

might have been trying to mirror what the New York City School

Board -- School District -- School Board does now. So, it is different in a

sense, it's just a different way.

MR. MOLINARO: I wonder why, and the amortization

plan that this Legislature approved was probably almost worse, but I

wonder why we didn't afford the same process in this case that we did for

those. At the very least, at the very least, what we did two years ago was

to enable amortization only on a small portion of pension costs. This

allows a municipality, the school district, to borrow all of their pensions

costs.


22

MR. ABBATE: No.

MR. MOLINARO: Yes.

MR. ABBATE: Only -- again, we're projecting -- let me

just get the numbers so I get it right again.

MR. MOLINARO: Peter, I want to be correct.

MR. ABBATE: The 8.26 percent, only the amount over

that they can borrow.

MR. MOLINARO: Yes, right, but this is an actual

letting of a bond and not merely picking up the phone, contacting the

Comptroller. I wonder if we wised up from two years ago and the reason

we don't want to do that is because technically we've enabled

municipalities to borrow against the fund with the program we approved

two years ago.

Secondly, though, and I think more importantly, the

distinct difference between what New York City school districts -- New

York City can do in the case of letting bonds for this particular kind of

purchase or expenditure, as Mr. Hayes mentioned, every other

municipality, including city school districts across the State, if they wish

to borrow for capital expenditures, that borrowing is subject to

permissive referendum, isn't it?

MR. ABBATE: Not the Big Five.

MR. MOLINARO: But everyone else?

MR. ABBATE: Everyone else.

MR. MOLINARO: So, everyone else in the State of

New York, if they wish to borrow money, that borrowing, if you're a


23

school district, is subject to mandatory referendum, isn't it?

MR. ABBATE: Right.

MR. MOLINARO: And in this case there is no such

requirement.

MR. ABBATE: That's why, as I keep saying, the

legislation was brought to us by the Big Five.

MR. MOLINARO: I understand, but this is going to

empower every school district in the State, should they wish --

MR. ABBATE: And the school --

MR. MOLINARO: -- to indebt their community,

circumventing what is the mandatory referendum process that we require

if they buy a truck, if they buy a bus, if they borrow for six years, they

have to go to the public for referendum. This does not require that.

MR. ABBATE: It's only pension. It's not buying a truck

or --

MR. MOLINARO: Peter, I want to be clear. If it was

for anything else, a school district would have to subject that bond --

MR. ABBATE: Correct, okay, on that.

MR. MOLINARO: -- to a mandatory referendum. This

circumvents that requirement.

MR. ABBATE: I don't know if it circumvents it.

MR. MOLINARO: This doesn't have that requirement.

The public has no say.

MR. ABBATE: No, the public has a say. They elect the

school board members. You would put trust. They elect you, they elect


24

me.

MR. MOLINARO: I know, 13 percent of my voters

show up to vote in a school board election. But nevertheless -- so, in that

particular case we circumvent that process. And isn't it true that even for

town and village governments, should they wish to borrow for greater

than five years for a purchase, that that's at least subject to permissive

referendum?

MR. ABBATE: I'm being told that they do not have to

put it out for a vote, that the local Body can vote on it.

MR. MOLINARO: They're wrong. I respectfully

disagree with your counsel and your staff. If a municipal entity borrows

money for a capital purchase and they wish to borrow for five years or

greater or greater than five years, it is subject to permissive referendum.

There is no option unless it's a school district that wants to beautify its

buildings. That happens to be the language in New York State Finance

Law.

MR. ABBATE: And he's saying the local Body, you

know, local Body can vote on it.

MR. MOLINARO: Has he served on a village board?

I'm sorry, I'm telling you, based on what is New York State law, we

believe -- unless you can quote otherwise. Point to the --

MR. ABBATE: I think he is a legislator.

MR. MOLINARO: My point being that in every other

case, respectfully, a municipal entity --

MR. ABBATE: Yeah.


25

MR. MOLINARO: So why we would not subject this

borrowing, which is for an operating expense, why we we not subject this

to permissive referendum or mandatory referendum, especially, Mr.

Abbate, if this is being done to accommodate a tax cap, if a municipal

entity wishes to exceed the tax cap, a school district, it goes out to the

public for consideration. Why we would not offer them the same right?

MR. ABBATE: And I think, as I said earlier in the

debate, that this year we were trying a lot of new procedures and things,

first-time tax cap, a lot of other procedures. We are trying to experiment

with ways to see how we can help, help the children and the school

districts.

MR. MOLINARO: This bill is being adopted before or

after we've considered a tax cap? Have we voted on a tax cap?

MR. ABBATE: We haven't voted on one yet.

MR. MOLINARO: Okay. So, this bill attempts to

establish relief for something that doesn't yet exist. It's an interesting

step.

Let me ask one last question.

MR. ABBATE: No, no. I think this --

MR. MOLINARO: Does the bill in any way change the

pension system? Does it offer any relief other than the ability of a school

district to borrow money? Does this bill change the way in which school

districts pay to the fund, any other way?

MR. ABBATE: No.

MR. MOLINARO: No. And if a school district already


26

is amortizing its payments for its non-teacher employees, are they

prohibited from borrowing for their teacher employees?

MR. ABBATE: No.

MR. MOLINARO: No. So, they can amortize

limitlessly for their non-teacher employees and this bill would enable

them to borrow for 15 years their operating expense and put it out to the

taxpayer for 15 years.

MR. ABBATE: As I said earlier, they would have to

make the decision if it was prudent do that.

MR. MOLINARO: I appreciate --

MR. ABBATE: If it was not, they shouldn't do it. We

heard my colleague say that when we did the legislation two years ago

that 56 localities thought it was a good idea to do, others didn't. On this it

might be a handful of school districts that would do it and others would

say, you know, let's see how it works to see before we make a decision.

What we're doing here at the request with of some of localities, almost

like a home rule, people are asked -- you know, school districts are

asking for an option to do it. We're giving them that option. If it's a bad

idea, I'm sure most of my colleagues here are very active with the local

school boards in their district, they should be at some of the meetings

when this is discussed and people should listen and see if they think it's a

good idea in their area. Maybe if you look at it and you think it might be

a bad idea, I think you should give your opinions at the school board level

and let people know, you know, if it's a good idea or a bad idea.

MR. MOLINARO: Thank you, Mr. Abbate.


27

On the bill, Mr. Speaker.


MR. MOLINARO: To suggest that we're offering this as

a potential relief because the next step is a property tax cap and then to

suggest that only a few school districts might take advantage of it is not

an argument that makes a lot of sense. The truth of the matter is, it seems

to me, that this is bad public policy. It is worse than what we did two

years ago. What we did two years ago was to enable entities to borrow

against the fund. Not only does that indebt future generations of

taxpayers, but it weakens the solvency of the retirement fund. This on

top of that is bad public policy. We are enabling, through this legislation,

the ability for a school district to circumvent public consideration and

indebt their taxpayers for 15 years to pay for an operating cost, to pay for

a pension cost instead of truly getting to the heart of the problem, which

is we have a State government and a State system that is outmoded,

antiquated and costly.

Instead of focusing on real mandate relief, we're merely

enabling school districts to indebt their taxpayers, ultimately weakening

their own financial stability in order to pay for an operating cost that we

continue to avoid, a cost that rises year after year after year because we

won't confront the problem. And what this will do is, ultimately, force

school districts to borrow money when they shouldn't be borrowing it. If

there's a tax cap coming, and I hope that we get to vote on such a big or

little ugly, this will ultimately force school districts to borrow money, to

borrow and borrow and borrow again while they continue to borrow


28

against the fund. It's bad public policy, it's bad finance and, ultimately, it

takes this Legislature off the hook when it comes to substantive,

comprehensive mandate relief and for that reason, I'll be voting in the

negative and urge my colleagues to do the same.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Gantt.

MR. GANTT: Thank you very, very much, Mr.

Speaker. Through you to Peter, if he will allow me to ask a couple of

questions.


MR. ABBATE: Yes.

MR. GANTT: Peter, who does this bill cover? Does it

cover just the Big Five or does it cover all --

MR. ABBATE: It covers all school districts except New

York City.

MR. GANTT: And does this bill require that all of them

vote on whether or not the bonds go out? Let me tell you the reason I ask

you that. The reason I ask the question, I know the Big Five does not

raise the money in their districts where they are where some of the central

school districts, they do. That's why I have a real problem with that

which is being done because I know my mayor has -- has the mayor a

letter of support?

MR. ABBATE: I don't have a letter of support.

MR. GANTT: Did any of us ask the Big Five mayors

whether or not they wanted this?

MR. ABBATE: Not that I'm aware of.


29

MR. GANTT: So, this bill came in --

MR. ABBATE: The Yonkers Mayor did send a letter of

support.

MR. GANTT: Yonkers sent a letter of support?

MR. ABBATE: Yes. Now, whether the mayors wanted

to or not...

MR. GANTT: I can almost tell you that I don't think my

mayor was ever contacted. As you know, there was just a big discussion,

argument on this floor yesterday about sales tax from Monroe County

versus some other stuff and school districts that do the wrong things and

all of that stuff. And I think this particular bill here is just another way

for those who sit on the school board to get around the mayor and the city

council, by the way, who has to raise the money in order to get this done.

This is a sham. We ought not have this bill on the floor and I particularly

am going to vote against it. And the reason that I say that --

MR. ABBATE: David, before you go any further,

excuse me. I'm just saying that before the school board can issue the

bonds, they do have to get the approval of the mayor.

MR. GANTT: They have to get the approval of the

mayor. So, do they have to get approval of the mayor for that issue

which was right here on this floor yesterday and that was called the

maintenance --

MR. ABBATE: Whatever.

MR. GANTT: -- maintenance of effort bill and also the

school reconstruction bill. I can tell you that the school board members


30

go out, they make obligations that people have to pay, whatever, after

talking to them, and even though in my town they had an $80 million

hole, they were still willing to go out and do it. I think we have a

responsibility to stop that sort of irresponsible spending that school

districts do, given the fact that somebody else is going to get caught with

it. The mayor and the city council are going to get caught with raising

taxes on those people who were there. I can tell you, the city council also

and the mayor has a $50 million hole. How is it that we can allow people

to go out and borrow money on issues like this rather than pay up-front?

You and I cannot do that. You see Governor Cuomo doing it, you see

Governor Christie doing it, you see the people in Colorado doing it.

Everybody's trying to get spending under control today, yet, we would

allow those individuals -- I'm talking about the Big Five in particular

because I don't know enough about the smaller school districts, but the

Big Five in particular, we allow them to put somebody else on the hook

for it. I happen to be a big taxpayer in my city and you know what? I

don't get a chance to vote on that which they will do. And you can say

that, hey, the city council can vote on it and the school board can vote on

it. But guess what? I, as a taxpayer, don't get a chance to vote on it and

I'm tired of obligations that people are putting on me and, as I said, the

city council and the mayor because even when they disagree with them,

the best they can do is send it back to them and then they just send it right

back.

So, we ought to stop this. I suggest to you that maybe

we ought to just table this bill until we talk to the other councils and/or


31

their mayor to see whether or not they're on board with this particular

bill. I suggest to you also that the reason Yonkers may have signed on,

there's a special reason that walk these halls every day, and we ought not

allow them to obligate all the other districts in this State under this kind

of sham, and it's not because I'm telling you you put the sham in, but I

believe it's a sham, and we ought to just stop it. We ought to be

responsible. The Governor's trying to do it, we're trying to do it, the

Senate's trying to do it. We're saying that, you know, we can no longer

afford this stuff and that's probably the reason they're trying to put the

sham in, but I think you're heading down a road that will allow people to

do the wrong things in this State and I would hope that you would at least

table this bill until you can get some other things.



MR. GANTT: It's my intention, fellow legislators, to

vote no on this bill. It's not often that I agree with my colleague on the

other side of the aisle, but this is where we agree. While school districts

may be different in terms of how it gets there, the fact is it still gets there

and there's an obligation that's being put on all of us to pay bills. We see

across this country people today saying hey, enough is enough already

and the taxpayers and the voters are saying that to all of us. It's not just a

few, and we ought not let people hide, particularly Big Five people, hide

behind the fact that they can go out and do this kind of stuff and give

away money all the time. I can tell you that one of the things that I've

asked the Comptroller and others to do is to look at the 25/25 -- I mean,


32

$25,999. What that simply means is I give away a million-dollar contract

and I give away a slot to $25,999. The board does not even know what's

going on within those school districts. Now, if we don't stop it, nobody

else is going to stop it. We have to make sure that people manage money

well. You can be poor and manage money and get very wealthy at it. I

know some people in this Chamber who have done exactly that. But

we're never going to get there. Our districts are never going to get there.

Our taxpayers are never going to be happy as long as we continue to push

bills out like this that allow other people to sham us. And my suggestion,

Mr. Abbate, is that we ought to do exactly that. We ought to pull this bill

down, we ought to contact my mayor in particular and my city council to

see whether or not they are on, along with the other Big Five. Yonkers is

a different story, and I think we all understand why Yonkers is there. So,

Peter, thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I vote in the negative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Murray.

MR. MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the

sponsor yield, please?


MR. ABBATE: Yes.

MR. MURRAY: Boy, where to begin with this one. A

couple of questions. First, just to clarify, what school years are we

talking about?

MR. ABBATE: '11-12, '12-13.

MR. MURRAY: Okay, so a two-year period. Now how


33

much over that period? How much are we talking about money wise?

MR. ABBATE: What do you mean, "money wise"? For

each district?

MR. MURRAY: No, no, no, overall, how much are we

talking about? We're bonding out. How much would we be bonding out

over a two-year period?

MR. ABBATE: Nothing. Each district, school district,

would decide what they want to bond out. We don't, you know, so there's

no --

MR. MURRAY: That's kind of my point. My point is

that we have no idea, because we don't know if every school district

would participate, we don't know -- I've heard estimates that if every

school district did participate, to cover the increases that are projected we

would be talking somewhere in the area of a billion dollars, possibly a

little bit more. But right now we have absolutely no idea because we

have absolutely no idea who would participate. Am I off base?

MR. ABBATE: Yeah.

MR. MURRAY: How am I off base?

MR. ABBATE: I just don't understand it.

MR. MURRAY: How am I off base?

MR. ABBATE: We don't know, you're saying if

everyone does. This is giving a school districts an option if they want to

borrow.

MR. MURRAY: Right.

MR. ABBATE: We're doing legislation to give them the


34

option, not how much it is going to be, how much they want to do. We

want to give them local authority to do it.

MR. MURRAY: Right.

MR. ABBATE: So, when you come up with numbers --

if no one does it, it costs nothing.

MR. MURRAY: You see, I'm kind of thinking in terms

of I have to look at the worse case in case everybody does because I and

all of my constituents and everyone in this room, everyone in the State of

New York is going to be on the hook to pay this bill. So, my point is we

have absolutely no idea.

MR. ABBATE: Not everyone in the State. Only those

localities that opt in to it. Not everyone in the State is going to be -- you

know, we can go on, you know.

MR. MURRAY: We can, because we don't have an

actual number and that's my point. It's a bit irresponsible to do this when

we have absolutely no idea of what number we're going to be talking

about when we're adding to debt.

MR. ABBATE: Okay.

MR. MURRAY: So, you know, again -- let me move on

from that. Let's move on from that because --

MR. ABBATE: Good idea.

MR. MURRAY: -- we've been talking about tax cap and

you actually brought up the tax cap issue in your explanation and the

Speaker's tax cap bill actually carved out an exemption for anything over

2 percent regarding pensions, correct?


35

MR. ABBATE: Right, but it's been brought up a

number of times, the tax cap. This has nothing to do with the tax cap.

Actually, this legislation was proposed before there was even talk of a tax

cap. There was talk last year on this and all. We're doing something like

this. So, I don't understand the bearing on the tax cap.

MR. MURRAY: Once again, you're absolutely right. It

has nothing to do with the tax cap because, again, what we're doing here

is we're setting up a reserve fund, correct?

MR. ABBATE: I don't know if it's a reserve fund; is it?

Okay. Staff is saying it can be.

MR. MURRAY: It's a reserve fund. 125 percent in the

reserve fund to cover any increase over the 8.62 percent. Now follow me

here. The 8.62 percent is the baseline right now, so that is not covered

under any tax cap that would come in the future because we're only

talking about a tax cap on increases, correct?


MR. MURRAY: Okay. The estimated increase from

'10-11 to '11-12 is 2.49 percent. So, without an exception for pensions, if

it were a hard line 2 percent tax cap we would be talking about .49

percent or half a percentage point, basically, that would be above the tax

cap.

MR. ABBATE: They would have to include 2 percent

of the growth into the cap if it were enacted.

MR. MURRAY: But what we're doing now with this

bill is we're setting up a reserve fund so anything over the baseline, the


36

8.62 percent right now, any increase on pensions for those will be paid by

the reserve fund, thus bypassing any tax cap whatsoever.

MR. ABBATE: No. The repayment would be within

the cap.

MR. MURRAY: No, the repayment, once we start

getting the interest and the bond debt that we have to pay there, that

would start a year down the road, but what I'm saying is this first year we

would completely bypass any tax cap whatsoever with teacher pensions.

MR. ABBATE: I don't think the cap's going to start this

year. I don't think the tax cap begins this year, so they're both going to be

in line, if enacted, they'll both be at the same time.

MR. MURRAY: Okay. Not this year. Let me rephrase

it. The first year, because the first year we wouldn't be paying the debt

obligation, correct?

MR. ABBATE: There will be no tax cap.

MR. MURRAY: So, we're getting a pass on the first

year. The second year we start kicking in, but that goes into the whole

bundle of the 2 percent increase anyway.

MR. ABBATE: But that would be the first year of the

tax cap.

MR. MURRAY: And we're only talking about the debt

obligation that we would be paying, not the total increase of pensions,

correct?


MR. MURRAY: So, it's a fraction anyway. So, what


37

we're doing, as my colleagues have said previously, we're kicking the can

down the road. We're stretching this thing out to fit this if, if we get a tax

cap this will fit to circumvent it.

MR. ABBATE: Let's leave the tax cap out for a second.

But you're right, it is stretching it out. I agree to that. And if it's done

properly, the payoff on time, there is nothing wrong. If it's not done

properly -- and we might disagree on it -- but if it's done properly and the

people making the decision in that locality think it's going to help them to

get over some short-term problems they're having, then it would be a

good idea. If it's -- that's all I'm saying.

MR. MURRAY: Here's the thing. No, I'm not going to

forget about the tax cap because I wouldn't still be standing here if we

weren't talking about a tax cap. This has taken forever to put this thing

together. We had better come up with a tax cap because close of 80

percent of New Yorkers want a tax cap this year and they want --

MR. ABBATE: I'm not saying not to be for it, I'm just

saying it has nothing to do with this.

MR. MURRAY: Yes, it does, and I'll tell you why:

Because the taxpayers are saying, "Stop kicking the can down the road."

They're saying bring costs under control and the way they want us to do it

is in the form of a tax cap. What we are doing here with this bill is we

are circumventing that, circumventing the will of the taxpayers by saying,

"You know what? We're going to amortize it, we're going to stretch it

out, we're going to put us further in debt and it's going to cost us 15 years

down the road." My grandkids will be paying for it. I mean, come on.


38

We're doing exactly what the taxpayers don't want us to do.

MR. ABBATE: I just don't see it that way. I watched

the vote last night. Most of my colleagues, our colleagues in the other

House, are big supporters of the tax cap and they voted on this bill.

MR. MURRAY: With all due respect to my colleagues

in the other House, I'm worried about the people I represent, I'm worried

about this House.

MR. ABBATE: But some of those represent the same

people you represent, so I wouldn't say it's trying to circumvent. I don't

think they thought it was circumventing it when they voted on it.

MR. MURRAY: With all due respect, it's absolutely

circumventing it because it's setting up this reserve fund so we can get

around any tax cap that we would put in place anyway, so we're giving

them a pass on this.

You had mentioned that the school districts had

requested this from you, correct?


MR. MURRAY: Okay. Did they request any kind of

pension reform? I mean, were they -- I guess my point is they're asking

for this because they needed pension relief, but were they asking it to

avoid pension reform? Because we've got to reform it.

MR. ABBATE: I would assume that the same people at

the school board, the Big Five and the other school boards, and I know

they have, have put in memorandums in support or opposition to a

number of bills and especially on the Tier VI proposal and mandate


39

relief. So, they're looking for mandate relief. They're looking for relief

on pension costs and they're also looking for this. So, they're basically

one in the same people looking for different ways to help themselves out

down there.

MR. MURRAY: Absolutely.

MR. ABBATE: They're not different groups, so it's the

same people that you're talking about that want the tax cap, who want

pension reform, mandate relief, that want this. It's the same people that

want all of those.

MR. MURRAY: Of course they do because they've

backed themselves into a corner right now with a pension system that's

been bloated and needs to be reformed desperately. So, what we're doing

here is we're not even tackling. You had mentioned Tier VI, you had

mentioned some of these things. Why isn't that on the floor? Why aren't

we debating that right now? Why aren't we talking about true pension

reform before we talk about a bill that's allowing them to circumvent that

and kick the can down the road again?

MR. ABBATE: Because I think this bill was put out,

like I said, over a year ago and we have had time to look at it, staff has

worked on it, spoke to people. The Tier VI bill that the Governor put out

three weeks ago, we didn't have enough time to look at it and all.

Something like this that's been out there and analyzed and studied, got

some opinions back and forth and the reason they're saying Tier VI, it just

came a little bit too late in Session. It's something you can't do in three

weeks. You know, when you're doing a tier system -- and I'm getting off,


40

but when you're doing a tier system, you know, we can't do it as a budget

amendment every year and that's what the tiers are becoming, budget

amendments. If we're short money -- but that's another day.

MR. MURRAY: You know what? You bring up a

funny point, because you say that we can't do it in three weeks and we

can't keep doing budget amendments. This is what we've been doing

anyway, and we keep putting Band-Aids on bullet wounds instead of

fixing the problem. The problem, as my colleague had said earlier, this

didn't sneak up on us. This has been building up. We knew what was

coming but we're still not even taking steps, we're still not bringing true

pension reform to the floor for we date. We're talking about another

Band-Aid for the school districts but, unfortunately, this is an extremely

expensive Band-Aid to the taxpayers because we're stretching it out over

15 years and the interest we're going to pay on that. Where are we 15

years from now when we're backing doing the same thing because we

didn't reform the pension system, asking for more Band-Aids? I shouldn't

even say 15, I should say two years from now.

MR. ABBATE: As the tier -- on the pension system,

that's for another day, and you can't do it. I've got to tell you, I don't put

things out here that are done in three weeks. If you look at some of the

bills that have come before this House on pension legislation, they're in

their second and third and fourth year before they get passed or not

passed. Very few things come up on pension legislation or something

like this that's really done on a month or three-week basis. It's a little

more technical and complicated to get something like that done, or this,


41

in three weeks.

MR. MURRAY: Mr. Abbate, listen, I appreciate it. I

know you put a lot of hard work into this. I know this isn't something

that you just threw together at the last minute. I know you put a lot of

hard work in and I do appreciate and I respect your point of view. We

disagree on this because I think this is the wrong approach, but I do thank

you.



MR. MURRAY: As I said, I appreciate the hard work

and everything you put into it. I know you're standing up for something

that you think might help, but I don't think this helps. This is the same

exact thing we continue to do. We're kicking the can down the road,

we're increasing our debt, we just continue to do this. When does it stop?

When do we say enough is enough? And probably the biggest problem I

have with this is exactly what we were saying about the taxpayers and not

having a referendum on this. This will be a bond issue where we're just

ramming it down their throat, like it or not. It's that simple. We're giving

the total decision to the school districts on whether or not we are going to

take on this debt to relieve the pensions that many believe are a bit out of

control right now. So, by circumventing the taxpayers, by circumventing

the tax cap, I think we're doing the exact opposite of what we need to be

doing here.

The taxpayers, as I said before, 70 to 80 percent of New

Yorkers say they want a tax cap. The tax cap is relief. What they're


42

really saying is we just want relief. This is the exact opposite of what

they're asking for by adding to the debt. So, for that reason and just a

host of others, but mainly for that reason, I'm voting against this bill and I

urge my colleagues to do the same thing. Take a stand and say enough is

enough. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Cahill.

MR. CAHILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the

sponsor yield to a couple of quick questions?


MR. ABBATE: Yes.

MR. CAHILL: Peter, Mr. Speaker, Peter, this legislation

is not a permanent bill, is it? It has a sunset?

MR. ABBATE: No. The other one wasn't either.

MR. CAHILL: For how long?

MR. ABBATE: Well, we're talking two years. The

amount that they can borrow, they're going to hit a point where they

cannot borrow as much.

MR. CAHILL: So, it's a two-year proposal?

MR. ABBATE: Yes, two years. But I would say it

could probably go to three or, tops, four. I want to be very honest about

it. It says two.

MR. CAHILL: Peter, is there anything unusual about

this particular period of time that would lead us to have to give this

extraordinary power to these school districts?

MR. ABBATE: Yes. This is the time where we assume


43

that the pension costs will spike up, so we're trying to get them over that

hill. So, once they start going down it will be a lot easier for them.

MR. CAHILL: Thank you. Peter, just to clarify a point

that was raised by a couple of people in a previous portion of this debate,

I'm not in a big city, Big Five or Big Four, in this case, city school

district, but are you familiar with the means by which Big Four school

districts borrow money? Does it go before the voters?

MR. ABBATE: I'm being told it does not.

MR. CAHILL: It does not go before the voters. It goes

before the city council, correct?


MR. CAHILL: And would this circumstance also

require the school districts to go before the city council and seek that

approval?

MR. ABBATE: Yes, it does. Like I explained to our

colleague Mr. -- well, my colleague from Rochester.

MR. CAHILL: And it would also be subject to

executive mayoral approval, correct?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Gantt why do

you rise?

MR. GANTT: I rise to make a correction.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Gantt, you can't

do that. You have to ask Mr. --

MR. GANTT: That's fine. That's fine. Thank you. I'll

do it later.


44

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Continue, Mr. Cahill.

MR. CAHILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was

really just a point of clarification on -- I know, and I was not referring to

the colleague from Rochester's comments on his school district, I was

talking an earlier part in the debate where it was indicated that borrowing

always goes before a vote. My understanding was it does in the smaller

city school districts but in the big city school districts it does not. That

was -- so, we agree on that.

Peter, you also indicated that there are spikes occurring

in the pension. Why are there spikes occurring in the pension at this

point in time?

MR. ABBATE: Well, what's happened -- well, that goes

to the whole system itself. What's happened over the years, because of

the recession we were in and the return on the investments on the market

led to circumstances where the percentage paid has gone up and it's

based, usually, on a five-year amortization. Hopefully, as we saw last

year, the market, and if the market does good, the projections are that it

will be going down after that period of time.

MR. CAHILL: Thank you, Peter.



MR. CAHILL: This may seem a little bit of a stretch,

but I think we can connect this to something we did a lot of over the past

couple of days. Many, many of our colleagues have presented before this

Body legislation to temporarily increase the sales taxes in their


45

communities, to temporarily increase the mortgage taxes in their

communities, to temporarily increase or maybe in the case of hotel taxes,

to permanently increase them. The justification given for those taxes was

that there was some budget anomaly that had to be addressed, that there

was some circumstance that required attention and fiscal relief for a

temporary period of time so that the local government could get their

fiscal house in order and everything would be okay in a while. That's the

argument that's made. That argument was made almost 20 years ago, in

my experience, on some of these taxes and those temporary taxes

continue to this day. Something that was put in place to take care of

something temporary became something permanent in the government.

So, if I were one of these school districts right now that

was anticipating a pension problem down the road and a tax cap down

the road, maybe what I would do, as quick as I could, is go out there and

try to increase my budget as much as I could to cover this cost for the

future, or what I would do is go ahead and pierce that cap or come back

to this Legislature next year and talk about how it bankrupted us and I

need some tool to increase my budget, for all intents and purposes,

permanently, permanently to address a temporary problem. And this is a

temporary problem. Local governments and school districts got a free

ride on the pension for over a decade, just as we did in State government.

They didn't contribute. The only entities contributing were the people

who were earning that pension. That came to a halt about a decade ago, a

short time ago.

Pension costs are reflective of experience and that


46

experience includes a wave of retirements and we are seeing a wave of

retirements right now. It's not a fact that we're making up for the

purposes of this debate, it's an experience that we're having across this

country, and we're seeing a spike, the spike that our colleague mentioned

earlier, in the number of people that are retiring at a very high rate of pay.

Now, we've put in place since this group retired a number of different

pension reforms, a number of new tiers to reduce that exposure, most

recently just in the last year or two. So, we have every reason to believe

that these pension costs will level out. So, the cost side is spiking

upwards. The expense -- the way we pay for it, in addition to the

contributions, is that investments are made and we've since seen some

pretty shaky ground on the investment front over the past decade, and

particularly over the past couple of years. Really great years, really bad

years, really bad years, unprecedented bad years. The closest we've seen

was the Great Depression. So, the investment side of the equation has

seen an anomaly that needs to be addressed.

So, we have a choice here today. One of those choices is

not ignoring the problem, that pension costs have temporarily spiked

literally out of control for some municipalities given the circumstances

that we're in in some school districts, given the circumstances that we're

in. And we can address it one of two ways: We can give those school

districts and local governments a permanent tax increase to pay for it, in

which case they'll come back next year and find some other way to spend

that money, it will become the new base higher up, or we can give them a

temporary tool to patch over this once and for all, get through it and then


47

get back to normal. Will it cost a few dollars more? Yes, it will.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Hayes, why do

you rise?

MR. HAYES: Would Mr. Cahill yield for just one

question?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Cahill, will you

yield?

MR. CAHILL: Absolutely.

MR. HAYES: Mr. Cahill, are those the only two options

we would have to give to school districts either to permanently have a

force of increased revenue or this option to temporarily borrow? Are

those the only two options?

MR. CAHILL: No, Jim, that's certainly not the only

two.

MR. HAYES: Because you presented it to the House

that as if it was an either/or proposition. I'm just wondering, would you

include the possibility of streamlining the budget expenditures of the

various municipality in that choice we would give them?

MR. CAHILL: There's no question about it that that

should also be something we should be doing separate and apart --

MR. HAYES: Thank you very much.

MR. CAHILL: Separate and apart from this discussion,

we should continue the discussion about how we streamline, how we

contain costs, how we make our education system, in particular, more

affordable. But, we're talking specifically about this unusual cost and


48

how do we deal with it. And in the case of this unusual cost and in the

case of the -- in the Big Four school districts that I was talking about

earlier, some of those folks don't really have a lot of room to cut. There's

not a lot of places to cut without having a 40- or a 50-student classroom,

without abandoning the idea of educating our children all together. So,

we have two options: Give them a permanent tool to increase their

budgets permanently or give them a temporary tool to overcome this

expense. I suggest this is an entirely rational approach, this is in the best

interests of the taxpayers because, rest assured, if we don't do it, it's going

to be just like those temporary sales taxes that we pass -- temporary.

Temporary, my foot. Every two years they'll come back to us because

they will not fix that problem. We will have given them a means of --

MR. MOLINARO: Mr. Speaker, would Mr. Cahill yield

for a question?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Cahill, will you

yield to Mr. Molinaro?

MR. CAHILL: Sure.

MR. MOLINARO: Has this Legislature approved a

sales tax increase this year for any municipality, an increase, or have we

approved extensions of existing sales taxes?

MR. CAHILL: Well, gee, Mr. Molinaro, I don't know.

About a month-and-a-half ago I heard an argument that we were going to

be increasing the tax on millionaires because we wouldn't let the

millionaire's tax expire.

MR. MOLINARO: I'm happy to listen to the rhetoric.


49

I'm asking you a simple question.

MR. CAHILL: I'm not talking about rhetoric either.

MR. MOLINARO: I'm just asking a question.

MR. CAHILL: I'm talking about apples and apples. I'm

answering your question. I'm talking about apples and apples.

MR. CANESTRARI: Mr. Speaker, can we remind our

colleagues to give each other a chance to answer each other's questions

and proceed accordingly?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Very well taken, Mr.

Canestrari.

MR. CAHILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, if a sales

tax expires and this Body is called upon to start it up again at the point of

the expiration of that term, I fail to see the distinction between that and

the expiration of a tax on millionaires that we want to continue.

MR. MOLINARO: Does a single county in New York

State have the ability to permanently establish that sales tax increase?

MR. CAHILL: I believe they do not.

MR. MOLINARO: Right. And why is that?

MR. CAHILL: Because the Legislature has chosen to

not give them that authority.

MR. MOLINARO: Thank you.

MR. CAHILL: So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, in

conclusion, I suggest that we be rational and reasonable and give our

school districts a temporary tool to deal with a temporary problem, not a

permanent tool to deal with a permanent problem that will come back to


50

bite us in years to come.

I urge colleagues to support this legislation.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Joel Miller.

MR. J. MILLER: I love when we compare apples to

apples, especially when one apple is an orange and then we pretend it's a

grapefruit. I could assure you there is no correlation between the sales

tax that we just heard about and this particular thing, and why is that?

Because the sales tax in these counties have remained level year after

year after year, including that increase. It hasn't been a sudden thing, but,

even more importantly, it's not because county governments have been

raising their expenses to the point where they can't really afford anything,

they're just asking for the tax revenues to at least stay the same. It's

totally different.

And let me ask Mr. Abbate a question on this.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Abbate, do you

yield?

MR. ABBATE: Yes.

MR. J. MILLER: Is it at all possible that considering

that pension costs will be levied against school districts in almost every

year because the exceptions that happened to pass probably will not

happen again, that they pay a pension cost every year, is it at all possible

by adding debt service to what is an annual cost that we are going to do

this without raising the cost to the taxpayer? Every year it comes back

and now you've got to add debt service on top of it.

MR. ABBATE: Right, but the cost -- since we intend it


51

to spike in the next few years, as the pension costs go down, all right,

they might be paying the debt service, but the pension costs have gone

down and in that instance, I think that the taxpayer will not get an

increase in taxes.

MR. J. MILLER: Are you familiar with the reports that

come out of Washington at the beginning of the month? They say the

economy is improving, everything is getting better, we're getting out of

this recession. At the end of the month they say we were wrong on all of

those forecasts, unemployment is going up, that the deficit is growing,

that the economy is slinging. You've read that on a regular basis. Are we

really going to bet everything on a quick and easy increase in our

economy when we don't manufacture nearly anything? Everything we

buy comes from China. There's unemployed people that are not paying

taxes and now we're going to borrow money?

So, let me ask you, the money that we're pretending to

save -- because unless the price goes up -- but the money you're

pretending to save or the burden you're removing from the school

districts, where is the rest of that money going to go or are they going to

have no money? In other words, they have a budget and they're supposed

to pay their pension, but they're not going to pay the pension, the increase

in the pension, which will probably be larger next year, they're going to

borrow.

MR. ABBATE: They're going to borrow to pay a

portion of their pension cost over the year, over a period of time.

MR. J. MILLER: Right. And then the next year they're


52

going to have another pension cost.

MR. ABBATE: Which, hopefully, in a number of years

will be lower.

MR. J. MILLER: Hopefully. Hopefully.

MR. ABBATE: Well, according to statistics right now,

the pension costs, as I said, it was amortized over five years, the

projections, the projections are that the costs will be going down.

MR. J. MILLER: Are the salaries of the people working

in the schools increasing at an inordinate rate? The original projection

for school inflation used to be 7.5 percent, total budget. Now it's down to

5 or 6 percent, only four times the CPI. When 85 percent of that budget

is salaries, it's impossible that the other 15 percent rose by 30 percent, so

it's salaries. If the salaries keep going up and the pension is based on the

salaries and no one wants to cut the number of teachers in the school --

and I'll give you an example. In the last ten years, in spite of the fact that

we lost 240,000 students in our school system, there are 25,000 more

people employed by our school districts around the State, and all of them

are earning bigger and bigger salaries and they all come under this

pension system. How is the pension cost going to decrease if we're

constantly paying more and more money to our staff and increasing the

number of people in the staff?

MR. ABBATE: Well, the responsibility on the school

boards -- and as you've seen through this year, that increases are not

coming forth, not only to teachers, but not to State workers over the next

several years.


53

MR. J. MILLER: And how does that fit in with the fact

that we are in this particular problem today, in spite of the fact that we

knew it was a problem last year, we knew it was a problem the year

before and people complain about their school taxes every year, yet,

those responsible school board members, what, their heads were in the

sand or even worse, somewhere else, and so they continued to do this? I

mean, at what point do they stick their head out the window and say it's

raining? But I mean, these are people who, "I wanted to go on the school

board because my kid didn't get in a play." "I wanted to get on the school

board because my kid wasn't allowed on a football team." "I wanted to

go on the school board because I don't want them to spend anything." "I

was supported by the teachers' union, they gave me everything I needed

to run, so I'm -- " this is the responsible board that has failed year after

year after year and suddenly, this is the same board that's going to go out

and borrow money to pay their current costs and you're calling that

getting more responsible ?

MR. ABBATE: Well, I wouldn't characterize -- I don't

know your local school boards, but I wouldn't like to characterize all the

boards throughout the State, and I don't know if your colleagues would

say their school boards are made up of people like you just said. You

would hope there would be competent people on the school boards

throughout the State and they would make a reasonable decision. If

they're not and they're in your community, I would hope that the local

officials in that community would speak up and say something about

them.


54

MR. J. MILLER: In my district, the teachers' union

picks three people to run each year, and as was pointed out before, a very

small percentage of people come out to vote and they didn't come out to

vote because the budget that would be put in place if they didn't vote was

only $3 less, and so they didn't do that. The contingency budget system

was a joke. But, it is not just my school that saw that rate of inflation.

According to the Commissioner of Education, throughout the State the

average cost of school inflation was 7.5 percent. So, don't -- you know,

let's not single out my school district. You're going to include 700 school

districts in this plan; not just five cities, but 700 school districts where

people should have been allowed to vote and in all cases, their school

boards were running an inflation rate in education that was three and four

times the rate of the CPI and you're telling me only in my district they

were irresponsible and in the rest of the State they were responsible?

MR. ABBATE: No, you said they were. You brought it

up.

MR. J. MILLER: No, you did. You did. You said you

hoped that that was the experience I had and you said if you ask the

people in the rest of the room they would have another story.

MR. ABBATE: No, Mr. Miller, you mentioned that you

had somebody who ran for the school board because their kid didn't get

on a team, someone ran for this reason. I didn't bring them up and I said

we hoped they wouldn't.

MR. J. MILLER: Yes, but the main issue was they have

no capacity to run $170 million, a $70 million or $50 million program


55

and the proof in the pudding is that the problems that my property

taxpayers have are the same problems that the property taxpayers have

everywhere in the State, except where the State pays 80 and 90 percent of

the taxes. But you're the one who is saying the school boards are

responsible and I'm saying to you there is a plethora of evidence to show

that they have never been responsible.

MR. ABBATE: Mr. Miller, first I want to clarify, I did

not, you know, again, say that your school board was incompetent. I was

just responding to the three or four examples of people who, I assume

you were saying, ran for the school board in your area. You also said that

three members are put up by NYSUT to run each year. Now, I'm not that

familiar anymore with school board elections in New York City, since

that was done away with, but I know when there were school board

elections in New York City, and if you had a point of view like I did,

there were members that we ran for the school board that, I felt, that I

supported that were competent at the time. So, if that's a problem you

can run more competent people.

MR. J. MILLER: I am not concerned with New York

City alone. The 700 school districts that are outside New York City that

are run by school boards that I have described have increased the cost of

education to an unbelievable extent.

On the bill.


MR. J. MILLER: Mr. Cahill was questioned about

whether or not two different types of tax increases or two different types


56

of expense, one temporary and one permanent, were the really only

answers to the problems. I would suggest that now that school teachers'

salaries on an annual basis, on an hourly basis, is approaching $50 an

hour, more than physicians make in my area, and they don't have to pay

for health insurance, they don't have to -- well, a minimal amount for

health insurance. Their retirement is covered, whereas other

professionals have to really put money aside. Their continuing education

is covered. These are people who, as important as they are, are

bankrupting this State with salaries that the taxpayers can't afford and

pensions that no one can afford. And it seems to me that we've had years

to think about this. This didn't just suddenly happen yesterday. And with

years to think about it, the only solution we have come up with is to

borrow more money. Mr. Abbate said that they have been looking for

relief from the pensions, and I will say that the relief they have been

looking for is to have the State pick up that cost.

You know, we talk about local control, but it's kind of

funny. These school boards come up with budgets that they know they

cannot afford. They absolutely know they can't afford them. They

increase teachers' salary at a rate they know they can't afford and then

they turn to the State and say, "Give us the money." Well, that's not truly

local control. We don't ask our kids to determine their weekly allowance.

And when someone said "responsible," you know, the idea that if you put

a kid in a candy shop, that kid is going to eat all the candy they can,

whether it's healthy or not. School boards will take advantage.

When we had our late budgets, when we had our late


57

budgets, one year we advanced September's payment to June, making

school boards more flush with cash than they had ever been, and a whole

bunch of school districts went out and borrowed money and the excuse

for borrowing money to get it passed was that, after all, the State budget

is late. Well, yes, the State budget was late, but your payment was made

early and they still went out and borrowed money. They are not

responsible. If they had been responsible we would not be where we are

today, and I think this is a very dangerous precedent.

The United States pays $500 billion a year in debt

service. The estimate is by 2040 the entire budget, if it stays the same,

will be debt service. New York State pays $9 billion a year in debt

service. Debt service can kill you. Ask the people who use credit cards.

The the idea of making it this easy to borrow more money to add that

expense to what's already expense is a ludicrous idea, and if we really

want to protect the people from people who spend their money, this bill is

not the way to do it.

Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Brennan.

MR. BRENNAN: On the bill, Mr. Speaker.


MR. BRENNAN: Let's talk about education for just a

moment. In the State budget this year we cut education spending by $1.3

billion, and as we look ahead to next year, the implementation of this

property tax cap of 2 percent will conflict with the two-year spike in the

employer contribution, the school district employer contribution, related


58

to the downturn in the stock market which is going up from 8.62 percent

to almost 15 percent over the next two years. As a result of that, the

property tax cap that we presumably will be enacting shortly will have

some portion of pension costs exempt from the cap, but not the entire

thing, meaning that the pressure to continue to cut education, to cut the

workforce, to lay off teachers, to reduce programs and services for the

school children of this State will continue both next year and the

following year. And so, in an effort to allow for the smoothing of these

pension costs in order to reduce the pressure on school district budgets

next year and the following year, we are proposing to enact this piece of

legislation. It's a rational and intelligent approach to a very significant

problem involving a conflict between the property tax cap and the spike

in the pension contribution. This legislation is very limited in its scope.

It has a cap of 125 percent of the pension costs for the '12-13 school year.

Any school district can take advantage of it or not, and limits that

borrowing to this two-year spike.

So, I should just mention that over the past several

weeks we have authorized with a nearly unanimous vote, several towns

that were being hit by court judgments, litigation that resulted in very

substantial judgments against some of our municipalities, and I believe

the legislation, or those particular bills, were being brought to our House

by members of the other side where we were allowing those communities

to borrow money to deal with a major spike in their costs that would

otherwise harm the services available to the particular people in those

towns. And so, we permitted those towns to borrow money. And


59

similarly, school districts are facing serious financial issues related to the

--

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Lopez, why do

you rise?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Will the speaker yield for one

question?

MR. BRENNAN: Yes.

MR. V. LOPEZ: Jim, many of us have concerns about

the 2 percent cap and its impact and it's tied into this bill that people are

talking about, the big ugly. But can you explain something to me? If we

have difficulty with a 2 percent cap -- and I know this is not related to the

cap -- but let's assume we're going to do that bill, because if we don't do

it, we can think ahead. How in the world, since most of us feel you can't

live within that 2 percent cap and even the teachers' union feels it's an

impossible cap. So, now what we're going to be doing, based on this bill,

and I understand the concept, I'm not too sure what I'm going to do, but

we're going to add a burden, right, an additional burden? So, right now if

I'm School District A, I amortize two years and I have to pay it back. The

debt service will then be part of, I assume, that 2 percent obligation; is

that correct?

MR. BRENNAN: I don't know if you're -- the way

you're describing the math is correct, but yes, there will --

MR. V. LOPEZ: No, I'm saying, if you borrow money,

if I'm School District A, I borrow, you know, up to two years, or I lay out

the payment for 15 years, then I have to pay it back, right? I think I do.


60

MR. BRENNAN: Yes.

MR. V. LOPEZ: And then when I pay it back every

year, I assume that's part of the 2 percent. So, doesn't that somehow run

contrary to our arguments that it's impossible to live within the 2 percent

right now -- fuel, teachers' salaries, expenses? So now what the districts

will do is borrow up-front, pay the debt service, increase their, I assume

-- and I'm not a lawyer, you are -- that that obligation probably takes

precedent over any other, so how do we manage that? How do we

manage a 10 percent debt payment per year, or 8 percent, and that being

part of the additional financial burden, and that lies within that 2 percent,

right?

MR. BRENNAN: Yes, that's true. But, generally

speaking, the amounts of money in debt service that the school district

would have to pay are relatively minimal in relation to the savings that

they would get from the spike in the pension contribution over the next

two years. That's why this legislation is intelligent and rational, because

the amounts of money involved are so disproportionate versus the cuts

that might have to take place if we didn't do this legislation.

MR. V. LOPEZ: But stay with me, because I've heard

arguments from people like yourself, and legitimate ones, that it's

impossible to live within the 2 percent. It's very difficult. And even the

unions that might want this are arguing against the 2 percent cap and

they've come to me. So -- but now, even if it's minimal, we're going to

add an obligation to that 2 percent cap that everyone feels is impossible

to meet. Now, Peter, very smartly -- and he is very intelligent, I mean,


61

he's from Brooklyn -- said let's not talk about the tax cap because it isn't

in place yet, but in an hour it will be, and thinking -- or two hours, God,

hopefully --

MR. BRENNAN: Mr. Lopez --

MR. V. LOPEZ: -- we will have a cap and we'll

increase, because I know Peter will pass this bill, we will have then in

certain communities with their full support, an additional burden that

these groups are obligated to for 15 years, I think. So, even if it's

nominal, doesn't that hurt?

MR. BRENNAN: Mr. Lopez, you are our Housing

Chairman and very shortly, presumably, you will be defending the

renewal of the rent laws and the affordability component of the rent laws

in a piece of legislation which will also include the real property tax cap.

MR. V. LOPEZ: Right.

MR. BRENNAN: Can I expect that you will be voting

in favor of that piece of legislation that you will be defending on the floor

shortly?

MR. V. LOPEZ: I will be defending the rent regulation

piece of it.

MR. BRENNAN: Yes, but you'll be voting yes on the

property tax cap because it will be included.

MR. V. LOPEZ: Well, the issue here is -- that's a good

point you make, but you can't trap me. I have a bill that has five or six

components to it and so -- and it's very smart that there are five are or six

components because I can't vote for --


62

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Molinaro, why

could you rise?

MR. MOLINARO: I love these two speakers very

much, but I'm not sure if we've stayed on the reservation or perhaps gone

a little bit beyond the topic at hand.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: I think Mr. Lopez --

MR. MOLINARO: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we

beyond the issue at hand?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: I think Mr. Lopez

was bringing it back.

MR. BRENNAN: Mr. Speaker, I refuse to yield further

to Mr. Lopez.

MR. MOLINARO: Time out, time out, Mr. Speaker.

Point of order. Are we debating the bill before the House or an issue

beyond --

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Yes, we're debating

the bill before the House.

MR. MOLINARO: Really?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Yes, we are.

MR. MOLINARO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. V. LOPEZ: Boy, oh, boy. Again, let me say this,

touche. From the streets of Brooklyn, what goes around comes around

because people better stay within their subject matter because my point

is, you know, very much -- with due respect to the other party, maybe I

might be more on topic than some of the other people. I don't want to


63

personalize it. I'm talking about the impact of the 2 percent and us

paying increased debt obligations and that will have an impact on a very

small, limited number. I think that's very clear. I did it reasonably well

and I take exception to that point of order. But, since I'm just, you know,

an individual member, I'll move on.

I believe this: What you're defending is problematic to

the point of the conflict with the limitation of the 2 percent. If someone

said to me here that if we did do this, the districts that do that will be

allowed the difference, even if it's .3, .4 percent, that it would be in

addition to their 2 percent cap, then there would be some reasonable logic

behind it. But we're eating that 2 percent, or whatever that figure is,

because the bill isn't yet out, but we're eating it away and, hopefully,

there's not another bill that comes up that takes another piece of that 2

percent. That's my argument. You know, you have a difference of

opinion. I yet can't figure that out. So, if someone later on could help me

out. The only subject I was good in wasn't English, but it was math. And

that's on the topic, because this is 2 percent, that if we add a burden to the

district, and that's an obligation, this is an additional obligation, I believe

it has to have an impact on that 2 percent limit. So, if some other time

someone could explain that it doesn't, I would appreciate it.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Thank you.

MR. BRENNAN: Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Losquadro.

MR. LOSQUADRO: Thank you. Maybe we can

actually ask the sponsor a question.


64

Would the sponsor yield?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Abbate.

MR. ABBATE: Yes. I was about to leave.

MR. LOSQUADRO: Just a quick question. Did any

local school board outside of the big districts, did any local school board

request this ability?

MR. ABBATE: There was some that were inquiring

about it, not...

MR. LOSQUADRO: Inquiring?

MR. ABBATE: Yes. What would it do, how would it

work, how would it affect them, you know, but...

MR. LOSQUADRO: But none of them actually

requested that this be put forward?

MR. ABBATE: I've got to tell you, not only on this, but

very rarely on any legislation does an individual school, a school district

-- the school board --

MR. LOSQUADRO: You answered the question, sir.

Thank you.

MR. ABBATE: The School Board Association is

neutral on it right now. But, very rarely do they come up and -- they

should, maybe.

MR. LOSQUADRO: Question asked and answered. I

actually don't have any other further questions for the sponsor.

On the bill.



65

MR. LOSQUADRO: Thank you. We've heard lengthy

debate over this and I don't want to repeat too many points because I

thought the Band-Aid on the bullet wound analogy was one that was

fantastic. One that I thought of was one I've heard in this Chamber many

times, which was it's not the fault of the homeowner, it was the banks that

lent the money to them in the first place. They shouldn't have been the

predatory lenders. Well, we are giving people the ability to borrow,

throwing a life preserver to people in a pool that the State created in

which they are drowning. I cannot fathom that we are going to continue

to go down a road that we know leads to failure. TARP, ARA, monies

that were poured into failing efforts that we are going to be on the hook

for as a nation, as a state, for decades; numbers that cannot even

calculated accurately at this time and when and if we are going to be able

to pay off that debt service and how is it going to cripple the future of this

country. The fact that we are going to go down that same road and give a

local district the ability to borrow and not give them any solution to the

actual problem is unfathomable.

I urge my colleagues to listen to some of the comments,

some of the very rational comments that have been made by members on

both sides of the aisle. This is the wrong approach. We need to offer

solutions. We don't need to offer short-term -- not fixes, short-term

punts, to use a football analogy. Kick it out two years, hope things get

better. Well, you know what? I served as a county legislator for seven

years, and when we first saw this downturn, all the forecasts said it will

be short term, borrow some of that money up-front, use your cash


66

reserves. We were fortunate. We had strong cash reserves in Suffolk

County. We used our cash reserves up-front and said we're going to

weather this storm. Well, guess what? It didn't get any better and we are

banking on the fact that these forecasts, which have not come to fruition,

are somehow now magically going to get better in the short term. It's not

going to happen. This is not a solution. We need to put forward real

mandate relief and a real ability for schools to manage their own

expenses. If we do not do that, we do that at our own peril because we're

all taxpayers paying for each of these individual school districts. I

strongly urge a no vote.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Spano.

MR. SPANO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the bill.


MR. SPANO: You guys know how much I love getting

up. I thought it was important to get up to speak a little bit about how

this bill would directly affect the 25 students that attend the Yonkers City

School District. You know, this has been a year about making hard

choices, and I know that. We stood shoulder to shoulder when we went

and we passed the Governor's budget and we made substantive change.

We also did a budget that didn't borrow, didn't raise taxes and we made

the cuts we needed to make and we did it together. We made rational

choices, and I believe that this bill is a rational choice. Let me explain.

You know, the Mayor of Yonkers came up to see me, the Superintendent

of Schools came up to see me and he said, "Let me tell you what's going


67

on in Yonkers so you can understand. Loss in Federal aid and State aid,

$30 million to the school district. Pension cost spikes, health care costs

rising, a growing population." The Yonkers City School District grew

this year by 1,500 kids and we, at the State level, did not give one red

cent towards those increases. As you know, the cost is about $20,000 per

child in the City of Yonkers. So, as a result of everything I just described

to you, the City School District is faced with an $80 million problem, an

$80 million problem, and I have to tell you what that means to the local

property taxpayers -- probably a 25, 30 percent property tax increase if

we were to try and just deal with it, or make major cuts to the School

District. What does that mean? The cuts or this: We eliminate pre-K,

we go to a half-day kindergarten program, we eliminate all after-school

programs, every single after-school program is gone. Every sporting

event and all sports in the School District are gone. Now this is the City

School District where we will look at our children. Most of our children

are children of color. Most of our children are in the lower part of the

economic range. We will look at our children and say, "Well, you know

what? Make ends meet. Make the cuts." And then what do we do?

So, the Mayor came to us and his first proposal was this:

He said, "I want to do a transitional finance authority which would allow

the City of Yonkers to borrow money for operational expenses." Well,

we rejected that. We told the Mayor, "Go back to the drawing board.

We are not going to allow you to borrow money for today's expenses.

We're not going to let you do it." The Comptroller was with us and the

rest of the delegation. We rejected it and we told the Mayor to go back


68

and figure out what you're going to do, with the Superintendent. Now

mind you, 700 layoffs, 30 percent of the school district employees, is

what we're faced with here. So we asked the City to sharpen their pencil,

to figure out a way to redesign how they offer education in our City.

They came back with a different proposal. In part, will be this

smooth-over, which will mean about $5 million in borrowing for the City

School District. But, as a result of this legislation passing, we will restore

at least a half-a-day pre-K program. We will go back to a full-day

program of kindergarten. We will still lose sports. We will still lose

after-school programs and we will still lose 400 City employees. Four

hundred people will still get laid off who right now work in the City

School District. Now you say let's cut the fat. Last year Yonkers cut 450

positions out of the Yonkers City School District, 450 positions. That's

close to 1,000 positions when our enrollment has gone up 1,500. What

else do you tell the people of this City? What else can I tell them?

Property taxes are going up this year 5 percent. That's $400 for every

single homeowner in the City of Yonkers.

So, what I'm asking for is a rational approach. I'm

asking for a little help. It's not going to solve the problems of the City.

What it will do is provide Yonkers with a little bit of a softer landing.

They still have a lot of work to do to bring their fiscal house in order, but

this $80 million problem will be reduced to us dealing with this

$5 million amortization. That's why I'm asking for your help. I know the

road is long. I know we have a lot of work to do and I know we will

expect our localities to live within their means. I bought into that 100


69

percent, but they can't do it all now and they can't do it in one year. So,

I'm asking for your support on this bill because with this it will at least

allow the school district to operate, not exactly where we want to operate.

Again, our kids won't have sports and our kids will not have after-school

programs, but at least they'll have a full-day pre-K. With your help and

your support we can see that happen.

That's all I need to say about the bill. I'm just asking that

you support it. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Montesano.

MR. MONTESANO: On the bill, Mr. Speaker.


MR. MONTESANO: A couple of comments were made

as far as giving the school districts the different tools they need to help

themselves through these financial crises but, you know, most recently --

and then I'll go back to some of the other stuff -- we heard all the

complaining that went on with the recent school budgets, and a lot of the

school districts, especially on Long Island, had to make some tough

decisions. They incorporated into their budget the reduction of

personnel, some changes in curriculum offerings and likewise. Now that

the budgets have passed, in the last two weeks in the Nassau and Suffolk

newspapers we have the reports that all the superintendents have now

gone to their school boards to seek their raises, and in more than several

cases these superintendents have now received raises because of the

fantastic job they did in the passed budget vote.

In my school district, the arrogance of the superintendent


70

there was to give every teacher a 3.5 percent raise, a 2.9 percent STEP

increase, not reduce staff, not reduce any personnel, raise the budget 2.87

percent to a total tax increase of 4 percent. There's nothing that ever goes

on in these school districts that persuades them that they have to take

affirmative long-step action. Once the crisis passes, they're back to their

old routine. I served on a school board, a served as a president and a vice

president, I oversaw bonding issues that went out to expand the school

district, to expand our buildings. Every time and time again the question

of salaries -- the budget in our school district for this year, 87.5 percent of

the budget is dedicated to salary and benefits alone. Only the rest of it

goes to curriculum and to the students. This is a problem that is ongoing.

If the five big school districts need this help -- because they are very

large, they have very large enrollments, they're different than the

out-of-borough school districts -- then this bill should be just for them

and should carve out all of the school districts because you cannot

deprive the voters of the referendum on this bond the way this statute

does.

In the past, a lot has gone on with the pension problem.

Most notably is the salaries that are paid, the benefits that are allowed to

be added in, the selling of sick time back to the district, unused vacation

and everything else that they get to inflate the pension, but most notably

it's been the State in past years when times were very good that gave

them all a pass to the municipalities and school districts. You don't have

to make your contribution this year, the pension fund is doing

phenomenal. Don't even send in your payment. Use it for something


71

else. And we allowed that to go on for several years. You know, there

was the boom and now there's the bust and we're stuck with it. But, to

allow them to take out loans of the magnitude they're going to have to

take out, the cost of the bonding and everything else that goes with it, the

5 percent carrying charge a year, is going to put them in more debt than

they're ever going to dig themselves out of, and the taxpayers are going to

be continually responsible for it.

The school superintendents, if there's one thing they do,

they do very well and they're very creative in their expenditures and their

budget creations. They can hide things. They can move things from line

to line, they give it a different name. And after the budget is passed they

just shuffle the shells and reallocate the money.

While there are some school districts that are in dire

need of help, this is not the way to give it to them. The five large districts

very well may need the help. Mr. Spano laid out a dire situation in the

Yonkers School District and problems need to be addressed there. So,

we should leave this bill just strictly to those large school districts.

Also, a lot of these schools incur larger expenses

because they far exceed the requirement offerings that they give to the

students and their curriculum that's set forth by the State Education

Department. They give triple the amount of cost that they need, triple the

amount of electives. They hire the extra teachers. They provide for

many different programs that are not necessary to give a student the core

education needed to go on to college. So, there's a lot of cost trimming

they could do in the district. There are a lot of ways to bring down the


72

pension contribution and that's to stop the padding in the pension and the

increase in the salaries.

So, as was noted by one of our colleagues before, we

should listen to everything that was discussed today. Maybe the sponsor

would consider carving out the other school districts or just let this bill be

limited to the five big ones that need it, since the other local school

districts haven't asked for this. The New York State School Boards has

not entered into a position into this and, surprisingly, we haven't heard

from NYSUT on this matter and we should just leave it to the Big Five.

So, I will be voting in the negative on this and would ask my colleagues

to consider doing the same.


ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Lavine.

MR. LAVINE: Will the sponsor yield?


MR. ABBATE: Yes.

MR. LAVINE: Peter, in the part of New York that I

represent, which is northeast Nassau County --

MR. ABBATE: Is this the question you asked me when

you were sitting next to me?

MR. LAVINE: This is a little different because I don't

want to make it too easy. But, in the district that I represent, which is

northeast Nassau County, and I share the North Shore District that my

colleague from the 15th District just discussed, which happens to be a

magnificent school district. In my district, I have a very interesting mix


73

because I have some of the wealthiest school districts in the country,

including Jericho and Syosset, and I also have districts that struggle to get

by, including my own district in Glen Cove where half of our kids are on

free or reduced lunch, and Westbury, which has been struggling for years

because of the lack of an economic base. So, I have this dichotomy. I

have got the very wealthy and the very challenged. You know, for the

life of me I can't imagine why any one of the wealthy districts that I

represent would ever want to take advantage of this kind of a plan or

proposal to amortize the payments for the pensions that are going to come

due over the next three years. And am I mistaken? Can you think of any

reason why the wealthier districts of the 800 or so that we have in New

York would want to get involved in this?

MR. ABBATE: No. I think it would be districts who

didn't have to borrow wouldn't be borrowing. If they were a wealthy

district I don't see the need from them to avail themselves of this option.

MR. LAVINE: And obviously, those that are --

MR. ABBATE: The poorer districts, you know, trying

to get over for a short period of time and some people call it a quick fix

or something, but as my colleague from Yonkers said, it's important to

some areas that would really need this for a couple of years.

MR. LAVINE: Thank you, Mr. Abbate.

On the bill.


MR. LAVINE: There's no text without context. We

didn't get into this predicament in our struggling districts, except for the


74

fact that we face a grave economic crisis. And if I'm not mistaken, when

I was involved in local government in the early 2000's we were overjoyed

that we wouldn't have to make as great pension contributions for our

employees as we had before the year 2000. So, this was just great. It

was, in essence, "Fat City" for us in local government. Now, major

changes to the pension contribution plans in New York State occurred in

the year 2000. And I have to say that for the free market, the true free

market advocates, and many are my colleagues on the other side of the

aisle, that they alone were not responsible because this was a bipartisan

screw up of monumental proportions. In 2000 we changed the rule that

had required those who paid into their pension plans, public employees --

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Miller, why do

you rise?

MR. J. MILLER: Would Chuck yield for a question?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Lavine?

MR. LAVINE: No, I will not.

MR. J. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: That's for you.

MR. LAVINE: So, those who had been in the system

used to pay. Now, in 2000, a year in which the State made remarkable

improvements, remarkable improvements, to PEF public pension plans

which were pushed not only by the Republicans, but by the Democrats as

well, we ended that at 10 years. So, public employees stopped making

their contributions after 10 years. So, everything was fine as long as the

economic boom was continuing. And those were the same years in


75

which we used to hear people say how very important it would be

because everyone's 401(k) was skyrocketing, that how important it will

be that we change Social Security to a 401(k) plan. That we don't hear

too much anymore, and nor should we hear it because economic reality

has hit us all very, very, very hard.

Now, here's the situation: If this bill will help those

districts which are going to be -- those down-and-out districts which are

going to have a monstrous, monstrously difficult time complying with the

tax cap that we will be imposing at some point in the next -- probably in

the next hours -- if this bill will help them to get by the requirement that

we have to make enhanced contributions to our pensions over the course

of the next few years, then I don't see any problem with it. I don't see any

need for hysteria in suggesting that every district in the State of New

York is going to take advantage of this; in fact, it will be very, very few.

Those who will will need it and they will need our help.

And to end my comments, we will soon debate a tax cap

bill. It's going to cause profound change to the way New York State has

funded its public schools and its municipalities over the course of our

history, and I have a real fear. The fear is that those districts that have,

those districts that are wealthy, will have no problem whatsoever passing

school budgets that are in excess of 2 percent with a 60 percent override,

and those that do not have will never come close because those are the

districts that have a tough time passing their budgets right now. So, my

fear is that the gap between the haves and the have-nots is going to

continue to grow, and I would hope that we will each in this room


76

recognize that the only way that we will be able to temper that expanse

from developing into dangerous proportions will be by pledging to make

sure that New York State funding is there to help fill the gaps in those

districts, to help fill the needs of the disadvantaged districts, and I will be

voting for this bill for those reasons.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

MR. FITZPATRICK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before

I start, I would like to ask that the air conditioning be cranked up because

of all this hot air that I'm hearing in defense of this legislation. I say that

half in jest, but full in earnest, because when we talk about haves and

have-nots in the State of New York with regard to education, the haves

are the members of the teachers' unions. The have-nots are the taxpayers.

There's one reason why this bill is being pushed today. We hear a lot of

noise in this building coming from the other side because all the attention

is diverted to a particular issue. And what a great opportunity to ram

something like this through that would force taxpayers to pay for a

borrowing. You never borrow to pay retirement costs. Never. And, yet,

we did two years ago and we're going to do it again today. And we're not

going to give the voters, the school districts taxpayers, the opportunity to

vote whether they want to be saddled with this debt or not.

This bill is being passed because the teachers' union does

not want to contribute to the economic well-being of this State and of the

districts in which they work. That's why this is happening today. This is

an organization that wants unfettered access to every wallet and

pocketbook of every taxpayer in this State. It's wrong. It should not be


77

passed. Our Governor's credibility is at stake if he signs this bill, in my

opinion. This should not be happening, and it's happening at the end of

the Session. I was going to say "in the dark of night," but it's during the

day, at least, thank goodness. But, this is the wrong way to deal with this

problem.

People expressed concern about increased class sizes

and layoffs and things like that. Well, let's give the school districts the

tools they need to solve these problems. They asked for Wicks reform.

They asked for relief from the Triborough Amendment. They asked for

pension reform. Let's give it to them. Then you don't have to worry

about those other concerns. And the tax cap, it will work just fine

because it's going to force those players to the table to start having a

serious discussion about dealing with these very serious structural

problems. Borrowing is never the answer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I urge a no vote. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Abinanti.

MR. ABINANTI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too,

represent the City of Yonkers and I have had an opportunity to observe

what is happening to that school district and I share Mr. Spano's

concerns. We must remember that the purpose of school districts and the

purpose of schools is to educate kids. Kids go through the school system

only once. It's not fair, it's not right and it's immoral to say to any

generation of kids, "You're not going to get as educated as well as any of

the others or any of those in the future because for whatever reason, the

money is not available today." And I agree that bonding costs like this


78

are a terrible way to solve the problem, but I'm more concerned about the

kids who are in those classrooms today and making sure that they get the

basic, sound education that they're supposed to have, and it's the

obligation of this Legislature to make sure they get it. And if we're going

to cut the monies out of the budget and not give them the monies they

deserve, then we have got to at least let the local school districts have the

flexibility to do what's necessary to give those kids the education they

have to have.

I am surprised to hear so many of my colleagues who all

talk about let's give the local government the options, let's give them the

flexibility. But here we are saying we don't want to give them the

options. We don't want to give them the flexibility. We created this

problem and now we don't want to give them the tools to get out of it. It

is our Comptroller that is assessing the costs on these school districts.

We are cutting the monies to these school districts. We are constantly

putting mandates on these school districts. That's the fact. This is where

we are today. We have got to find a way to let them get by this problem.

And if you take a look at what's going on in the economy today, that's

what's special, that's what's unique. This is not about whether we like our

local school districts, whether we think the people who are running those

school districts are stupid or if we have had past experiences with them.

This is about the kids that are there today and giving the local

governments, the local school districts, the options to get out of this mess.

There's one other thing. There's a misimpression out

here, and that is when we talk about the pension increases being very


79

small, we go from, what was it, 8 to 11 or something, like it's a 3 percent

increase. That's not a 3 percent increase, that's 3 over 8. You've got to

look at the actual numbers. Those are very significant increases to

budgets that are not geared to take these heavy increases at this time. So,

we have got to give them an opportunity to get by this very bad time so

that in the future we can deal with the structural problems.

I'm speaking in favor of this, Mr. Speaker, and I urge all

of my colleagues to pass this to help our local school districts to get by.

And by the way, it's not just the City of Yonkers and the big school

districts. I have got some numbers here from one of my wealthier school

districts where they're talking about very significant increases because of

the mandated costs that they have, the structural costs. I have a school

district with a $50 million budget, $56 million. This year, pension, health

insurance, unemployment and contract obligations totaled $2.1 million.

It's not the same big problem that Yonkers has, but it's a wealthy school

district and a small school district. They had to cut and they came out

with a 1.2 percent increase in their budget. To get to that they had to cut

out some $2 million, which came out of education, the types of things

that you would use every day to teach kids. So, these fixed costs are

hurting not just the City of Yonkers, but they're also hurting the small

school districts in the nearby communities.

So, I urge that we pass this temporary measure and give

them a chance, give them some breathing room until, hopefully, we get to

better times. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Hanna.


80

MR. HANNA: On the bill, Mr. Speaker.


MR. HANNA: Thank you. One of my colleagues from

Yonkers painted a little while ago a very grim picture of what's going on

in Yonkers with their school budget there, and he listed a whole series of

remedial steps that had to be taken to try to bring the numbers in order,

after-school sports going away, pre-K being eliminated, kindergarten

going to half-days and so on and so forth. But in that entire list, one thing

that was noticeably absent was any reference to concessions by the

teachers or the teachers' unions. Didn't even mention it. As was alluded

to earlier, the overwhelming majority, in some cases 87 percent, of school

budgets are comprised of teacher salaries and teachers' pensions costs.

You cannot bring the numbers in line unless and until you get those costs

under control and, to date, the Majority in this House has been unwilling

or unable to stand up to the teachers' union and say, "Look, you have to

come to the table. You have got to be part of the solution."

Mr. Abinanti expressed great concerns for the kids in the

districts. We cannot serve the children in our school districts and we

cannot serve the taxpayers as long as we continue to yield without

exception and without reservation to every demand advanced by the

school teachers' unions. Those are the costs that have to be brought

under control. And this bill, if and when it's passed, will only delay the

day of reckoning. It is going to push it down the road. It is going to

allow school districts to continue to ply teachers and teachers' unions

with more and more benefits, with more and more costs at the peril of our


81

kids and at the peril of our taxpayers.

This is not something that should go forward. It's

something that we really need to defeat this afternoon because if we keep

going down this road, there will be no turning back. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Joel Miller.

MR. J. MILLER: Let me tell you, if we really didn't

bring these stupid bills to the House, I wouldn't have anything to say.

(Laughter)

One of my colleagues talked about the children, the

children, the children. It's not stupid school boards. We have to worry

about the children. When, if ever, have you heard the teachers' union

threaten to strike over overcrowding in a school? When did you ever see

them threaten to strike over bad textbooks? When did you ever see them

threaten to strike over no technology? When did you ever see them

threaten to strike over violence? The only thing they're willing to strike

over is their salary, and it has nothing to do with the kids. And built into

their contracts are contact minutes. I cannot be forced to be with a child

more than so many minutes a week. And when we have teachers, really

good teachers who, in fact, are worried about the kids and they have

offered tutoring during the day, the teachers' union quickly puts a kibosh

on it unless they're being paid. No, the teachers' union has no

consideration for the kids. They worry about themselves. In fact, we had

a group of kids getting on the elevator during the budget, and they wore

signs saying, "support education" and I asked them, they were high

school kids, and I said, "Where do you think the money is going to go if


82

we give you more money?" And they said, "To the teachers, and we're

not supporting that either." Two-hour delays if there's a snowflake in

Dutchess County, but don't you dare bring your kid to school, even

though there's nothing in our contract that says we don't have to take

them in, but don't you dare. That's an agreement we have that's not in the

contract, sort of our off-budget budgets. No, the school districts don't

care about the kids.

The City of Beacon, which is a small school district, just

hired a temporary superintendent at $700 a day. Yeah, they're fiscally

responsible. The Wappingers School District in their contract was

supposed to give school teachers up to an 8.5 percent annual pay raise

this year. That's being fiscally responsible. The Arlington School

District gave a 6.7 percent increase in pay to their teachers at the very

worst of this economic downtown. Yeah, that's fiscally responsible. I

have schools who now have placed the second artificial turf field on the

football field only five years after they did it before. Yeah, that's being

really responsible. Maybe the most important thing is for the kids to be

on the artificial turf because they're certainly not putting their effort into

teaching. $10,000 for a magic board. Oh, it's fun. Education wasn't

supposed to be fun. Do you ever remember sitting around and being

entertained and laughing all day while you were in school? No. You

were in school. That was your job. Your job was to learn and you did it.

Now the teachers want it to be entertaining and they have all kinds of

things so they can sit in the room. That $10,000 magic board was

designed by someone who learned on a blackboard. That person learned.


83

So, when I hear this stuff about, oh, we have to help these school districts

because we care about the kids, no. The people who are taking the

money only want the money.

Now, I feel badly for the five major city school districts

and I, too, believe that this bill should have been crafted to provide that

kind of assistance to them. But, I will tell you and you just heard a

member of a school board tell you that school boards are not that

competent. They don't really care and they make major mistakes. So,

I've put my hip boots on. I brought my shovel. I'm trying to clean this

stuff away from my desk, but let's not pretend that's what we're doing is

going to help the kids one iota. And I will tell you it's not just the poor

districts that are suffering, but the wealthier districts have had it up to

their eyebrows. They don't want to pay any more.

And the only other comment I want to make is when

these localities were given the gift of not having to pay for the pension

plan, why is it that those taxes didn't go down? In fact, they started going

up and going up. So, you know, it's kind of interesting. It's sort of like

the gas station. The price goes up immediately and almost never does the

price come down at the same rate. But, yes, that's really good that we

had this gift but the taxpayer did not get a gift in return. It just gave those

localities more money to spend.

Thank you. I will be voting in the negative and, frankly,

if there ever was a bad choice, this certainly is one. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Gantt.

MR. GANTT: Thank you very, very much, Mr.


84

Speaker. Will Mr. Abbate yield for just a couple of questions?


MR. ABBATE: Yes.

MR. GANTT: He and I both should be home by now.

Mr. Abbate, can you tell me how long that you have had this bill?

MR. ABBATE: A version of this was put in last year

and we have had this from the beginning of this Session.

MR. GANTT: Can you tell me how many of those Big

Five school districts can use the resources of this bill?

MR. ABBATE: How many can use the resources of this

bill?

MR. GANTT: Of the Big Five.

MR. ABBATE: All of them could partake of it except

New York City.

MR. GANTT: Except for New York City. Can you tell

me how many of those Big Four then asked for this bill?

MR. ABBATE: The representatives from their

association had asked for this bill. So, I would assume that each of the

four of them had their representative come, and there was nothing

negative from the one that's excluded, New York City.

MR. GANTT: Right, but you said the representative of

that --

MR. ABBATE: Which, I assume, were probably

employees of --

MR. GANTT: The Big Five association?


85

MR. ABBATE: Yes, which I assume were probably

their employees.

MR. GANTT: Do you know whether or not my school

district was in support of this bill?

MR. ABBATE: I do not know if they are or not.

MR. GANTT: Do you know whether or not my mayor

is in support of this bill?

MR. ABBATE: I do not know if he was or was not. I

was trying to reach him during the last hour-and-a-half.

MR. GANTT: Or the city council?

MR. ABBATE: No. But, remember again, Mr. Gantt,

that if the school board wants it, the city council and the mayor would

have to give their approval. So, they're not excluded.

MR. GANTT: Okay. I'm glad you made that comment.

The fact is that's probably true. But, I can also tell you just a couple of

years ago the city school district sent a budget over the city council, the

city council said, "We disagree with that and we think you need to make

some cuts." They sent it back to the school district. The school district

sent it back as was and is. They have no power over the school district.

What you're telling me is my school district didn't ask for it, my mayor

didn't ask for it, my city council didn't ask for it and I know most of those

people who sit there. But, yet, and I --

MR. ABBATE: Excuse me. I'm not saying they didn't

ask for it. I would assume they probably told their representatives they

were for it or their representatives shouldn't have been up here saying --


86

MR. GANTT: But you don't know that.

MR. ABBATE: I would assume they did. I mean, they

work for them.

MR. GANTT: Well, I assume they didn't since I know

most of the school board members and I know most of the city council

and I know the mayor, and I never heard of this before. So, I would like

to know where this is coming from and when, in fact, it came aboard.

Now, I don't have a problem with -- if Yonkers has a problem then I think

we should be dealing with a bill that's simply deals with Yonkers. We

should not put everybody else in jeopardy, given attitudes of school

boards across the State, and teachers' unions, by the way, okay?

So, let me see what other questions I have for you. We

have heard -- I'm fine, Peter.



MR. GANTT: We have heard across this Chamber

about how it is that all these school districts are in trouble, including, but

not limited to Rochester. And it would seem to me at least in my

household if I have a problem in my budget that I have to make cuts.

That's not to say that I agree with the Republican strategy of always

cutting everything. I either have to make cuts or I have to raise some

revenue somewhere so that we make that even. But, I can tell you that in

my school district just this week, earlier this week or late last week,

rather than do what was appropriate, we ended up giving a raise. Now

we're saying to those same people -- and by the way, they said they were


87

$80 million in debt. They said they had an $80 million hole in their

budget. Now, you tell me how the hell you give out a raise when you've

got an $80 million hole. If you've got an $80 hole in your budget at home

you have to make some cuts or you've got to go generate some revenues.

Well, the Governor cut, we cut, the Senate cut those budgets and, yet, we

could give those kind of raises. It's not fair to the kids.

I hear this thing about kids. It's never about kids. If you

believe it's about kids, simply go to those schools, particularly in those

Big Four cities. Now, I can talk specifically about Rochester. I can tell

you that we talk about lead and what we ought to be doing. I did, through

the Speaker, an IT program in one of our local schools. We paid $30,000

to put the computers in. I had an opportunity to go over there to talk

about the reconstruction of some of those buildings, and the principal

said, "David, come. I would like for you to see that which we've done

with the $30,000 that you gave us." When I walked into the classroom --

now you hear me. This is a school that should be much better than any of

us, and I live in the inner city myself, not far from that school. But the

fact is that there were gobs of lead hanging off the wall. So, it ain't about

kids, yet, everybody else in that school district was getting raises.

This is a bill -- except for the fact that Yonkers needs

help, and that's the only help we should be giving in this Chamber, if they

need it, is to Yonkers. I'm willing to do that. But, as far as I'm

concerned, the other districts, unless they ask for it, should not be on this

floor by anyone. I do not believe that those districts voted for this bill to

be here, okay? I know particularly that my school districts didn't vote for


88

this to be here. I don't know whether Yonkers voted for it to be here or

not, but my colleagues from Yonkers said they needed help. I'm willing

to help them, but I don't need them to be giving me help that I don't need,

and I don't think I need it. If we needed it I'm sure the mayor would say

to me, "David, we've got to have this stuff". If you give this opportunity

up to those who sit on those school boards, we all will be here next year

or the year after or the year after that talking about how sorry it is. At

some stage, we have to start to make sure that we do the right thing on

behalf of kids, and that's not necessarily giving up that which the

teachers' union wants.

Over 90 percent of the people who teach in my schools

do not live in my city, live nowhere near my city, pay no taxes in my city

but, yet, this bill would give them -- at least the school board the

opportunity to tax me and my city. I say it's wrong. I say Yonkers and

those from Westchester, if they support it, need the help, let's give them

the help, but for God's sake, I'm voting no and I would ask all of my

colleagues to vote no.

Thank you and God bless.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Calhoun.

MS. CALHOUN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I

would just like to speak on the bill.


MS. CALHOUN: I think one of the major problems I

see here is we talk about transparency but, yet, this specific bill takes out

of the hands of the people the opportunity to make the decision on


89

whether they want to do this and extend their taxes out for years. When

you're bonding something, you have to bond it with a vote of the

electorate in the school district and I just think it's wrong to do that. I

think also the fact is that we are really just taking an expense of today and

doing what we do so well, which is pushing it off to the future. So, I

think that many of the reasons here -- this is a bill that can certainly

extend and allow school districts to appear to be staying within a certain

limit, but in reality those costs are just there. This is like yearly

refinancing your home and extending your mortgage out further and

thinking that you really accomplished something and you don't owe the

money.

So, I will be voting in the negative, and I think the major

thing here is that we are not giving the people of that district the

opportunity, as we should, to be able to vote upon this decision within

their district. Thank you very much.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Peter Lopez.

MR. P. LOPEZ: On the bill, Mr. Speaker.


MR. P. LOPEZ: I have listened to this discussion with

keen interest and I have to say that timing is everything. For all of us in

this Chamber, we have seen this coming. This is not new news, and all of

us here have had every opportunity to come forward with

recommendations that can promote quality, affordable education, which

is what we want for all of our communities -- quality, affordable

education. And moreover, what we're looking for are things that are


90

consensus based, things that bring people together. Rather than

polarization, rather than teachers versus administrators versus business

people versus farmers versus parents, we collectively should be engaged

in a constructive dialogue that puts forth a series of recommendations that

work in the best interests of all involved in education. To date, this Body

has not. And it's not from a lack of education in our own right or a lack

of ability. It's not from a lack of good will, but it is from a lack of

concerted attention to a very serious matter.

Now, I have to share with you, a year ago last fall I

began a series of tasks forces in my district. I started with public hearings

and I said to my community, "Come and tell me, what is it we could or

should do that promotes the twin goals of quality, affordable education?"

We had a great turnout. From there I established three tasks forces, and

each of the tasks forces have met once at this point. My district is

expansive, so Southern Tier, Mid-Hudson, Northern Catskills.

Cross-sectioned. We have begun an inventory of critical

recommendations that can meet those twin goals that have been

unanimously embraced by these disparate interests. Why aren't we doing

that here?

So, back to the issue of timing. Now, is this bill the end

of the world? It's not. To be honest, it's a refinancing. It's an attempt to

avoid lump-sum costs, but the way it's being presented, whether it's a real

impact or a perception, is caught in the midst of an end-of-Session charge

without full vetting of the issue, with keen interests and eyes watching,

many of whom are rather crispy at this point -- and I can say it's both


91

inside the Chamber and outside the Chamber -- questioning the logic and

timing of this bill.

Most recently, we have memos in opposition from

Unshackle Upstate. We have a memo in opposition from the Realtors

Association. We have a memo in opposition from the National

Federation of Independent Business. And, again, it begs the question, if

we want to present and provide tools why aren't we doing in full view

with full public discussion?

I'll just share one example. From our task forces, we had

a recommendation that instead of consolidating schools of 1,000 or less,

as was recommended in the Suozzi report, a recommendation totally

impracticable in rural areas where the prospect of taking kids on a bus

and transporting them not just one hour but now two hours to a

consolidated school district is impracticable, how about looking at ways

of consolidating services? How about consolidating administrative

services? And to be honest, that was a recommendation that resonated

with everyone. So, I put a bill in. Now, Ms. Russell was gracious

enough to help me work with that bill. We have a bill that was sponsored

in the Senate by John Bonacic and it passed. So, we have a bill that was

live on the floor that would allow school superintendents and business

managers and special needs administrators and other administrative

officials in large and small rural school districts to consolidate with each

other with or without BOCES. Conservatively, by my estimation, small

rural districts could save as much as 5 percent, just between two school

districts, could save 5 percent on the annual tax roll in one year without


92

hurting students, without hurting programs, without hurting educational

opportunities. To me, that's illustrative of what this Body can do if we

put our collective hearts and minds to the challenge.

So, I say to you: This bill, is it the end of the world? It's

not. But, it's the wrong message at the wrong time and it shows that we

have much more work to do as a Body to tackle this issue intelligently,

and the issue of quality, affordable education for all our children. I will

be in opposition to this bill and I encourage this Body to put our heads

together. We are smarter than this. We can do more than this. We are

much more capable. Let's put our collective hearts and minds together

and come up with a real package that resonates with all interests on this

issue.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in the negative.

Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Katz.

MR. KATZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the bill.


MR. KATZ: Just to give you one quick example. First

of all, I thoroughly agree with Mr. Gantt and I appreciate what he had

said about, you know, targeting relief at this point. In my own school

district -- and I will make this brief. In my own school district, in

Yorktown, I spoke to the school board. There's a $3 million deficit this

year. I asked him,"Why is there a $3 million deficit?" The answer was,

"Well, last year we got the stimulus money." And I said, "So, you didn't


93

account for that, that you're not going to get it this year?" I had no

answer. So, I would worry about that being carried over on a Statewide

level. I don't think that my school district and their level of

irresponsibility is unique to the State of New York. And I also do agree

that the fact that there's been no talk whatsoever of contribution by the

teachers in terms of their pensions on the part of this Body is almost

unconscionable.

Yesterday we passed a bill for Westchester that is, in

effect, going to cost about $96 million and it's strictly for the pensions, to

cover the cost of the teacher pensions, and that, in effect, as a

businessman, is basically paying for your mortgage with a credit card. I

don't think anybody here -- when you start doing that, you know that

you're headed down the really wrong road. And that's what I saw

yesterday and I'm afraid that's what we're about to see on a Statewide

level.

At this point I also want to question this two-year spike.

I mean, I don't see that as being anything realistic, in the best of all

worlds, because the fact remains that for the next 15 years we are going

to be saddled with the same pension requirements of the teachers that are

going to be retiring, and it's going to be more than just a spike over the

next two years. So, on that level, I'll tell you, yes. I grew up in Jericho.

We're talking about some great school districts. When I was in Jericho

we dealt with an austerity budget, okay, because we didn't want to gold

plate it. I grew up where there were 30 to 35 students in my class with

one teacher, and you know what? We did pretty damn well. There's a lot


94

more to it, and I know we don't like to talk about this, than just strict

numbers. Thirty to 35 in the class and Jericho is one of the finest school

districts in the State, if not the country, just to keep things on a real level.

So, I feel at this point that we are looking at a bill that,

on a Statewide level, is not responsible. It is kicking the can down the

road, and I feel that at this point the best thing we could do is to

reconsider. I know that Sandy Galef and I went -- in talking with what

Mr. Lopez had said -- we had gone to a meeting talking about

consolidation of services in Putnam County and it was staggering what

the savings was going to be. Now, I'm not sure whether we need

Statewide legislation for that or not, that I can't answer. But, I know that

this something that is being actively talked about within Putnam County.

I don't see why that can't be done on a Statewide level.


ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. McLaughlin.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Speaker, on the bill.


MR. MCLAUGHLIN: A long discussion, I'll keep it

pretty brief, but I heard a lot back and forth on this one. To me, I agree

with Mr. Gantt. And Mr. Katz stole my line about putting your mortgage

on a credit card, and that's what this is. It kicks the can down the road,

but there's no more road. It kicks it right off the cliff. You're mortgaging

a bonus. You're mortgaging a pension requirement. It strikes me as

absurd to do that. I wouldn't put my mortgage on a credit card. I don't

put gas on a credit card. I just don't do that. It just doesn't make any


95

sense to do. We've heard about how they're in trouble. Well, of course

they're in trouble. They spent like drunken sailors for 30 years and we

have allowed it. It happened here and in the Senate and the Governor's

mansion. Horrible leadership all around, allowing this to go on. To let

them get away with not funding their pensions because times were good,

that was stupid. That was really stupid. We all know it in hindsight. We

should have known it then. If I had been here then, I have would been

screaming about it then. That makes no sense. When times are good,

that's when you save more money so that you can get through the bad

times. So, of course they're in trouble. We've heard that this is

something new. It's not new. It's been tried in Albany all the time. We

finance things, we bond things out. We put debt on to the future. It's

tried in Washington. It's been tried in Greece, and how's that working

out? The place is about to blow up, and Italy's next. Europe is going to

be in flames by the end of this summer because of debt, out-of-control

spending and never having the guts to say no. At some point you have to

take the pain. At some point you have to control your spending, and the

time is now. It doesn't make any sense to me to do this. We say that's

immoral to say, "How can we take things away from our kids?" Yes, I

understand that. Nobody wants to do that. It's also immoral to hand

them a bill on the day they graduate and say, "Here, you're just paying for

your teachers' pensions, the ones that you got all along here. And by the

way, you have to pay for their pensions now and now and now." It keeps

building up. This is a Ponzi scheme. It's a shell game. If there's any bill

that should go down this year it's this one, and to bring it out now at the


96

end of Session is ridiculous. It's been here the whole time. If it's such an

urgent problem we should have been debating it months ago, but here we

are now at the 11th hour. It shouldn't be happening. It shouldn't be

happening at all. Don't finance pension costs. At some point you've got

to take the pain. We are abdicating our responsibilities to the public by

letting them do this.

Let me give you an example of what the Troy School

District just did. They fired their superintendent this week. Now, why

would you fire somebody if his contract doesn't end until 2013? They

fired him because he was doing a lousy job. So, what are they going to

do? They're going to pay him out to the end of the contract. Fine. I

understand that. They're going to pay him for the vacation he's accrued

and the vacation he's going to accrue. That's fine, too. Here's where it

gets stupid: They're paying for lifetime health benefits for this guy and

his family. He's already got a job in Georgia. He's gone. He starts some

time in the middle of July, but we pay for it. The people of New York,

the City of Troy. We pay for that. That's the school board that did that.

So, I don't trust a lot of the decisions they make. It irritates the heck out

of me.

I will be voting no on this, and the only reason it's a no is

because there's not a "hell no" button on this thing. This makes no sense.

Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Peoples-Stokes.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

very quickly. If I'm correct, when I heard Mr. Abbate when he responded


97

to Member Gantt's question as to whether or not the school boards as well

as the mayors and the city councils will have to approve this decision to

further go into debt. I think I'm right about that.

MR. ABBATE: Yes. That the school board, if it wanted

to partake, you know, in Buffalo, which I'm sure you're talking about,

would have to get the city council and the mayor's approval.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you. Well, you

what? I was inclined to vote no on this bill because I do think it's a

mistake to further get debt, particularly in a State where we're not doing

the best at educating our children as it is, even though we spend the most

money. But given that the school board, whom I don't have the utmost

confidence in, and the city council would have to approve this, I already

know that this will not happen in Buffalo. The parents have been so

strongly organized in the City of Buffalo because the focus is not on their

children, it's always on something else. The city council members have

been holding hearings. They have threatened to withhold city

contributions to the school district if we cannot get better results out of

the district. So, I'm almost confident that even if this bill passes, it would

take almost a revolt in the City of Buffalo to engage in any further debt

educating children that are not being educated right now. I assure you

that the parents will not stand for this. I'm sure the city council would not

stand for it, and I'm really confident that the school board would not, as

well.

So, in that regard, even though I don't like it and I don't

think most people will respect it or want to use it even though it will be


98

their option, I think exactly who it's designed for, Yonkers, they will use

it and probably no one else will. In that regard, I will be voting for this

bill.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Read the last section.

THE CLERK: This act shall take immediately.


the vote.


Can we have some attention here and some order? Ms.

Millman to explain her -- I'm sorry. Ms. Nolan to explain her vote.

MS. NOLAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues.

As people come into the Chamber to vote on this, I really want to urge

my colleagues to vote yes. And I do cast my vote very strongly yes. I

want to commend the sponsor for being available for so many hours to

answer questions.

I'm not nostalgic for a past that never was in education. I

am open to options to let people manage debt in a more effective way. I

am not going to bash teachers because we could bash members of the

Legislature, couldn't we, for things that we do, but we like to think that

the bulk of us are responsible professionals. People pay a lot of money to

get an education degree and teach today. They deserve a decent salary. I

am shocked to hear colleagues act like pensions are a luxury when

pensions are an important part of the American Dream for our New

Yorkers.

So, I proudly cast my vote in the affirmative and urge my


99

colleagues to do the same on something that, ultimately, is only a

technical fix that will allow school districts to have a variety of options. I

cast my vote, again, in the affirmative and urge my colleagues to do the

same.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Hayes to explain

his vote.

MR. HAYES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to explain my

vote. I don't rise to bash any teachers. I don't rise to bash any school

board members who serve in their capacity as elected officials in their

communities. I don't rise to do anything else but point out to the

members of this Body that every nickel that's paid in an interest payment

on a long-term bond is a nickel taken away from educating a child,

paying a teacher's salary, putting desks and books and computers in

schools, and it's the wrong way to fund education in this State. By taking

this approach and passing this bill creating a precedent that removes the

approval by a vote from the people who are going to take and pay this bill

is undermining public education and taxpayer support for public

education in this State. It's the first step on a slippery slope of creating a

situation where the local taxpayer is taken out of the equation. It is the

first time, to my knowledge, that we are now taking a budget that must be

approved by local voters every year and saying, "This part of the budget

does not have to be approved." It's the first time we have allowed school

districts to borrow money where they don't have to get voter approval.

And when you worry about the low participation rate of the public in

school board votes on school board voting day, this is going to add to that


100

cynicism, this is going to add to that apathy, and I maintain and I argue

we need to do more to encourage people to be involved in our school

system and encourage the people who pay the bills to be involved and to

support public education in this State. And don't just listen to my

criticism, listen to the criticism that was voiced in this Chamber by

members of both sides of the aisle, from suburban wealthy districts, as

well as urban poor districts, and when you listen to your colleagues I

hope you will join me --

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Hayes, how do

you vote?

MR. HAYES: -- in voting no. Thank you very much.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Goodell to

explain his vote.

MR. GOODELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I share the

sponsor's desire to give options to local governments, and that's one

reason why I have supported the authorizations on sales tax to local

governments, not because I like it, but I think they're in the best situation

to make that decision. The concern I have with this bill is I'm not sure

this is the right area to give that local option because we all know that

debt is the drug of choice of politicians, because we can incur debt and

spend money without taking immediate responsibility. Because of that,

our system, our Constitution, our State Constitution is designed to protect

our taxpayers from debt. It requires taxpayer approval. This would not.

Normally, debt is reserved to capital expenses. This is not a capital

expense, it's an operating expense. And when you use debt to pay for


101

operating expenses, what happens is next year you have to pay the

pension costs that you incur the next year plus the debt payment that you

incurred to pay last year's. So, all we're doing is raising the cost to our

school districts in the outgoing years.

Finally, this bill is not a solution. We have talked since

the last campaign about the need for pension reform, but that's all it's

been is talk. We should keep debt as low as possible. We should not use

debt without voter approval. We should not use debt to pay for operating

expenses, and we should fix the problem by dealing with pension reform

and a cost structure, not kick these costs down so that they burden others.

I vote in the negative. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Benedetto to

explain his vote.

MR. BENEDETTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to

explain my vote. I applaud my colleagues in this Chamber on both sides

of the aisle who are voicing what I would consider legitimate opposition

to this bill. However, I must take issue with those who have used the

excuse of this bill to attack the teachers in this State. A former teacher

myself for 35 years, I'm very proud of the work I did in the New York

City Public School system and I'm very proud of my colleagues in that

system whose dedication I saw day in and day out, doing the job, trying

to educate the children. Everybody deserves a fair wage. Everybody

deserves a decent pension. To use this bill as an excuse to attack decent,

hard-working people is wrong and we shouldn't be doing that. Legitimate

concerns, economically, fine. I'll accept that. But don't attack the


102

teachers of this State because by and large they are good, hard-working

people and they should be commended. I will be voting yes.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Weisenberg to

explain his vote.

MR. WEISENBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my

colleagues. Following Michael, I also was a teacher for over 20 years,

and I sit here and am very uneasy when I think people are defaming the

potential of our future. Every teacher -- and I'm in schools all the time.

My happiness is going into a school and having lunch with first graders

or second graders, going into a high school or even speaking at colleges,

to see the young, bright people that are teaching our children. Sometimes

I say -- and people are not aware up here -- that teachers become

surrogate parents because we have dysfunctional families. They send

them to school hungry, with all kinds of problems because of broken

homes, and the teachers are there. I just want you to understand how

important it is to be able to have good people attracted to a profession

that is so important for our future. It's upsetting for me to sit here and

hear what is said.

You know, I ran this last year and I ran against

somebody who was from Long Island in the school district where the

school board has nobody on that school board having their children in

public education. They're all in private schools. And all I heard was

teachers are overpaid, they shouldn't have pensions, they don't do a good

job, and I'm saying to myself, "This is frightening to me that I'm standing

here debating somebody in a library who is defaming a profession that is


103

so important for our country and who we are in this State." So, I take

exception as well. And the answer really is what I always try to educate

people and make them aware of is that you, the public, elect your school

board. That school board hires the superintendent. They negotiate their

salaries. What the teachers are doing is negotiating and trying to do the

best they can to have the dignity and the respect and quality of life. But,

you can't punish the teachers for what they're entitled to and what they

negotiate, but you can certainly make people who are aware of the

responsibility when you're paying a school superintendent $400,000 and

come to me and say, "We don't have enough money to keep our

programs."

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Weisenberg,

how do you vote?

MR. WEISENBERG: I'm voting yes. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Jaffee to explain

her vote.

MS. JAFFEE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When did

teachers become Public Enemy Number One? I am personally offended

by the conversation in the Chamber today. As a former teacher, daughter

of a former teacher, mother of two former teachers and a daughter-in-law

who is a teacher, all excellent people in our society, in our community,

dedicating their lives to the future of this State and this country. It is

outrageous that this conversation evolved to a place where it absolutely

should not have gone. I don't mind debating on the merits of a particular

issue, but to go and create an environment where teachers become the


104

enemy, where teachers become the ones who are discussed in a very

degrading way, I find it extremely offensive. Our school board members,

as well, they are public servants who serve the community, who are

elected officials. They are elected, without any compensation, to serve

the community, all doing public service in a way that I greatly respect.

The school board members in my community and the superintendents

and the teachers are focused on bettering the lives of our students on a

daily basis.

You know, let me just give you a fact. According to the

State Education Department, New York's teachers have been losing

ground against the cost of living, with raises averaging just 1.9 percent a

year, less than the inflation rate over the past ten years. They are our

middle-class, and they are the ones we need to respect because they are

providing us with a future so that our children will have the education

that they need. Let's respect those in the classes who have gotten their

master's degrees and have gone year after year after year to take credits to

be able to improve their abilities as teachers. Not only do I have a

master's but I have 60 credits beyond a master's, and most of those I know

who are in the education field have done that to be able to improve their

ability within the classroom. We should respect the teaching career. We

should respect the teaching --

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Jaffee, how do

you vote?

MS. JAFFEE: -- profession, and I will vote in the

affirmative. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


105

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Ceretto to

explain his vote.

MR. CERETTO: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise

because I want to say that I also have a teaching background. I've worked

in our schools as well, and I can say to you, just as you're all saying now,

there are many, many, many good teachers. But let me tell you this: I

will not be voting against this bill for this reason. I will not vote for

things that tax and spend or borrow our children's future. I can't do that.

Now, in my district in Niagara Falls there are 70 percent of the children

that are born into poverty in Niagara Falls, 70 percent. They didn't

choose to be in poverty. And our children -- in Niagara County we're

losing our kids and they're leaving this area. So, I challenge this Body.

That's why I'm here, because I gave up a civil service job to be here. I

have three kids in my own family that are in colleges, in a New York

State school, and I have got four kids. I'm here because I really believe

that we can make a difference, and I challenge us to do that. And to do

that we have to face the real problems. And we have done a lot of nice

things here; I attest to that. But, we need to go further, take a step further.

We need to have real mandate relief. We really need to make sure that in

the future that this State is fiscally responsible and we can't borrow that

future away. I won't put that burden on my children, so, Mr. Speaker,

because of that I vote in the negative. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Murray to

explain his vote.

MR. MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I


106

don't want to hear us bashing teachers or bashing schools. My best friend

in the world, she's an amazing first grade teacher. She does an incredible

job. This isn't about teacher bashing. It's a wonderful profession, and

they're teaching our future. What it is about, though, is it's about finding

solutions. And the problem here -- I don't think there is any person in this

Chamber that wants to hurt our educational system or hurt our kids or

take away from them and their educational experience, but the problem is

we're not finding solutions. What I kept saying before was if this were --

I've heard the term "quick fix." The problem with that term is we're not

fixing anything. Again, I'll go back to the Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

That's what we continue to do. But, we're not fixing and tackling the

actual problems that we're facing. We're not engaging in talk about real

pension reform that will fix the problem down the road. My esteemed

colleague, ironically, over my left shoulder here, brought up a very good

point when he said a couple of years, you know, where do we go then

because we're going to have the pension increases and the debt service

we're going to have to pay for. So, we're actually compounding the

problem. Where do we go in year three now? Year three we'll be back

here discussing another supposed quick fix. We have got to fix the

problem, concentrate on solutions, real pension reform, not increasing

our debt and increasing the problem.

So, for that reason, I courage all of my colleagues to vote

against this bill. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Glick to explain

her vote.


107

MS. GLICK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support

of the measure which, as I understand it, provides for a local option to opt

in or out, and we always talk about how important it is to provide local

choice. So, that's a little mystifying. And, of course, when it comes to

the thought of pension expense, you know, pensions have been a part of

compensation packages forever, and I suspect that there are people in this

House collecting a pension and not just turning it back or not accepting it.

And I expect that most of us, when the time comes, will be happy to

accept our pensions. So, I am a little bit dismayed at the thought that we

somehow think that, well, things have gotten very expensive and now

we're just going to have to cut off what people have worked for. This is

about trying to help localities make a choice. A choice. They don't have

to do it. And I thought that was one of our mantras. We should be doing

more to give localities, school districts, options. If they don't like it they

don't have to use it.

So, I applaud the sponsor's forbearance today and want

to thank all of the wonderful teachers in my life who provided me with

the skills and the ability to critically think through things and analyze and

articulate that point of view. They were, almost to a person, dedicated,

hard- working and dealing with, in most instances, 30 to 35 kids that

would have driven most of the people in this Chamber completely over

the --

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Glick, how do

you vote?

MS. GLICK: -- edge and, therefore, I will vote in the


108

affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Joel Miller to

explain his vote.

MR. J. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe an

apology is due to the individual teachers, but I won't take back one word

of what I said when it applies to the teachers' union. And people can yell

and scream all they want, it won't make it the truth. What we just heard

quoted was an article written by some nutcase from City College without

any connection to the facts or truth, because anyone who knows anything

about teachers know they're not getting a 1.9 percent pay raise annually.

That may be their STEP, but it's not their pay raise. And they are not

losing ground to inflation. That, too, is a crock. I won't tell you what I

wrote in the letter back to that professor, but I was ashamed he went to

my alma mater.

This is not about teachers and unions. This is about

whether we allow school districts to opt in to a program which will drag

them down into debt even faster and make them pay what they're

supposed to be paying for, which is education, even worse. This is when

you give somebody something that is absolutely not healthy for them, but

tell them, "It's all right, you make the choice." It's like giving a 10-

year-old a cigarette and saying, "Well, you know, I'm not telling you to

smoke, it's your choice." Giving someone who is 21 a bottle of booze,

"I'm not telling you to drink, it's your choice." Anyone who chooses this

has made the wrong choice. Clearly, what's come out of here is that if

Yonkers has a problem, cure Yonkers' problem. But, don't open


109

Pandora's box for the rest of the State where school boards have not been

overly responsible.

As a result of that, I will be voting against this bill and

certainly would encourage everyone else to. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Tenney to

explain her vote.

MS. TENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to

say a of couple things. With the exception of Mr. Miller, some of my

closest friends --

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: We're not supposed

to mention anybody's name.

MS. TENNEY: Okay. I apologize. I apologize, Mr.

Speaker. With the exception of certain members in the Chamber, there's

one group that's come to visit us, and I know most of us, every single

week it seems, are the teachers and they have done a wonderful job.

Some of my closest friends, family and mentors in my life are teachers.

However, the minute the NYSUT rep leaves the room we get to

problem-solving mode. It has nothing to do with the teachers because 90

percent of them are wonderful and I can't really say enough about how

wonderful they are; however, I urge the Governor, since it looks like this

bill is going to pass, to veto this bill for this reason: Our school districts

are begging us not to vote for this tax cap that's coming to us. This tax

cap -- this bill does not solve the problem of the tax cap. Again, I hate to

use our analogy that's been down here, we heard "Band-aid on a gunshot

wound" -- I'm going to say a Band-Aid on a tumour. We need to solve


110

the problems, the underlying problems that are facing us, with real

solutions, not this type of solution.

So, for that reason, I will be voting in the negative.


ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Lancman to

explain his vote. If you don't want to, you don't have to.

MR. LANCMAN: I will explain it briefly. Between the

chanting and everything else going on it's hard to focus. Listen, let me at

the outset say that some of my best friends are the unfunded mandate

folks, the folks that we hear from constantly about unfunded mandates

and mandate relief, and it was always my understanding that the heart of

that argument was the idea that school districts, localities, should have

the freedom to run their affairs as they see fit with the minimum amount

of restrictions or impositions from those of us here in Albany. Now, that

is what this legislation is. As I understand it, it merely provides school

districts an additional tool, an additional option, additional freedom to

make a choice to run their affairs in a way that they might decide is in the

interest of their school district and the children that they serve. And for

that reason, I'm very proud to cast my vote in the affirmative. I hope that

later today when we debate the issue of a property tax or mandate relief

that the same people who are so opposed to giving the school districts the

freedom and the opportunity to make this choice will then be consistent

in that debate.


ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Jose Rivera to


111

explain his vote.

MR. J. RIVERA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really

believe that this is not about beating up or scapegoating on teachers. It's

hard for people watching us not to believe at times that that might not be

the case, given that the Mayor of the City of New York seems to have

been on a campaign on the budget situation concentrated around teachers.

I don't really believe that anyone here believes that in their heart that

what they're doing is not right. I have a lot of fond memories of my

teacher. When my mother brought me first into this country, I went to

PS 20, located at 167th Street and Simpson Avenue, the area that is

known as Fort Apache. And I recall I hardly knew the language, but

when she asked me, "What's your name", I said, "Jose..." And she looked

around the whole room and she said, "If I call everybody by your full

name we will be here all day." Should I hate my teacher? Should I hate

my teacher because she taught me that broccoli is good for me? No, I

loved my teacher, Mrs. Lesser. Broccoli? I love broccoli. I eat it

practically every day. Having said that, in memory of Mrs. Lesser, you

know, let's stop sounding like the problems around our State finances or

Downstate could be centered around how we deal with teachers.

Teachers deserve all the respect that they should be getting because none

of you guys, none of us here, would have learned, whether with an accent

or not, our ABCs if it were not for the teachers.


ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Farrell to explain

his vote.


112

MR. FARRELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I normally

don't speak on bills that are not exactly related to the budget, but this one

bothers me very much. Ronald Reagan, 29 years ago, started a crash.

Remember what he did? He cut taxes, cut taxes, and for eight years they

did not pass a bill. They never passed it. They just did it by doing the --

what is it called -- continuing resolutions. But, he knew that sooner or

later he was cutting off the water and we were not going to get the water

here. Remember, we were getting money from the Federal government,

and slowly but surely we are cutting back the amount of money that we

give to localities. They did it to us, now we're doing it to them. The end

result is, well, we don't care, we just want to make sure we're not making

a millionaire pay a tax.

The bill that I did not want to pass and did not want to

vote on was the tax cap. They asked me to defend it and I said you don't

want to do that because with my mouth we'll be in a lot of trouble

because I believe that is part of causing a problem in the future. This bill

is a small cure in another direction. This might give them a chance. And

some of my colleagues on the other side who are so happy to get the word

"tax cut" said -- and I don't mean this side, I mean over there -- who want

to say the word "tax cut," especially the folks on Long Island, they're

going to suddenly wake up to the fact that they're going to be in a lot of

trouble and they're going to have to be looking for money. Now, I have

heard people -- I was listening to the debate and I heard people talk about

the localities as if they were not a place you lived in. I don't fully

understand that. You're a political animal. Could you not -- we do it in


113

New York City. We try to go after people we think are crazy or don't do

what we want them to do. Maybe we should be doing that, too.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Farrell, how do

you vote?

MR. FARRELL: So, because of that and because of

what this bill does, I'm going to vote in the affirmative on what I call "the

big pretty" -- it's pretty because it's going to let us go home. When we do

that, I'll vote for that, also.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Donald Miller to

explain his vote.

MR. D. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to explain

my vote. I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine.

There are no Ronald Reagans in this room, although we could use some

of that in here. This kind of financial plan, if you want to call it that, is

anything but. This is the type of thing that's going to get us deeper into

the hole and school districts at this point cannot afford to be deeper in the

hole. I will be voting in the negative on this, not because I'm a certified

teacher -- this isn't about bad teachers. It's also not about 35 kids who

will drive you crazy, because they will but, as a teacher, you end up

loving every single one of them. This is about what's good for our school

districts and, ultimately, what's good for taxpayers down the road. This

bill is not good for either one of those. I will be voting against this.


votes?



114


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

Could we take one brief second?

MR. CANESTRARI: Please go to Mr. Crouch for an

announcement.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Crouch.

MR. CROUCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There will be

a members-only Republican Conference in the Parlor right now.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Members-only

Conference.

MR. CANESTRARI: And now, Mr. Colton.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Colton.

MR. COLTON: Mr. Speaker, the Majority also needs a

Conference in the Speaker's Conference Room at this time.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Majority Conference.

The House stands in recess; am I correct, Mr. Canestrari?

MR. CANESTRARI: Yes.

(Whereupon at 4:50 p.m., the House stood in recess.)

***AFTER THE RECESS*** 6:53 P.M.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: The House will

come to order.

MR. CANESTRARI: Ms. Speaker, my colleagues and

guests, we will go to the A-Calendar again and we will take up Rules


115

Report No. 626 from Mr. Kellner. The message of necessity is now in

and we can take up this bill now directly. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: The Clerk will read.


Kellner. An act to amend the Social Services Law, in relation to the

provision of speech therapy, physical therapy and occupational therapy to

recipients of medical assistance.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: On a motion by Mr.

Kellner, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced.

The Governor's message is at the desk. The Clerk will read.

THE CLERK: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 14

of Article III of the Constitution and by virtue of the authority conferred

upon me, I do hereby certify to the necessity of an immediate vote on

Senate Bill No. 5851 and Assembly Bill No. 8515.

The facts necessitating an immediate vote on the bills

are as follows:

This bill would extend an exemption from Medicaid

coverage limits on certain therapies to individuals with traumatic brain

injury.

Because the bill has not been on your desks in final form

for three calendar legislative days, the Leaders of your Honorable bodies

have requested this message to permit the immediate consideration of this

bill.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: Read the last section.


116


ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: The Clerk will

record the vote.


Mr. Raia to explain his vote.

MR. RAIA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We're dealing

with Medicaid, and while I sympathize with individuals that certainly

have traumatic brain injuries and other impediments, the fact of the

matter is if you have private insurance, they have very strict limits as to

how many visits you can get. Many of you might remember that last year

at this very same time, I could barely move because of an exploded disc

in my neck. They cut me off from physical therapy after six visits, forced

me almost to have surgery. Fortunately, I didn't have to have that

surgery.

I'm going to vote yes on this bill, but it would be nice if

our Medicaid payments or benefits that we offer individuals under

Medicaid matched what we offer people in the real world that have to pay

for their health care out of their own pockets instead of being subsidized

by the taxpayers. On that note, I will regrettably be voting yes, but I

would hope in the future that anything we offer to individuals on

Medicaid we might consider offering to individuals that have private

insurance.

Thank you. I withdraw my request and vote in the

affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: Mr. Raia in the


117

affirmative.


votes?


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.


will now go to the main Calendar, on Page 7, Rules Report No. 456,

Hakeem Jeffries, please.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: The Clerk will read.


Jeffries, Brennan, Millman. An act to amend the Public Authorities Law,

in relation to creating a subsidiary corporation for the planning and

oversight of the Atlantic Yards project.




the vote.


Mr. Brennan to explain his vote.

MR. BRENNAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to explain

my vote. I just wanted to express my appreciation to the sponsor, Mr.

Jeffries, for his diligence in pursuing the effort to create a governance

model for the Atlantic Yards Development Project that would include

greater input and oversight from the community, the part of Brooklyn that


118

we all represent. This bill is sponsored both by myself and

Assemblywoman Millman as well, and it is to be hoped that someday this

will become law and we can exercise a substantially greater level of

oversight and community input into the largest development project in

the history of Kings County in Brooklyn, New York.

I withdraw my request and vote in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Brennan in the

affirmative.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: No, you may call this vote.


votes?


MR. CANESTRARI: Technicalities, okay. Laurie, do

your thing.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Well done, Laurie; well done.

Mr. Speaker, there will be an immediate meeting of the

Rules Committee. Acting Chair Richard Gottfried awaits our arrival.

Rules Committee meeting now.

* * * * * * *

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Canestrari.


119

MR. CANESTRARI: Mr. Speaker, would you please

call the House back to order?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: The House will come

to order.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: We will just wait a second or two

for some clarification here. The A- and B-Calendars are on the -- I'm

sorry, the B- and C-Calendars are on the members' desks. I move at this

time to advance the B- and C-Calendars.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Without objection,

the B- and C-Calendars are advanced.

MR. CANESTRARI: That being said, Mr. Speaker, we

will go to the B-Calendar, Page 5 and take up directly Rules Report No.

631, Mr. O'Donnell.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: On Page 5 of the

B-Calendar, Rules Report No. 631, the Clerk will read.


O'Donnell. An act to amend the Domestic Relations Law, in relation to

the ability to marry; and to amend a chapter of the Laws of 2011,

amending the Domestic Relations Law relating to the ability to marry, as

proposed in legislative bill number A.8354, in relation to the statutory

construction of such chapter; and repealing certain provisions of the

Domestic Relations Law relating to parties to a marriage.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: There is a Governor's

message at the desk. The Clerk will read.


120




Assembly Bill No. 8520.

The facts necessitating an immediate vote on the bill is

as follows:

This bill provides amendments to the Marriage Equality

Act, which was added by a chapter of laws of 2011.


for three calendar legislative days, the Assembly has requested this

message to permit the immediate consideration of this bill.





the vote.


Mr. O'Donnell to explain his vote.

MR. O'DONNELL: The freedom to marry, according to

the United States Supreme Court, is one of the most vital rights essential

to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free people. Thomas Jefferson

once wrote, "Our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinion."

Today in this building and in this Chamber we are

fulfilling Thomas Jefferson's dream of what America is and should be,

which is we should all be free people, we should all have equal rights and


121

we all should have the ability to marry the person that they love. For

those of you who have stood with me in this long challenge, I thank you

from the bottom of my heart, and even to those who couldn't find a way

to be there, to understand what my struggle and what my life has been,

I'm eternally grateful by all of your presence in this Chamber and in this

building to be here on this hot, muggy night on the day when one of the

last barriers to equality will be eliminated in the State of New York.

I will be voting in the affirmative. Thank you very

much.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Boyle to explain

his vote.

MR. BOYLE: Mr. Speaker, to explain my vote. I stand

here this evening as a supporter of marriage equality. As I've said in

years past, I believe it needs to be done as a Constitutional amendment,

and as I have said in years past, my fear is that if we do it as a bill, we're

going to be tied up --

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Boyle, could you

use Mr. Blankenbush's microphone? Thank you.

MR. BOYLE: Sure. My fear is that this bill will be tied

up in the courts for years to come, and as I see the language in this

amendment, I think it is going to be tied up in the courts for years to

come and it's going to be defeated, found unconstitutional. I hope I'm

wrong, but I think that's what's going to happen and we're going to have

to start all over again. I urge my colleagues to consider at that time a

Constitutional amendment that will put marriage equality in our State


122

Constitution, truly protect those rights and, most importantly, allow the

people of New York State to decide in a referendum. I will vote in the

negative on this.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Boyle in the

negative.

Are there any other votes.



The bill is passed.

(Applause)

Mr. Canestrari.


will now go to the B-Calendar, Page 3, Rules Report No. 629, Mr. Lopez,

please.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Proceeding to the

B-Calendar, on Page 3, Rules Report No. 629, the Clerk will read.


V. Lopez, Silver, Farrell. An act to amend the General Municipal Law

and the Education Law, in relation to establishing limits upon school

district and local government tax levies; and providing for the repeal of

such provisions upon expiration thereof (Part A); to amend Chapter 576

of the Laws of 1974 amending the Emergency Housing Rent Control Law

relating to the control of and stabilization of rent in certain cases, the

Emergency Housing Rent Control Law, Chapter 329 of the Laws of 1963

amending the Emergency Housing Rent Control Law relating to recontrol


123

of rents in Albany, Chapter 555 of the Laws of 1982 amending the

General Business Law and the Administrative Code of the City of New

York relating to conversion of residential property to cooperative or

condominium ownership in the City of New York, Chapter 402 of the

Laws of 1983 amending the General Business Law relating to conversion

of rental residential property to cooperative or condominium ownership

in certain municipalities in the counties of Nassau, Westchester and

Rockland and the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997, in relation to

extending the effectiveness thereof; to amend the Administrative Code of

the City of New York, the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 and

the Emergency Housing Rent Control Law, in relation to limiting rent

increases after vacancy of a housing accommodation and the adjustment

of maximum allowable rent based on apartment improvements; to amend

the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, the Emergency Housing

Rent Control Law, the Administrative Code of the City of New York and

the Tax Law, in relation to deregulation thresholds; to amend the Real

Property Tax Law, in relation to tax exemption for new multiple

dwellings and exemption of certain new or substantially rehabilitated

multiple dwellings from local taxation and to amend the Tax Law, in

relation to verification of income (Part B); to amend the State Finance

Law, in relation to providing certain centralized services to political

subdivisions and extending the authority of the commissioner of General

Services to aggregate purchases of energy for State agencies and political

subdivisions; to amend the General Municipal Law, in relation to

purchasing information technology and telecommunications; to amend


124

the County Law, in relation to contracts for services; to amend the

General Municipal Law, in relation to certain Federal contracts; to amend

the Municipal Home Rule Law, in relation to filing and publication of

local laws; and providing for the repeal of certain provisions upon the

expiration thereof (Subpart A); to amend the General Municipal Law and

the Highway Law, in relation to mutual aid (Subpart B); to amend the

General Municipal Law, in relation to apportioning the expenses of

police department members in attending police training schools; to

amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to the prosecution of the

offense of identity theft; to amend the Family Court Act, in relation to

inter-county probation; to amend the Mental Hygiene Law, in relation to

payment of costs for prosecution of inmate-patients; and to repeal Section

207-m of the General Municipal Law relating to salary increases for

heads of police departments of municipalities, districts or authorities

(Subpart C); to amend the General Municipal Law, in relation to filing

requirements for municipalities regarding urban renewal plans and

creation of urban renewal agencies and authorities (Subpart D); to amend

the Social Services Law, in relation to the use of debit or credit cards for

child care assistance payments; and to amend the Social Services Law, in

relation to the length of licenses to board children, training of child

protective service caseworkers, services plans, funding for children and

family services, district-wide child welfare services plans, and

non-residential services for victims of domestic violence (Subpart E); to

amend the Education Law, in relation to census reporting; to amend the

Education Law, in relation to transportation of children receiving special


125

education services; to amend the Education Law, in relation to funding of

certain capital projects and auditing of claims; to amend the Education

Law, in relation to establishing a shared superintendent program; and to

amend the Education Law, in relation to cost-sharing between districts;

and to amend the General Municipal Law, in relation to accounts of

officers to be examined; and providing for the repeal of certain provisions

upon expiration thereof (Subpart F); to amend the Mental Hygiene Law

and the Social Services Law, in relation to the implementation of medical

support provisions (Subpart G); and to amend the State Administrative

Procedure Act, in relation to alternate methods for implementing

regulatory mandates; and to amend the Executive Law, in relation to

creation of the Mandate Relief Council and providing for the expiration

of such provisions (Subpart H) (Part C).

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: There's a Governor's

message at the desk. The Clerk will read.




Senate Bill No. 5856 and Assembly Bill No. 8518.

The facts necessitating an immediate vote on the bill are

as follows:

This bill would: (1) amend the General Municipal Law

and the Education Law, in relation to establishing limits upon school

district and local government tax levies; (2) strengthen and extend the

rent regulation laws until June 15, 2015; and (3) enact into law major


126

components of legislation necessary to effectuate mandate relief from

statutory and regulatory mandates on local governments.




bill.


ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: There's an

amendment at the desk. Mr. Palmesano to explain while the Chair

examines it.

Mr. Palmesano.

MR. PALMESANO: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues.

I offer the following amendment, waive its reading, move for its

immediate adoption and request the opportunity to briefly explain it.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: The Chair has

examined your amendment and has found it to be germane to the bill

before the House. On the amendment, Mr. Palmesano.

MR. PALMESANO: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues. This

amendment adds language to the bill in chief, which would freeze the

municipal share for the local Medicaid costs at the current level, the 2011

trend factor for counties in the City of New York. This amendment deals

with Medicaid, and as we consider the property tax cap tonight, mandate

relief is a part of that cap. A lot of discussion about mandate relief. By

far, the biggest mandate this State has placed on our localities is the

Medicaid program. When this program was created in the 1960s, New


127

York State was one of two states that mandated participation at the local

level. The current cost to the Medicaid program for our local

governments, for counties in City of New York, for 2011 was $7.5

billion. It's crippling our local property taxpayers. This amendment, this

action, would freeze the county costs and the City cost at the level it is

now. The State would assume the growth and the cost of the Medicaid

program. We mandate the program. We have the direct authority to

reform the program. We can work with the Medicaid Redesign Team to

make the changes that are necessary. This amendment, if adopted, will

bring immediate fiscal relief to the counties and the City of New York.

So, whether you're in Long Island, the Adirondacks, Upstate New York,

this is the type of relief our local officials are looking for. This is the type

of relief that will bring immediate relief to the local property taxpayers.

This goes hand-in-hand with the amendment -- with the bill in chief that

we have, the property tax cap with mandate relief, significant mandate

relief, which this bill will accomplish.

So, I ask you to join me in making sure that we can pass

this immediate savings on to our local governments and the counties and

the City of New York.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and

guests. We know that the bill in chief, Rules Report No. 629, does

contain actual mandate relief for localities and school districts across the

State. This amendment, however, is simply a cost shift from localities to

the State of New York at a time when the State of New York should not


128

and cannot bear additional expenses. I urge a no vote.

Thank you.


the vote.





The amendment is defeated.

On the bill.

An explanation is requested, Mrs. Galef.

MRS. GALEF: Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Because this

bill is about affordable housing, there are various components to the bill,

so I will try to do my best to explain the property tax cap portion of it.

As we all know, in New York State we have a problem.

We have had the highest taxes in this nation. We're 78 percent above the

national average. Unfortunately, when we compare ourselves to other

states, in New York, three of ten counties, of which I live in, had the

highest households pay the highest property taxes. And some of you may

be in the eight of ten counties with the highest property taxes as a

percentage of home value, and four of the ten counties with the highest

property taxes as a percentage of personal income, and this is all in New

York State. So, tonight we're trying to take a step -- and this is a step --

toward creating an environment for the property taxpayers, whether

they're homeowners, whether they're tenants, whether they're businesses,


129

to try to lower the cost of doing business in New York State, and in a way

to be competitive with other states.

So, the bill on the property tax cap, just a quick

summary. For the local governments -- there are two parts to it; one is

local governments, one is education. With local governments we are

levying a property tax cap of 2 percent and/or inflation, whichever is less,

for our towns, cities, villages, counties, fire districts and all special

districts. It does not include New York City. It requires each local

government to calculate its tax levy limit and submit information to the

Comptroller. It authorizes a local government to exceed the levy limit if

it passes a local law by 60 percent. Not a referendum, it's just the boards,

the county boards, the local boards, by 60 percent of their membership

would vote to go beyond the 2 percent. It applies to local governments

starting in their budget year for 2012. It will sunset, as the school one

will. It goes into effect immediately, but it will expire on June 15, 2016,

but maybe continue thereafter only if rent regulation and control is in

effect.

Now, there are exemptions. There are exemptions to

this property tax cap if there are court orders or judgments that exceed 5

percent of the total levy from the previous year. It also exempts a growth

in pension costs attributable to the system average actuary contribution

rate increase of more than two percentage points from the previous year.

There are also adjustments. There is a carryover. If they do not spend all

their money in one year they can carry over no more than 1.5 percent of

the levy to use in the following year. There's a tax base growth factor so


130

that if a community grows in its physical or quantity growth -- new

shopping centers or whatever -- that would become a part of the property

tax base. Also, an interest of mine is consolidation and dissolution and

the Comptroller will calculate for any community. We had just voted

earlier, a few days ago, on combining the Village of Ossining Court with

the Town of Ossining Court. The Town of Ossining was concerned that

they were going to take over a court system and that would raise their

cost of doing business but, in this bill, with consolidation it would not.

They would be reconfigured by the Comptroller for their levy.

Now, the educational part. Again, a 2 percent limit, and

the educational cap would not expressly apply to the Big Five school

districts because they're a part of their City budget and they will deal with

that separately. It also exempts, as it did with the governments, the court

orders or judgments over 5 percent, growth in pension payments over 2

percent, but this one in school districts does cover capital. So, it wouldn't

include your debt service, your lease expenditures, your transportation

capital debt. And there's also the tax base growth factor -- I can't be cut

off yet, can I?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: That's the end of the

explanation period. You can go on the bill now, on your time.

MRS. GALEF: No, I don't want to do that. I'll sit down.

If you want more of an explanation, I'll come back.


MR. HAYES: Thank you, Mrs. Galef. That was

probably one of the most thorough explanations that I have heard in my


131

time in the State Assembly. I thank you for that. Obviously, you have

done a lot of hard work on this bill. Obviously, you know the provisions

inside and out and you explained them in a very straightforward manner.

I just want to, maybe, take a minute to ask you a couple of what-if

questions. You know, any time that there's a new program I think people,

in the back of their mind, look at all of the complicated formulas that

come up as part of the legislation and they ask themselves as they apply

to their own local situation, "What if."

You talked about the fact that the tax cap sets a 2 percent

or rate of CPI, whichever is less; however, there is a base of 1 percent.

So, hypothetically, in a situation in which a district or a State or the

nation experienced severe price declines -- it's possible; we might have

even a situation in which there was a negative CPI -- that would not

require school districts or municipalities to actually go and adopt budgets

that were less. The minimum will always be frozen at 1. It will never be

less than 1 percent; is that right?

MRS. GALEF: It can go to zero with the CPI and it can

go to zero if -- in the education component part of it, if the public does

not support up to 2 percent, and they can support more than that if 60

percent of the public votes for it. But, if the public doesn't and there's a

less than 2 percent vote twice it would go back to zero percent, also.

MR. HAYES: And there's nothing in this that would

preclude a governing Body from actually cutting the tax rate?

MRS. GALEF: Absolutely not. Of course they can.

MR. HAYES: This is the worst case scenario. In terms


132

of the 60 percent exemption, with a school board or a school district

budget, that's something that would be approved by the voters, so it's 60

percent of the number of people who show up on school budget voting

day and vote; is that right?

MRS. GALEF: That's right. That's the way we count all

votes. It's who has gone to vote.

MR. HAYES: Okay. But in a village, a municipality, a

township, if you had a municipal board of seven people, for example, five

would be required to pass the budget under ordinary circumstances, and

that number would satisfy the 60 percent requirement to pierce the cap; is

that right?

MRS. GALEF: Yes.

MR. HAYES: Do you have a comment about that

disparity? It seems like in those circumstances where there are municipal

boards of seven members, five are only necessary to pass a budget, five

constitute a 60 percent supermajority. It's really not going to affect any of

those municipalities.

MRS. GALEF: I think the difference that we had --

remember the bill originally, I believe it was the original bill submitted

by the Governor, said that there would have to be -- you know, in school

districts we have referendums. We have votes. With our local budgets,

we don't go out to the public for a vote unless there is a capital project

that people have done permissive referendum or whatever so, you know,

the Governor was going to require us to have votes on county budgets,

village budgets, town budgets. They all have budgets at different times.


133

So, you would be having votes all the time. I think it probably would be

very, very confusing. So, this bill went back to doing what we do today,

and today the Body, the legislative Body makes the decision and we kept

it to the same 60 percent as in school district budgets. I grant it, it's much

harder, probably, to get a 60 percent for a school budget vote than on a

town board, or maybe not, or on a county board. It depends on the

makeup and the perceptions of the people that are elected.

MR. HAYES: But, specifically, to get five out of seven

votes for a simple majority passage on a village board or a town board,

are you concerned that because that threshold of the majority is the same

as 60 percent, under this legislation, are you concerned at all that

taxpayers in those jurisdictions might see this as a meaningless part of the

property tax cap effort?

MRS. GALEF: Well, I don't think so. Otherwise, it

would be four out of seven because that would be majority otherwise and,

you know, I think that many of our communities -- the experience that I

have been having in our areas is most of the communities are also trying

to come within that tax cap, and they all have to go out for elections and,

so, there will be that conversation within the community. But, I think the

other was so unworkable to have -- I used to be on the county level. I just

can't imagine all the different formats. Even within counties there would

be county votes at various times because some -- Putnam County has a

budget that has to be done, I think, at the end of October. The County of

Westchester at the end of December. You have villages in March, April,

you know, and you have towns. I mean, it would be so complicated, I


134

think. So, this gets rid of that complication and I think, still, the

communities -- because they're going to be reaching out to the public and

public will speak out on the whole property tax issue.

MR. HAYES: I want to ask you about the impact of

pension costs on this legislation or on school budgets and municipal

budgets in general. We had a rather lengthy debate. I don't want to

revisit any of that today but, under this legislation, the pension costs, how

would they be calculated under the cap?

MRS. GALEF: Well, the pension costs, if they go up

more than 2 percent, then they would not be covered in the cap. It's the

percentage points. It's the rate. So, for example, with employees, ERS

employees, in 2011 the rate was 11.9, the contribution rate, and it's going

to go up in 2012 to 16.3. So, as it goes up the community is going to

have to pay the 2 percent additional rate, but they won't have to pay

above that.

MR. HAYES: Okay. So, if pension costs are probably

one of the fastest rising costs, at least we know over the next several

years for school districts and municipalities they're only going to have to

absorb up to 2 percent of that under the cap and the rest will just be added

to the levy?

MRS. GALEF: It's a percentage --

MR. HAYES: The percentage of the increase.

MRS. GALEF: -- percentage points. They will have to

absorb -- in the cap they have to absorb a 2 percent increase, but they

won't have to -- the other will be outside of the cap. So, we are helping


135

them with the additional costs for pensions.

MR. HAYES: Okay. Thank you very much.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Jaffee.

MS. JAFFEE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the bill.


MS. JAFFEE: There's no question that with so many

families hard hit in this economy, property tax relief is an urgent priority.

Unfortunately, this so-called "tax cap" will not provide -- will not provide

our residents with the tax relief they desperately need; rather, I believe

this is a recipe for disaster. It's a sound bite, a great sound bite, not sound

fiscal policy.

The so-called tax cap's fundamental flaw is that it will

not lower anyone's property tax bills and has the very real potential to

seriously undermine public education, diminish municipal and

emergency services and lower homeowners' property values in the

process. We cannot cap our way to excellence, progress or sustainability.

If a family has difficulty paying taxes now, a tax cap will not help them,

nor will it cut their taxes. It will, however, cut the already sinking equity

in their homes. And we all know that with the reality of assessments and

equalization rates, homeowners' tax bills will continue to rise.

For education and local services this legislation limits

the amount of revenues school districts and municipalities can raise

locally, potentially capping them at a zero growth, as we have heard.

Yet, it does not include any requirement that the State uphold its end of


136

the bargain, either in financing a reasonable portion of the cost of

education or basic municipal services or in curbing the mandates that are

the main drivers of their cost. And just let me say tonight we are taking a

very small step toward some mandates, but nowhere near where we need

to go. Perhaps together in the future we can respond to that.

I also just want to mention the pension that was

discussed. I think there is an error in understanding what it does. For

instance, if the pension costs go up one year from 8.2, the next year it's

11.1, which we've had over the last two years, you subtract that and it's

4.9 -- 2.49. The only exemption is .49 because it's above the 2 percent

and the only exemption is .49 of that pension exemption. It's very limited

in its assistance for our school districts and, certainly, a serious problem.

I'm very concerned that this cap proposal is going to be particularly

harmful in this weak economy without the State funds, as I've noted, as

has been promised.

You know, our school districts and school boards have

acknowledged the economic realities of our residents and have been

responsible, controlling spending and already utilizing much of their

reserves. There have been significant teacher and staff layoffs already all

over the State, and in my district in particular. Cuts in programs and pay

freezes. In addition, and I emphasize the imposition of the cap without

meaningful mandate relief, real mandate relief as we move forward, and

significant exemptions, this will further threaten public education and

municipal services in New York State. There are at least 100 unfunded

Federal and State mandates, and the Race to the Top is going to cost one


137

of my school districts over four years almost $2 million and they get just

a very small amount of funds coming back. Recent proposals by the

State Education Department to require an additional four graduation

credits is going to be a further burden on our school districts. How about

energy costs and the further exemptions for pension and health care

costs? We need mandate relief as we move forward or we will destroy

our public education.

This proposal also -- you know, earlier today someone

said we're taking the first step towards a slippery slope, taking voters out

of the process. Well, I agree. That is exactly what this does. This

proposal also undermines the public voice, placing control in the hands of

a minority, 40 percent, by requiring a 60 percent majority vote, allowing

a small percent of minority voters to determine school funding issues.

This silences the local voice and undermines the Democratic principle of

majority vote and it is structured to ensure failure.

I have had meetings with school superintendents, school

board members, PTA parents and I have heard their concerns regarding

the impact on their schools and the further program cuts. We discussed

the non-mandated programs that are valued by the community, but now

are threatened, threatened because inevitably they will be cut. Some of

these are BOCES, career tech, class size guidelines, guidance counselors,

early childhood programs, kindergarten. Many of my schools are talking

about cutting kindergarten. Extracurricular clubs and activities which

hold our children to positive activities and keep them from gang

activities; elective courses, teaching assistants, school nurses, security


138

guards, music and art programs. One of my school districts is actually

discussing cutting the marching band, which has been an amazing

program for over a period of a number of years with an incredible

teacher. These are the very young men and women who need to be kept

busy and active in our society. They are losing out.

You know, recently at a hearing, a Business Council

person commented that, "Well, they can restore some of these programs

in two or three years." Well, you cannot tell a child that he can't have a

kindergarten class, wait a few years. Or a high school student, say to

them, "You can't take that course, that AP course. If you want to go to

college, wait a few years." Children cannot wait a few years.

And this sunset issue. A five-year sunset? Much too

long. We need to continue to revisit on a regular basis and reevaluate the

impact.

Let's look at some history on the tax cap, evidence from

other states. Since Proposition 13 in California we have seen California

schools go from among the top in the nation to 38th, due to the tax caps.

And by the way, New York is 8th in the United States at this time. Let's

hope it does not fall like California did. One of my constituents was

telling me the other day that his son used to live in California. He had

moved to California, he now moved back to New York State. Why?

Because the schools are so poor there that do you know the parents had to

collect money together so that their school could have an art class, so the

kids could have an art class? They had to raise money for that. And

Massachusetts, everybody talks about Massachusetts, but when the 2.5


139

percent tax cap went into place -- and they have a 50 percent, a majority

vote -- it was during a great time in the economy. The economy -- they

were doing very well and they funded their schools, especially the high-

needs schools, with an enormous amount of money and it really worked

very well initially, although there are still some middle-class schools that

are still having some difficulty. But, as the economy started to go down,

there became a great deal of difficulty in Massachusetts. The programs

were diminished, closing libraries, closing vast school programs, layoffs,

police, firefighters, teachers. Middle-class school districts fared poorly

because wealthy school districts overrode the cap. Middle-class school

districts struggled and the high-needs school districts got a little help, but

they started to really decline. Unfortunately, those poorer school districts

have a more difficult time passing the budgets, further widening the

achievement gap for children who live in poverty. This increased

disparity of educational opportunity exacerbates the achievement gap

between children of high-wealth and low-wealth districts. Middle-class

students were impacted as well, because their access to school aid was

limited. You know, unequal access, unequal opportunities.

Yes, New Yorkers deserve relief from the burden of out-

of-control, regressive, very regressive, property taxes, which is why I

believe that we absolutely must have meaningful real property tax reform.

We have to get tax reform right. How do we best do this? Well, to begin

with, by not allowing the millionaires' tax to sunset. Provide funding to

our public schools and municipalities that would both control the rise of

property taxes, protect services, education and our home values. And we


140

have to move forward with a much more progressive tax structure in New

York State and consider the possibility and the concept of a circuit

breaker law which caps the amount of property taxes to be paid by

families and seniors, based on their income. It actually cuts their taxes --

it's a tax cut -- and protects our schools while continuing to give our

taxpayers a voice.

You know, we're going to pass this legislation today, but

we have to, as I said before, really consider moving forward with real

mandate relief and State funding. You know, business and industry are

drawn to the areas of high-performing public schools, a solid economic

base and reliable, quality municipal services for our residents. The way

to sustain communities and the State is to value, not devalue, our public

schools, our teachers and our children. Our children are the drivers of

our economic future, competitiveness and economic vitality. I know

everyone here realizes that we not only represent - at least I feel strongly

that I not only represent a voter constituency, but I also represent those

too young to have a voice in the electoral process. We must not abdicate

our responsibility to provide a sound, basic education for every child. It's

their constitutional right. We must not abdicate our responsibility. We

have to have real property tax relief.

I urge my colleagues to vote in the negative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Abinanti.

MR. ABINANTI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Following

up on what my colleague from across the River from me from the

suburban Rockland County said, I would like to speak on behalf of my


141

view of what this does to the suburban County of Westchester. It does

not provide tax relief and it does not address the causes of high property

taxes. It's a bad idea that somehow caught on and just won't go away. If

a tax cap were a good idea, we would have a proposal before us for a tax

cap Statewide, for all local governments, including the City of New York.

And, we would be capping tax burden, not just property taxes, which is

the way we finance our government and our schools in the suburbs.

I can't speak to how New York City should be run. I

can't speak to how Upstate, the rural areas, should be run, but I spent 19

years as a county legislator and six years as a town councilman. I have a

little idea of what's going on in Westchester County. This proposal is a

disaster. This scheme has significant constitutional implications. It's bad

public policy. It interferes with home rule. It's a job killer. It reduces

services to our communities yet, paradoxically, produces not one penny

of tax relief. The present proposal may be unconstitutional because the

Constitution already proposes and imposes a 2 percent cap. So, you

cannot tax more than 2 percent of your taxable property values, and the

courts have held that this Legislature cannot monkey with that cap. The

Constitution prohibits any action which impairs a local government's

ability to repay its debt. That's what this does. It grants local

governments home rule with the right to levy taxes. This violates that.

And it guarantees every child an affordable, sound, basic public

education, and we already know the courts have said this State has not

provided the monies for that. And the courts have said money is the most

important part and we're saying to the local governments, you can't


142

replace what this Legislature took away. I suggest this may be

unconstitutional.

Now, it's also bad policy. There's everything wrong with

it and nothing right. Number one, it's a job killer. It's designed to lay

people off. Look at the numbers nationwide. The private sector has

struggled to produce more jobs than it loses. But we're losing on the

national level. Why? Because we have 400,000 public-sector jobs that

have been lost in the last three years, and it's estimated this will cost us

13,000 jobs over the next year, as a result of this proposal, if this becomes

law. And it doesn't provide one penny of tax relief, not one penny. If

you struggle paying your taxes today, you will have problems after this

bill is passed.

You have to understand the way taxes are imposed in the

suburbs. You have a budget, you have a tax levy and you have a tax rate.

I can tell you about one local school district that has a $56 million

budget. It had $2.1 million worth of structural costs, including a 30

percent increase in pension costs this year. It struggled and cut that back

to a $700,000 increase by getting rid of teachers and other means of

providing education to the kids. So, it had a 1.2 budget increase, and

after it used up its surplus and to balance the State and Federal cuts, had a

1.5 percent tax levy increase -- well within this cap. But, guess what?

The taxpayers had a 4.8 percent tax increase. Even if they comply with

this, there's a 4.8 percent tax increase because some of the wealthy people

in the community and businesses insist on challenging taxes and reducing

the assessed value of the community. So, the local homeowner is paying


143

more in taxes even though this school voluntarily complied with what

we're going to mandate. For how many years can they it continue to do

that.

The third point is this decimates home rule. It destroys

the concept of home rule and it takes away powers from local officials

who are elected to craft local budgets and spend local monies. You

know, it's easy for us to mandate that somebody else solve the problem

with the local unions and the teachers and deal with all of the problems.

We're providing no help to them at all, but we're mandating that they

solve the problem.

Now, this is also based on several faulty premises, the

the first of which is that school and municipal services are a luxury, and

we can only afford a certain amount and if you can't afford it then you

can't have it. Well, I want to respectfully suggest that emergency services

and police services and clearing the roads and schools are not luxuries,

but we have to find a way to pay for them. They're not something that

you can do without. And I would suggest to you also that all of the

services being provided today are necessary, not nice to have. The nice-

to-have stuff is gone, at least in Westchester County. We have been

closing swimming pools. We have been doing things like that for a

while, and we cut taxes last year 2 percent. As a result of this State's

budget, there's another 1 percent that's gone. So, the County of

Westchester is living on 3 percent less than it was last year. How will it

ever get that back? Under this tax cap it could never go back to last

year's taxes and it's going to continue to spiral down. It's also based on


144

the faulty premise that everything else in the world is going to stay the

same, that there are not going to be any more Federal and State cuts that

are going to affect the budgets, as if the Federal government and this

State is going to continue to provide the same level of funding so that the

local governments and the schools can deal only with their own

discretionary matters if they have any less. It doesn't take into account

the fact that we're cutting and the Federal government is continuing to

cut.

I would like to make one point here. I noticed this is

linked with rent control. A tax cap is not rent control or rent

stabilization. It is not going to make housing or living in any our

suburban communities any more affordable. It is not equivalent or even

analogous to rent control. In fact, rent control makes an apartment more

affordable by restricting profits of a private investor who knew the terms

of the investment when he or she bought the building and knew that it

was controlled by a landlord -- was under the control of government.

That is very different than trading off services to lower the cost of taxes.

And the tax cap will make suburban life more expensive, not less

expensive, because it's designed to cut funds available for municipal and

school services but it's not going to cut the need for those services.

People will still need them, and those who are wealthy will just pay for

them privately. So, those will have more will continue to have the same

and those who have less will have more of less. And, so, our

communities that are poor with people in them that cannot buy their own

services, that can't live in gated communities, are going to suffer. They're


145

not going to have the pre-K, they're not going to have the daycare, they're

not going to have all of the things that we take for granted today because

government is going to stop paying for those. Those who are wealthier

will just pay them privately. The rest will not have them. So, it's going

to make our communities more expensive to live in, not less expensive

because, in the end, privatization -- which is what this fosters -- actually

costs more. And this is going to damage our communities. As I have

already said, there are going to be trade-offs; whether you have potholes

or police officers, whether you have road repairs, roof replacements or

whatever. Our infrastructure is going to fall apart because infrastructure

will be the last item that our local governments will put money into. And

this is going to encourage poor fiscal practices, as we discussed this

morning. We are encouraging municipalities to bond costs.

We have already heard some discussion about what this

is going to do to our schools. I respectfully suggest that this is going to

very badly damage our schools. We already have a present sensible cap

on schools. For those of you who are not familiar with the contingency

budget, when two budgets fail, two votes fail, you fall back to a

contingency budget. A contingency budget is the exact same thing as a

tax cap -- this year it's 1.9 percent -- except it has some sensible

exceptions in it. The things that we mandate the local schools to do are

excepted from the contingency budget. This tax cap is basically the same

as a contingency budget, but removes all of the sensible exceptions that

this Legislature put into the contingency over the past how many years.

So, in one vote we're wiping out all of the good stuff that we did over the


146

years. And it's also interesting that this is being described, even by its

proponents, as "a blunt instrument". Well, you know, we have problems

in this State. So what do we do? We set up a study commission. But,

we're not going to do that with the schools to see what's wrong. No,

we're going to hit them with a blunt instrument and we're just going to

say, "2 percent. And you guys on the bottom, you figure out how to get

to the 2 percent."

It's also interesting, this is undemocratic. The most

democratic part of our system is to allow local voters to vote on a budget.

This takes that and turns it on its head. It says 40 percent of the people

have more power than 60 percent of the people because if you don't get a

60 percent vote, you can't go to a higher spending level. So, we're saying

those of you who vote no count more than those of you who vote less or

vote yes. So, that's very democratic, I would suggest. And this is not

going to cap, as we said before, school taxes. It's just going to cap

educational opportunity. We're going to see a real change in our schools,

and not for the better. If you take a look you will see the income

disparity between our communities is reflected in the type of education

that's given in those communities. And it's going to get worse under this.

Twenty-four school districts with a non-white population was over 70

percent. Sixty percent of them would not have overridden if this were in

place. So, that is, the minority school districts will not override. The last

numbers this year show that of the school districts with a non-white

population over 70 percent, 60 percent would fail the requirements. And

there's really no escape valve; on the other hand, there are sensible


147

alternatives. We could use a tax circuit breaker to give people tax relief.

We could use a sales tax dedicated to the schools. We could use an

income tax dedicated to the schools. There are alternatives that give real

property tax relief. And, you know, the public support for this is well

overstated. There are surveys out there that show that the public really

likes the tax cap. Well, some people did just a poll in Westchester

County, and they found, interestingly, that when people were informed

and were told and said you have a choice, a tax cap or degradation of

your school system or degradation of your services, not surprisingly,

those who supported the tax cap, the number dropped dramatically. And

what many of you may not know, there's an online petition. You know,

you can go around to a supermarket and get somebody to sign a petition

very easily because they'll sign anything. But, when somebody is being

told, "Please sign on online," they have to read what it is they're signing

on to, then they have to go through the trouble of finding the petition

online and going through that process of adding their name. Well, right

at the moment there are more than 10,000 signatures against this proposal

and the number is growing by the hour. So, I'm going to suggest to you

that when people start to see what it is we did to them, this is not going to

be very popular.

So, I want to suggest, in short, this tax cap,

unfortunately, will begin the process of change in our suburbs and it's not

going to be a positive change. So, I urge you to vote no.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

MR. FITZPATRICK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since


148

our esteemed colleague from Manhattan, Mr. Bing, is leaving after today,

we did not put this bill through the Housing Committee and he lamented

that he would not have an opportunity to see Mr. Lopez and I do our

thing one last time. So, I'm going to ask Mr. Lopez if he could just give

us a brief explanation of the rent control or the rent stabilization portion

of this bill, very briefly. I know we only have 15 minutes.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Lopez?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Briefly. We have to define "briefly."

Thank you. You know, I would be only glad to explain the bill.

Individuals should know that when we deal with rent regulations and rent

stabilization, in the three previous pieces of legislation the benefits and

provisions were eroded. This is the first time ever in at least the time I

have been here, and I'm here 28 years, that the benefits have been

enhanced. I think you were part of a debate earlier this year when we

came up with a bill that was very comprehensive, had 12 additional

benefits. This bill has, I think, four or five, depending on how you look

at it. And, also, when you start dealing with compromises, no one likes

it, you know. So, the people on the far left don't like it, the landlords

don't like it, the real estate people don't like it. The only people that like

it are myself and Shelly Silver. No, just joking. It is a work in progress.

People came up with a compromise and this was through negotiations.

So, let me explain. It's a four-year rent extension, rent

stabilization extension. We modified the individual apartment

improvements from 160 to 140. The vacancy deregulation threshold,

well, in reverse, the act would adjust the vacancy deregulation from 2,000


149

to 2,500. That is, I think, a 25 percent increase. It also -- prior to this,

something was sensitive to me that if you vacated your apartment, every

two months there would be consecutive 20-percent increases. This limits

the apartment to one 20-percent increase. And, lastly, when we deal with

the high-income, high-rent deregulation thresholds, we raised the

incomes from $175,000 to $200,000 for units. And rent thresholds would

increase from 2,000 to 2,500, like I said. Basically, that's the rent

stabilization. This bill would also require the Division of Housing and

Community Renewal to promulgate rules and regulations to implement

and enforce all provisions of the Rent Regulation Law of 2011. Very

significant to the people that are advocates on rent regulations. We pass

laws and then seldom are they enforced. This mandates, through

language, an enforcement authority by DHCR.

So, in summary, I think that's the summary of the bill.

As I stated, this bill -- there's a lot of people. Shelly Silver came out real

early, whether people liked it or not. When the Governor had the State of

the State on his commitment to rent regulations, my office, people like

Jessica DeMarco and Jonathan Harkavy and Debbie Feinberg, probably

had more meetings, not only with tenant advocates, but with landlord

groups and real estate, and we tried to come to bring everyone together. I

want to let you know there were about 30 such meetings. The end result

of all those meetings was, we failed. We couldn't get a consensus, but we

put in a lot of time and energy. I believe -- although I would like to see a

better bill, this is not a perfect bill, but this is a compromise. And like I

stated earlier, it's the first time in years that we've had some


150

enhancements to the Rent Regulation Laws.

MR. FITZPATRICK: Very good. Thank you, Vito. We

call this the Emergency Tenant Protection Act. This emergency, how

long have we had this emergency? I guess it goes back to, what, 1940,

end of World War II?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Well, you know, the answer to that.

We've talked about this regularly, that no apartment, no unit, has to be

rent regulated. All a landlord has to do is build and not get government

subsidies. Then they would be exempt from any regulations. But, what's

happened for the last 50, 60 years, when individuals take subsidies then

they have certain obligations. That's the same thing with the Roberts

decision on -- you know, that's impacting a number of units in Manhattan

where they took the J-51 benefit and the courts decided, the courts, that

that benefit limited them to vacancy decontrol of the apartments. So, the

point is a good one, but if you want to build and you don't want to

participate in the rent regulation system, all you do is you do it without

government help. Once you get government help, then you have to take

certain conditions.

MR. FITZPATRICK: Well, absolutely. You know,

property owners who avail themselves of those programs fully

understand. It's those units where government control was imposed upon

them. This was a temporary response to a situation that developed after

World War II. We are still living with it. We are the only city, major city

in the United States that still has government control of its housing stock

or a significant portion of the housing stock. We are not creating, by


151

virtue of an extension of this law, two classes of people? We have those

who are protected, frankly, who don't deserve protection, those who have

high income, at the expense of hard-working, middle- and lower-class

people who are basically frozen out of a housing market where rates

would be very competitive and very affordable for them because there are

people who make significant amounts of money who are in

rent-stabilized apartments and rent-controlled apartments who have no

incentive to moving out, have every incentive to stay and that is very

harmful to younger families, younger New Yorkers who have no place to

go.

MR. V. LOPEZ: Well, I think you would sort of place

your thesis or theory in a little bit of conflict when you visit parts of my

district -- and I have been trying to get you out there. We wanted you to

come last night but you stayed there, I went down. When you look at the

one-, two- and three-family unit housing, they have no rent regulations.

So, if you came to my district, what you will see is -- and if you worked

out of my office, and we pay well, maybe better then you get paid as a

salary -- you would get phone calls from ministers saying, "Do you know

Mrs. Bacigalupi can't stay. Her rent just went from $1,200 to $1,800 and

she only has $1,600 in Social Security and pension. You have to help her

out." And there's no market protectors, no protections at all. A young

lady across the street, a Lithuanian lady, outlived her family. She said,

"My only crime is I lived longer than my children." And she's 88 years

old. She cannot -- she's now exhausted her savings, and you might say,

"Well, fine. It's market system, to hell with you." We have the fastest


152

growing number of people in Williamsburg going to shelters. The

government pays from a different end. And, you know, interestingly,

they'll pay $3,000 a month to place a family in a shelter when they won't

pay $1,500.

So, this free market system, you have to see how it

works with the one-, two- and threes. If we want to replicate that, we're

going to be in a lot of trouble and what we will have is ghettos. What

will happen is this: People will be -- someone says, well, why do they

have to live in Manhattan? Well, that's Manhattan. Why do they have to

live in DUMBO or Williamsburg or Bushwick? I represented, up until a

few years ago, the poorest community in New York State. It's changing

rapidly, and it's scary because a lot of the people that have been living

there -- and these are every kind of group -- white, ethnics, minorities --

they can't live anymore there. So, does government -- do we have an

obligation to help them? The question before us. I think we do.

MR. FITZPATRICK: Very good. That's a fair point and

I think the way government helps the people you just referred to and

speak of is, quite frankly, to get out of the way and provide opportunities

for developers to build that housing, whether it's addressing the zoning

laws of New York City or the environmental regulations that hamper

development of housing for the population that you're trying to serve, that

we all want to serve. Landlords are not in the business of building

housing beyond the market's ability to pay. They want to provide a

service, provide housing. They want to do it at a fair price, at a fair profit

but, in fact, it's government that stands in the way through either a zoning


153

and/or regulatory process, but also through regulation of the current

housing stock, which puts limitations on how much they can earn. And

who suffers because of that? The tenants of those buildings who live in

substandard or less-than-perfect housing because of an owner's inability

to earn enough of a profit to maintain that property.

But, I thank you, Vito.

MR. V. LOPEZ: Just let me answer that and make a

statement.

MR. FITZPATRICK: Sure. I'm running out of time,

though.

MR. V. LOPEZ: Part of the bill, quickly, deals with the

real estate industry. It is a 421-a tax exemption where only 20 percent of

the units are affordable and 80 percent aren't, they are market rate. And

so --

MR. FITZPATRICK: Right. That works well.

MR. V. LOPEZ: -- there's an incentive -- works well,

depending -- my position would be if it was 40 percent, you know. If it

was that, I would be much happier. And, also, something that you should

be very excited about because you're colleagues in the Senate wanted it,

to communities outside New York City we created a 421-m, which is also

similar to 421-a, out of New York City, the localities have to opt in and it

could be multiple dwellings. At least half of the units have to be, you

know, residential. So, these are incentives.

So, in this piece of legislation we're helping developers

by giving them tax breaks. We're building a certain percentage of


154

affordability. We're maintaining rent protections to a certain group of

people and the market and the population growth in the City causes us to

interfere. As I opened up earlier, anybody that wants to, anybody that

wants to, they could build without any regulations, just go out there to

build without government help.

MR. FITZPATRICK: Very good. Thank you, Vito.



MR. FITZPATRICK: This is a tough vote for all of us.

I strongly oppose rent control, but I'm very much in favor of a tax cap.

Mrs. Bacigalupi, who Mr. Lopez refers to, is a victim of this current

system because there is no affordable market for her and others like her

because there are too many people who are undeserving of protection due

to their high income, but there's no incentive for them to move out when

they're paying a below-market rent. And that's what happens when

government gets involved to control prices. It distorts the market. And

we're going to have this continue for another four years, unfortunately.

But, on the good side, we will get a tax cap and it's going to drive, I think,

on the tax cap side of this bill, it's going to drive a very important

conversation that is long overdue and that is what is driving our costs up,

those structural cost drivers. There's no more blunt instrument, as was

referred to by a previous speaker, than the Triborough Amendment. That

is a blunt instrument used against the taxpayer by every school district,

every county, every township. There's no more blunt instrument than a

rigged contingency budget system where contractual arrangements,


155

contractual agreements, are off limits, and it's those very contractual

agreements that are driving up our costs.

So, sooner or later, ladies and gentlemen, we will have

what I call "our Wisconsin moment," where these very difficult issues

will have to be dealt with responsibly because the costs are going to

continue to go up. Borrowing will not solve that problem. It just pushes

the problem off to another day. A tax cap is necessary because it's going

to force us all to have a conversation no one wants to have, but we have

to have.


ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Donald Miller.

MR. D. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the

sponsor, Mrs. Galef, yield for a few questions?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Which sponsor?

Mrs. Galef.

MRS. GALEF: Yes.

MR. D. MILLER: Quick question, I think. Under this

cap, how much can taxes go up?

MRS. GALEF: It really depends on the community and

whether you're talking about the local governments. With the local

governments, they have the opportunity to raise their taxes as high as they

want if 60 percent of the elected officials decide to do it. For school

districts, it is up to the public. It's also up to the school board to decide

what kind of proposal they're going to put out to the public, but it is up to

the public to decide how much they're willing to entertain with an


156

increase.

MR. D. MILLER: Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you.



MR. D. MILLER: I think the answer to that question is

we don't know. Everyone who has risen in this Chamber in opposition to

the cap so far has -- the implication in their opposition has been that we

need to tax some more. We need to spend some more and we need to

protect the taxing and the spending that we do. I am so unbelievably in

favor of a tax cap, it just makes me want to jump out of my shoes. The

problem is, I'm not in favor of this tax cap. You know, last year I made a

promise to the families and the employers of the 121st District. I

promised them that I would vigorously pursue job creation through tax

cuts and spending reductions. This property tax cap bill raises taxes and

allows this Legislature to continue to spend without restraint. This is

being marketed as a 2 percent property tax cap, but the cap isn't there.

There are carve-outs, there are exceptions that will allow taxes to

continue to rise and there's no spending control within this bill because

there's no relief from unfunded State mandates. Only the New York State

Legislature could pass a tax increase without actually knowing how large

it is and continue spending without restraint and call it a tax cap.

The taxpayers will be astonished later on this year and

next year when their property taxes continue to rise because they believe

that we're under a tax control regime. In this bill there is no cap. This

bill -- in my opinion, this is going to be a political vote on a political bill


157

designed for political advertising next year. Now, I consider myself to be

a fairly reasonable person -- at least I like to think that I am, and I try to

be reasonable. I understand the art of compromise. I understand, you

know, the art of taking half a loaf in order to move the marker down the

field, in order to advance an idea incrementally. But, my friends, I want

us to understand here that that's not what's happening. This 2 percent

property tax cap is not incremental tax control. It's institutionalizing tax

increases. A 2 percent cap is no cap at all. It's a guaranteed 2 percent tax

increase. Why do I say that? In a no-cap environment there will be some

years, usually election years, when property taxes won't go up. The

reason that local governments can do that is because they know that in

ensuing years they can raise taxes 2 percent or 4 percent or 10 percent or

whatever they want, but in a tax cap environment, in an environment

where property taxes are capped, local governments, whether they need

to, from a budgetary standpoint, or not, will go to the cap virtually every

year in an attempt to build a reserve fund for years when they would like

to go to the cap or exceed the cap, but they can't.

Now, some people will say, "Well, let's look at

Massachusetts. They've had some success with their cap."

Massachusetts is interesting, but it's irrelevant because their success isn't

tied to their tax cap. The reason the Massachusetts model has worked is

something very simple. It's called comparative advantage. New York

and New Jersey have significantly larger populations than Massachusetts.

Those populations are wealthy and mobile and they live under a

significantly larger tax burden than Massachusetts has. That gives


158

Massachusetts a comparative advantage over New York and New Jersey

when families and employers are looking for a home. The Massachusetts

model doesn't apply for New York because New York is the highest-

taxing, highest-spending State in the nation. We have no opportunity to

create a comparative advantage with any other state, certainly not when

we institutionalize annual 2 percent property tax increases. Any tax cap

that's above zero is a tax increase, plain and simple. And it's a tax

increase that we cannot afford in this State because it's a job killer. New

York State, we are the worst in the nation on taxing. We collect more

State income tax per capita than any other State. We collect more State

and local income tax per capita than any other State. We collect more

State and local corporate tax than every other State except for Alaska,

because of their oil industry, and we'll take back the number one spot

once we start hydrofracking. Only a handful of states collect more State

and local sales tax than we do. Only California has a higher gas tax than

New York, and that's just by four-tenths of a penny. Only two states have

higher cell phone taxes than New York. New York State even has the

highest cigarette excise tax in the country, which I don't have a problem

with, which may shock some of you. I don't have a problem that our

cigarette excise tax is the highest in the country, but I'm afraid that it's not

highest because we're most adamant about discouraging smoking. I'm

afraid that our cigarette excise tax is the highest in the country because

that's just what we do. We want to be first in the highest taxes in the

country.

Now, let's talk about property taxes. New York State,


159

we collect more property tax per capita than any other State. For

owner-occupied housing as a percentage of home value, nine of the ten

highest-taxed counties in the country are in New York State. My own

county, Onondaga, has the seventh-highest property taxes in the country;

not in the State, in the country. Set all of that taxing against the fact that

we are no higher than sixth in the nation in income per capita and you

can see where the problem lies. We do not have a revenue problem in

this State. We are not under taxed. I am unconvinced by the argument

that if we just tax a little more, give just a little bit more to the State, then

all of our problems will be solved. We will have paid for whatever we

need to pay for and we can all breathe a sigh of relief. It is absurd to

argue that in the highest-taxed State in the nation we don't collect enough

taxes. We do not need and we cannot afford annual 2 percent property

taxes increases.

You know, we need real tax relief in this State.

Everyone who has risen to this point has defended the current system. I

proposed new ideas. Someone said somewhere that we need a proposal

that actually caps taxes. I proposed legislation that's a 0 percent property

tax cap. Zero percent is an honest, genuine cap that stops property taxes

from rising so that we don't need gimmicks like a circuit breaker. A

circuit breaker is supposed to help, you know, our elderly, our indigent,

our infirmed so that they don't have to worry about being taxed out of

their homes. Under a 0 percent cap they don't have to worry about being

taxed out of their homes because their property taxes won't rise. Now, 0

percent, you know, the street says 0 percent is pretty harsh. Everyone


160

with an interest in growing government makes the same argument. They

say caps are draconian. They say caps are a blunt instrument. They

claim that State and local governments can't survive under something as

reactionary as a tax cap. Nonsense. Every other major tax that we

impose in this State is capped. Sales tax is capped, 3 percent with a 1

percent extender. Income tax is capped at a number of levels. In fact, the

debate about raising the millionaires' tax is fundamentally a debate about

exceeding the income tax cap. The corporate tax, capital gains tax, estate

taxes, are all capped in the same manner. They cannot exceed a

particular level. Property tax is the only tax that's not capped, and it

needs to be capped because, look, let's be honest. The reason the seniors,

our seniors and our working families can't afford homes is because the

property tax is not a tax on property, it's a tax on income. It just happens

to be -- it's an income tax. It just happens to be figured on the value of a

person's home instead of the value of their paycheck. But, it's still paid

for out of current income. A person's primary residence doesn't generate

revenue and that's why our seniors cannot afford to keep their homes and

that's why our working families can't afford to buy home. A 0 percent

property tax cap is the first step in the right direction toward helping our

seniors and our indigent.

Our problem is not on the taxing side. Our problem is

on the spending side. So, how do we handle the spending side? Well,

not with the bill before us today. This bill does virtually nothing,

virtually nothing, to control State mandates, funds or unfunded. My

proposal for a 0 percent property tax cap contains in it complete mandate


161

relief for local governments, towns, villages, counties, schools. You

know, we tell the locals what to do. We tell them how to do it, we tell

them when to do it and we do it with precision. Sometimes we even do it

with a little bit of flair, but we don't do it with any money. In fact, we

hide the true size of our spending problem here in Albany by forcing

State programs onto the locals for them to pay for. Schools are a great

example of this. Every year people go to the polls and they vote on their

school budgets. They believe that they're voting to approve or reject their

local spending plan, but you and I know that they're not. Somewhere

between 90 and 95 percent of those school budgets are driven by us.

We're telling them what they're going to spend their money on.

Occasionally a budget goes down and a district will go to contingency

and taxpayers are shocked that the contingency budget is higher than the

budget they just rejected. Why? State mandates. That's us.

You will often hear the argument that schools can't

survive under a cap, and that's true if there's no mandate relief. In my bill

there's complete mandate relief which returns budget control and

decision-making to school districts and local governments, and that saves

our schools. And for that reason alone, with no mandate relief in the

current bill, for that reason alone it's worth voting against this bill. But,

I'll tell you what. Even under this current bill, as bad as it is, the

argument that schools can't survive a tax cap is bogus. Property taxes are

not a dedicated revenue stream for schools and a property tax cap does

not define the limit of education spending. A property tax cap defines the

limit of property taxing. We could cut taxes in New York State, taxes


162

and spending, across the board 10 percent if we wanted to, and still

increase education funding. It's simply a matter of priorities for us. So,

what about the argument that we can do a 2 percent cap today and drive it

down later, or we can do a cap now and get real mandate relief later on. I

worked in Washington long enough to recognize that one. Don't you

believe it. Don't believe it.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents and all New Yorkers need

honest tax relief and we only get that with a 0 percent property tax cap,

not with the bill that's before us today. We need genuine spending

controls. We only get that with real mandate relief, not with the bill that's

before us today which is virtually silent on mandate relief. Today might

not be the day for a 0 percent property tax cap, but neither should it be

the day for a 2 percent cap that could be who knows how much. I made

promises to my constituents back home. I promised them that I would

not vote for a cap that's above zero. I promised them I would only vote

for mandate relief that actually relieves and saves school districts and

local governments, and I promised them I wouldn't vote for any of those

proposals if they were included in the same bill. Unfortunately, as much

as I like the idea of a tax cap, and as much as I'm going to continue to

fight for a good one, this bill tonight, for me, based on the promises that I

made to my constituents, fails on all three counts.

Thank you, sir.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Paulin.

MS. PAULIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have

reached a point where property taxes are just too high. No one is


163

questioning that fact. The question we are debating before us is whether

or not to adopt this tax cap, this proposal. If we do, will we contain costs

but still allow our cities, towns, villages and schools to provide the

services and programs that make them among the best in the nation? Can

this tax cap, with not one bit of real reform, token reform, minutia

reform, actually achieve the goal of reducing taxes without doing

irreversible, long-term damage? I don't believe it can. First, there's a

time warp between when the cap is effective and when schools and

municipalities can negotiate new contracts with adjusted salaries and

benefits. It could be as much as three years. Thus, for those three years,

if local communities and school districts cannot reduce salary increases,

increase benefit contributions or reduce staff, they will be forced to cut or

eliminate programs to stay within the cap. As we all know, once a

program is eliminated it's very hard to bring it back. We will see

discretionary programs -- kindergarten, art, foreign language, sports in

the schools, recycling pick-ups, street and sidewalk repairs in our

municipalities reduced, response time to police and fire emergencies

reduced, putting residents at risk. I'm particularly vexed by the proposal

to allow an override of the tax cap with a supermajority vote. Not only is

it undemocratic, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, the

wealthier school districts will likely get a 60 percent majority to override

the cap, but the poorer districts will not. Year after year after year,

poorer districts will need to cut more programs and more staff to stay

within the cap. This 60 percent supermajority override will surely create

a greater learning gap among poor and wealthy students, exactly what we


164

have been trying to avoid for the last decade or more.

It is clear, too, that we cannot institute a tax cap without

significant mandate relief. As most of you know, pension contributions

are a fixed mandated cost for municipalities and school districts with

little control on their part. In my community, the most recent village

budget pension costs were 4.5 percent increase on the tax levy.

Obviously, if the tax cap were in place this last year, major cuts in

services and staff would have been required. In my school district, the

increase from pension costs was 1.72 percent, leaving little or no room

for other increases, programmatically or contractually. The bill we are

voting on would require an 18 percent increase in pension costs before

costs could be exempted. Moreover, capital costs are only exempted for

school districts, not municipalities. What happens when the community

has a boiler breakdown, needs a new fire truck or has to replace aging

sewer lines and basic infrastructure? Do we force communities to fire a

firefighter to buy equipment; fire two police officers to pay for their

equipment?

I've thought long and hard about this decision. Voting

yes is clearly the easier vote. It's the political vote. Is the

politically-expedient vote, but I believe it's also the wrong one. In the

end, I could not be part of a movement that denied reality, abandoned our

students, neglected our citizens and threatened our future. I don't believe

this cap is sustainable over time. A yes vote today will create irreversible

damage to our educational programs and municipal services. I plan on

voting no and I encourage and urge all of my colleagues to do the same.


165

Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Zebrowski.

MR. ZEBROWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise

today -- it's no secret that property taxes are one of the largest burdens

that are affecting our residents here in New York State. How many years,

how many Sessions, how many platforms, how many campaigns have

there been where property taxes are one of the number-one priorities?

Yet, it doesn't seem that we ever really get a handle on it. It's a burden

for seniors that are living on fixed incomes. It's threatening families that

are trying to thrive in our suburban Upstate and urban districts. And it's a

burden on young people who are trying to get a foothold in the

communities they grew up in. And, perhaps, most importantly, it's also a

burden on our businesses.

You know, in Rockland County over the past eight years

property taxes have grown at double the rate of wages. Wages have

grown by about 2.29 percent and property taxes by about 5.21 percent.

However, that doesn't really tell the whole story because in the past

couple of years, school districts and municipalities have lived within the

property tax cap. They have kept it around 2 percent. However, it's those

prior-year budgets where the overhead is really created that taxpayers are

still living under. If you take between 2003 and 2008 in Rockland

County, the average property tax increase was 6.35 percent. For a lot of

districts there was at least one time in there where the tax increase

reached about double digits. To put this in context for my constituents, if

one of my constituents currently pays about $8,000 in property taxes and


166

the average increase is around 6 percent, in five years they'll be paying

$10,800 in property taxes. $12,000 starting now, it will be $16,300 in

about five years. This is simply unsustainable.

We talk a lot about growing businesses, creating jobs.

And we talk about it not just because it grows the economy and gets

people back to work but, also, because if you can grow rateables, you can

help reduce property taxes. However, you only need to ask one business

in any of our regions what the single biggest obstacle is in either coming

to New York or staying in New York, and they'll tell you it's property

taxes. It's simply time for a time-out. I think that's what this tax cap will

finally do. It will call a time-out on this rising burden, and it will put a

downward force on the rising expenses that we have all seen our

municipalities and school districts do. But why a tax cap? Why did we

come to a tax cap here when we have talked about a host of proposals

and everybody, everybody in this Chamber, in the campaign has talked

about property taxes as the number-one priority.

You know, I was sitting at a forum a couple of years ago

with a couple other State Legislators that a group put together -- I don't

even remember what it was -- and it was on property taxes. About

midway through the forum I looked out into the audience and in the

audience were school superintendents, town supervisors, county officials,

and it occurred to me that I was up on the panel talking about property

taxes and I was from the only level of government that didn't levy

property taxes. Everybody that levied them were out in the audience.

You know, our municipalities and school districts in this


167

State operate under the authority given to them by the State. The legal

term of art is called they're "creatures of the State;" therefore, it is

incumbent upon the State, if we see a problem in the way that

municipalities and school districts are operating, to change the way that

they operate. By enacting a tax cap we're saying that the current status

quo is not working. The current status quo is not allowing families to

thrive, it's not allowing seniors on fixed incomes to stay in their house

and it's not allowing young people to get a foothold in their communities.

There has been a lot of misconceptions about that tax

cap and there have been a lot of half-truths. The first thing that I have

heard a lot is that this does not provide tax relief. That is simply not true.

This slows the rise of property taxes. As I said before, if you're paying

$8,000 now and you pay the average property tax increase in Rockland

County, you will be paying close to $11,000 in five years. Under this

bill, you will be paying less. That is property tax relief.

I have heard a lot about the minority of voters being able

to determine a budget. If we enact a tax cap where a simple majority can

override, it will be the status quo. We won't have done anything in this

Chamber. In fact, if you stay at 2 percent or under 2 percent, a simple

majority will follow; however, we do allow certain municipalities, under

the guise of home rule, to make the case to taxpayers and to get a

supermajority of 60 percent in the case of school districts, in order to

override. We've also heard a lot of fear tactics. I have gotten letters. I

have heard about kindergarten being eliminated, I have heard about roads

not being plowed, that there is no police coverage. Let's get this straight.


168

After this bill passes there will not be a decrease in spending. There will

not be a decrease in taxes. There will simply be a limit in the increase.

To all those teachers that have written me -- and, you know, we talked a

lot about teachers earlier today and I respect the job that they're doing --

to all those teachers, if we enact this today it will simply limit the

increase. If you have kindergarten in your budget today, if you have

snow plowing in your budget today, next year you will only be allowed to

increase it 2 percent. If you have to increase it more than 2 percent, go to

the voters. Convince the voters. Get a supermajority on why it's

necessary to go above the 2 percent because the State is determining that

property tax increases are a problem of paramount concern and we need

to get a handle on that.

You know, we heard a lot about the circuit breaker and I

supported the circuit breaker in the past; however, the problem with the

circuit breaker is, number one, you need to come up with over $1 billion

to pay for it and, number two, it really doesn't do anything to control the

cost of spending in our State or in our municipalities. Anyone who has

had school budgets or had school referendums on capital projects will tell

you that one of the things that goes on during the debate is that everybody

says, "Listen. This might cost 'X' amount; however, we're going to get 'Y'

amount in reimbursement from the State because that's what they

reimburse us for capital costs, so it's really only going to cost the

taxpayers a lower amount because of the State reimbursement." The

problem with that is that everything just keeps going up. It keeps

snowballing. It's still coming out of your pocket. It's just coming out of


169

the other pocket. The way the circuit breaker works, people will be

putting forth tax breaks, tax increases of 6, 8, 10 percent, but they'll be

saying to people, "You know what? With the circuit breaker, the State

will be picking up 'X' amount." Our budgets are going to skyrocket.

State taxes are going to skyrocket. We're going to be continuing to cut

because we're not cutting expenses. This will force people to cut

expenses.

You know, just to conclude, I understand the challenges

of our school districts and municipalities. I have had countless meetings

with them and I have done a lot of things throughout my time here to try

to ease that burden. There are mandate components to this bill, which I

think are good. I think we need to go further. This tax cap takes effect

next year, and I think it's imperative that we continue to seek out real

money savings, real dollars for our municipalities and school districts. I

have a lot of needy school districts in the district I represent. I pledge to

continue to work with them to set up meetings, to continue to work with

different ways that we can get additional State funding, identify ways that

they're shortchanged within the State funding formula so that they can

better handle the tax cap. However, I also know that I need to balance

the very real burden of property taxes in Rockland County.

As many calls and letters as I get from people that are

against this tax cap or as many meetings I have with seniors or people

that simply cannot afford it, maybe they're paying a couple thousand

dollars in a mortgage and they're paying $1,000 to $1,500 in their

property taxes. It's simply unsustainable. The current status quo is


170

unsustainable. The State is doing something today by enacting this

property tax cap which will have a positive effect on property taxes. It

will drive down costs and it will help people stay in that home. For that

reason, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to vote yes on this bill

today and I pledge to everybody that has written to me with concerns that

I'll continue to work with you for the betterment of our children, the

betterment of our communities, the betterment of our school districts and

the betterment of our municipalities.

Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Jeffries.

MR. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the

distinguished Chair of the Housing Committee yield for a few questions?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Lopez?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. JEFFRIES: First, Mr. Chairman, thank you for

your leadership in this area. Thank you for the leadership of Speaker

Silver. The bill that we have before us certainly is a meaningful step

forward in an area where, as you have pointed out, for the past 20 years

we have been sliding backward. I just wanted to ask a few questions of

clarification as it relates to some specific provisions of the bill.

First, it is my understanding that the bill changes the

deregulation rent threshold from $2,000 to $2,500; is that correct?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. JEFFRIES: And that is the first increase in the rent

threshold since vacancy decontrol was put on the books in 1993; is that


171

correct?

MR. V. LOPEZ: I believe so.

MR. JEFFRIES: The bill also changes the provisions

related to the statutory vacancy allowance which, under current law,

allows for landlords to increase the price of a rent-regulated apartment by

20 percent upon vacancy?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. JEFFRIES: And under the current law --

MR. V. LOPEZ: It limits it to one per year.

MR. JEFFRIES: Right. So, under the current law

there's no limitation on the amount of times that a landlord can get the

benefit of that 20 percent statutory vacancy bonus, but under the

provisions of this bill that vacancy bonus will be limited by one year,

correct?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. JEFFRIES: The bill also changes the law as it

relates to the individual apartment improvements; is that correct?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. JEFFRIES: And under the current law, any

apartment, no matter the size of the building, upon vacancy and alleged

improvements made by the landlord, that landlord would then be entitled

to increase the price of the rent for the next regulated tenant by 1/40 of

the alleged cost of the renovations; is that correct, under the current

provisions of the law?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Yes.


172

MR. JEFFRIES: And under the bill that's presented

before us, the 1/40 increase would be reduced to 1/60 for --

MR. V. LOPEZ: All buildings with more than 35 units.

MR. JEFFRIES: Okay. And the law would remain the

same for buildings that are 35 units or under; is that right?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. JEFFRIES: Now, with respect to all of the

provisions that I just mentioned, as well as some of the other provisions

that you previously discussed in your summary, what, if any, enforcement

mechanism exists in the bill that's before us right now?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Well, I think we've mandated that

DHCR promulgate rules and regulations to implement and enforce all of

the provisions that we just went through that are in this act, and we look

forward to working with them and making sure that that particular piece,

which is an important one, is enacted. And just for a second, thank you

for all the meetings you have attended with advocates, as well as people

who have different points of view. This is very significant. Our job is to

sit down with DHCR and with some of the advocates to make sure that a

solid plan is in place.

MR. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And is the

provision that you just referred to Section 44 of the act?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. JEFFRIES: And under the current law it's the

Division of Housing and Community Renewal which has historically

been charged with implementing, administering and enforcing the rent


173

regulation provisions in the State; is that right?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. JEFFRIES: And DHCR, as it's known, is an

Executive agency in New York State under the current jurisdiction of

Governor Andrew Cuomo; is that right?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the bill.


MR. JEFFRIES: Again, I just want to thank Chairman

Lopez and Speaker Silver and all of the advocates and my colleagues in

government who have worked hard in a very difficult political

environment to do the best that we can as it relates to both renewing and

strengthening these very important rent regulation laws.

There are 2.5 million New Yorkers who are living in

rent-regulated apartments, and despite all of the rhetoric, the hysteria, the

hype, the spin, the paranoia as it relates to the income levels of these

individuals, the suggestion that an overwhelming majority of these folks

are concentrated in wealthy Manhattan communities, the fact remains

that these are working families, middle-class New Yorkers, low-income

folks, senior citizens. The average income in a rent-stabilized household

is $38,000. We have done the best that we can. There are folks who

wanted more. If we could have done more, we would have done more.

We were unable to, but this does represent the first significant

strengthening in 20 years. In 1993 we slid backward. In 1997 we slid


174

backward. In 2003 we slid backward. But, for the first time in more than

20 years, in 2011 we're taking a meaningful step forward. And now the

responsibility shifts to Governor Andrew Cuomo to bring life, as the

Chairman indicated, to DHCR to enforce the law, to look out, as is your

responsibility under the laws of this great State, for the 2.5 million New

Yorkers living in rent-stabilized apartments. That is our challenge to

you. We look forward to working with you, Governor Cuomo, in that

endeavor and we live to fight another day.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Weisenberg.

MR. WEISENBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my

colleagues. This is a very emotional situation that I have found myself in.

I know this is going to pass, but it's a question of my values. Is politics

take over government? No, not with me. I know that this is a very bad

political situation that I'm facing because I'm going against what the polls

show, 75 percent approval, but all I can do is vote from what I've seen

and what I have experienced. I'm concerned because I can't see capping

education because that's my life and that's where I have been and I see the

successes that we have while people are knocking our schools, our

teachers and everybody else saying we're not doing as good as we should.

The answer really is we're really very much superior to everything else in

our region or even within this country, and you can judge that by the

science fairs that we have when we have a third of the national honorees

coming from New York.

But, the thing that bothers me so much is that I find that


175

there is a change in our society for the very people that we admired and

respected and that we give an awesome responsibility in education to

teach, are the ones that are being targeted and attacked. What I said

before, earlier, on another issue, was I just don't understand why boards

of education, who are elected people, to be able to get a representation of

the people -- they elect their board. The board negotiates their salaries,

the board hires the superintendent, and they pay them extremely high.

That's up to the board who is elected representing the people. Not us.

But, I mean, there is no reason why anybody should be getting $3- or $4-

or $500,000 a year, but that's their decision, not ours. But, you know, the

thing that bothers me are the consequences that I see.

I was involved in elections where I had people bragging

and campaigning, saying, "We're going to cut back on our school

expenses, we're going to do with music and art. The success of our

schools is being measured by test scores." And I'm saying people are

teaching for tests, not to develop each and every child's potential. They're

teaching to get test scores and we're missing out on developing the whole

child. That's what the philosophy of education is all about.

So, I feel that I have an obligation to stand here from my

life experience and speaking with teachers, especially in special

education, because if there are going to be cutbacks, believe me, the most

vulnerable and the biggest target is going to be the cost of special

education. And what the Regents have done, or tried to do -- I passed

legislation trying to eliminate -- when I first got elected I had booklets,

"What Every Parent Should Know About Special Education." I had it in


176

English and Spanish. I brought a card in from State Ed and I gave it out

to the whole committee that was sitting in our conference. Nobody even

knew about special education or their rights. So, I'm trying to inform

parents that if your child is diagnosed as having a disability, it's difficult

enough that you take the blame for your deficits of your child, but what

do I do now? So, we give them that information. So, I see the Regents

said, "You know what? We don't have to give those booklet out

anymore. We're going to save money." Are you kidding me? IEP,

Individual Education Plans. They're taking away the rights, or want to

take the rights of parents to be able to stand up and have some kind of

voice and support in advocating for their child. When I see these things

happening it's frightening to me. And this is what they're going to save

money on? I mean, we have a lot of issues. But, I'm not here to ask you

to vote the way I feel. I'm just telling you that it is my values that I'm

here for, and I'm going to take a vote that I know is with 75 percent of the

polls.

And I want to share this with you, and I'll do it as fast as

I can. Phone calls. Everybody that calls me I try to call back. "Vote for

the tax cap." I said, "Do you know what it's all about?" "Well, no. I

don't know, but we have to vote for it." So, I said, "Well, you know, it's

obvious to me that we had almost millions of dollars campaigning for this

tax cap, but many of the people that called have no knowledge or

understanding of what it is." I even had somebody call -- I said, "Spell

that word". "Tax cat, C-A-T." I said, "Excuse me?" But, this is what is

happening because people are being told this is what you should do and


177

do you it. But what is frightening me is that I don't see this being

successful. I really don't. And with that, you know, I took on -- you

know, Suozzi started this and David Paterson started this. And I have

always said I can't, in my good conscience, vote for capping education. I

don't think we should ever cap a potential. And I really feel the

obligation and responsibility to every district. And, what bothers me the

most is the poorer districts and those children are going to be the ones

that are going to be hurt, I feel, the most.

Well, we'll see how it works out. You know, good luck

to the Governor. Good luck. I hope he's successful, but the reality is

we're going to see that this is not going to do -- this is strictly a political

thing and it's not really on its value or on its merits. It's not going to do

what it is supposed to do. And when we talk about restoring or cutting

mandates, it just isn't present. I mean, everything that was brought to

view just doesn't do the job. You know, there was one bill I had that you

can't have a special ed child have two Regents in one day. I mean, it

takes hours and they need extended time and you have to have a teacher

to be there. Look at the money you will save because a child shouldn't be

in there for eight hours. But that's not even the issue. The fact is that it

just makes sense to do, but we couldn't get that done.

So, there are ways that we can make this better. But, I'm

here to vote in my conscience and I said when I give up my values, I don't

belong here anymore. So, I am here and I'm saying I'm going to vote

against the tax cap because I really feel very badly that it's going to be not

successful and that we're going to have people that are going to end up


178

being -- in some way, their opportunities will be diminished.

Vito, I congratulate you on all the work that you did in

regard to the housing, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. I

just felt I had to share with you the fact that I just can't vote for something

against my conscience.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Calhoun.

MS. CALHOUN: The hour is late. I will not take a full

15 minutes. I have worked in taxes and understand them pretty well. For

over 35 years I collected school taxes. I worked in assessments, and I

have been here for 21 years. We are in a historic mode tonight, and I

truly mean that. Nobody is going to go away from here totally happy

because what we have done is we have taken two very divergent bills and

we've put them together, and many of us are voting based upon one of

those two sections of those bills and they're taking the other along

because it goes with it. If you really need rent control, you know you

have to vote for the tax cap because they're together. And if you're an

Upstater and you really need the tax cap, you're going to vote for rent

control because that goes with it. It's a very unique thing.

But, I want to speak in a way that says we're taking an

action tonight and we're looking forward. I think what we're looking

forward is we are going to have to make changes on these bills as time

goes on, but if we do nothing, we continue what we have and what we

have now is driving our middle class away, and it's preventing businesses

from coming in. When you look -- the MTA tax. We talk about it. We

lost to West Virginia a $1.8 billion company, Macy's main distribution


179

center, and it was because of taxes. Are we going to be perfect in doing

this? No. But, what we're going to do is we're going to give our schools

the opportunity that when those contracts expire, and before the arbitrator

would come in and say, "Well, you can give" -- in my case we had 5 and

6 percent increases. "You can give them because you can just raise your

tax." Well, now we're empowering to make that more a reasonable

number. We haven't taken away Triborough; maybe we should, maybe

we shouldn't. But, we haven't done that. But, we're going to give our

school districts the opportunity to temper the increases.

Four years ago I spoke to people who are very high up in

NYSUT. Four years ago. I said, "Why don't you consider" -- "You have

to negotiate what you pay in your health insurance. Why not consider

that when each of your contracts expire, for that contract you adopt the

State, 10 percent of individual and 25 percent additional if you take

family?" You would have -- within three or four years you would have

the whole thing solved. People would be paying the same as our PEF,

our CSEA and us, and you wouldn't have one school that pays nothing for

their health insurance and another that may pay 10 percent, 15 percent.

We have an opportunity tonight and we will probably

overwhelmingly pass this bill. But before we do that I have to say

something. I find it extremely interesting when I hear my colleagues

speak that the average person in rent control is $38,000 income because I

don't consider that to be exorbitant in New York City. But that's not what

we hear about. We hear about increasing the annual income for people

living there making, now, $200,000. And I have to tell you, yesterday,


180

today, $200,000 is regarded as a millionaires' tax and to people who are

telling us we need to raise it higher, $200,000 is considered being poor.

You can't have it both ways. For those people making $38-, $40,000, we

need to have stabilization.

So, I congratulate those who are now going to have

people who can sleep better at night, but we need to have the same

privilege in the suburbs. We need to find a way to try to cap our taxes

and make a difference. If we don't get it right today we can come back

tomorrow and we can fix things, because when we talked about mandate

relief and you look at what it says, there is $25 million of mandate relief

for about 700 schools. That evolves, if you take it generally, into $35,000

a school of mandate relief, and I have schools that have $100 million

budgets. What is $35,000? It's less than the cost of one teacher's starting

salary. We have a lot of work to do on mandate relief. We have a lot of

work to do on pension reform. We have plans that say, "Take all of us.

Take everybody except those in a union and freeze their pension at the

defined benefit and let us all go into a 401(k)." We have to find ways to

do things differently and to do them right.

So, I want to stay tonight that we're going forward. Not

all of us are happy with everything, but we still do go forward. I just

want to tell you one little story and I'll sit down. Many years ago when I

was a supervisor, we were awaiting the opening of Route 287 into New

Jersey, and we had numerous meetings with the supervisors in New

Jersey and in New York because everybody in the one area was certain

that we were going to have roads clogged because when they opened the


181

section of 287 into the Thruway, every single local town was going to be

completely blocked by cars and vehicles. And I'm telling you, a lot of

effort went into this. The day that that road opened up, guess what?

Nothing happened. So, sometimes we look ahead and we see things that

we fear and sometimes they don't happen. But, if we don't take the steps

that we're taking tonight, we will continue and we will continue to keep

businesses from coming in and we will continue to see middle-class

families going out.

So, I want to compliment the Governor because I think it

was his leadership that brought this to the point where we are tonight,

having this vote. I will proudly vote yes. I will wish the people of rent

control to have the greatest success, and I will work hard to make sure

that the people in our schools are able to find the solutions to make a tax

cap work and work properly for all of the students and all of the

employees and all of the people and taxpayers of New York State.

Thank you very much. I obviously will be voting in the

affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Rosenthal.

MS. ROSENTHAL: On the bill.


MS. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Speaker, I plan to vote for this

measure, which extends rent regulation and strengthens it in several

measures, even though it is not the piece of legislation I would have

written and it falls somewhat short of several goals that I believe are

important for New York's 2.5 million rent-regulated tenants.


182

Nonetheless, it will extend rent protections for families throughout our

City, many of whom live in my district on the Upper West Side and in

Hell's Kitchen. If we fail to extend existing rent regulation, thousands of

middle-class families will be forced out of their homes. Whole

neighborhoods will no longer be affordable for the middle-class and

working-class families who are the backbone of our community. This is

not speculation. This is an economic fact, and it's a fact that we have,

sadly, grown too familiar with over the past 15 years.

This bill does make some progress. It increases the

dollar threshold for vacancy decontrol from $2,000 to $2,500. It changes

the 1/40 and the 1/60 formulas. When landlords make individual

apartment improvements, sometimes reporting that they do, sometimes

reporting honestly, sometimes reporting that they do, actually having not

done it, but getting permission by just sliding through the system.

I continue to believe that vacancy decontrol is wrong and

should be repealed. That is the bill that I have sponsored for a number of

years. Vacancy decontrol provides a tremendous financial incentive for

unscrupulous landlords to force people from their homes. In my district

office we see the results of that policy week in and week out, with people

at least once a week coming in crying that they have gotten eviction

notices from their landlords. Landlords have other tricks they use: Major

capital improvements that go into the base rent and are calculated as part

of the rent forever; unverified individual apartment improvements, as I

said before; ownership occupancy of apartments when they have no

intention of providing that apartment for members of their families, it's


183

just a way to get rid of tenants; rampant harassment of tenants through

various ways; a vacancy bonus of 20 percent every time someone moves.

Thankfully, we're changing that in this bill. That will only be allowed

once per year. But, I think one of the most important parts of this

renewal of rent regulation is the following line, "The Division of the

Housing and Community Renewal shall, pursuant to this act, promulgate

rules and regulations to implement and enforce all provisions of this act

and any law renewed or continued by this act." Now, some may think

that the Department of the Housing and Community Renewal already had

that power and should have exercised it much more often than it has in

the past. However, the Governor's promise, the insertion of this language

in the rent renewal bill, gives me some hope. It gives me hope that the

dynamism, creativity and continuous sense of reinvention that newcomers

to this City provide will be allowed to flourish and continue. It gives me

hope that this City will not turn into enclaves for the very wealthy and the

very poor, and no longer within the grasp of those of modest means. It

gives me hope that the system of rent regulation will not be entirely

driven by tenant complaints when they are well-informed enough to

know that their rent is explosively high and it should be much lower or

when landlords are depriving them of their legal rights, but that the

Department of the Housing and Community Renewal will grow and

finally be the agency that tenants can turn to as a solution to the woes of

the more powerful landlord, landlord attorneys. A whole system of

landlord domination of legitimate tenancies where people pay their rent

on time, all they want to do is live in quiet and peace, not be harassed, get


184

their services. You know, a coexistence with the owner and the tenant.

So, I call on this government and the DHCR to

immediately, once this is passed and signed into law, to go about the

business of fixing this Department, hiring more people, upgrading the

computer system, creating a system of transparency where tenants can

feel that they are being heard and that they are being given justice. So,

while I'm disappointed that we did not accomplish this year everything

that we set out to do, while I'm disappointed that it's not the bill that the

R3 Campaign, Legal Aid Society, all of the advocates who spent hours

and hours on buses and on telephones and on street corners, tenants and

neighbors, all the people in my district who were persistent, dedicated,

tireless, relentless in campaigning for stronger rent laws, I would like to

thank all of them and tell them that this is a renewal, it's a strengthening,

but it really is only the beginning. I didn't come here to settle for just

what we could get, I came here to fight for the rights of tenants and I will

continue fighting for them starting next week.

Thank you, and I vote in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Gibson.

MS. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly

want to start just by thanking the sponsor of this bill and Speaker Silver

and everyone who really stood up and spoke up about one of the very

important issues that we will continue to deal with, and that is the

affordable housing stock in this great State. While this has certainly been

a long journey for all of us this entire legislative Session, there has not

been a more longer journey than it has been for the 2.5 million New


185

Yorkers who believed that their homes were in jeopardy. For all of the

residents that came to Albany, for all of the advocates that stood with all

of us at City Hall, here in the Capitol, that spoke out, that made sure that

this Body knew how important it was to save their homes, I want to say

to you that today is about progress. Today is a giant step forward in the

right direction. Today is about making sure that everyone in this State

and our communities know how important it is to continue to protect the

investment in our communities. In addition to education and social

services and health care, there is nothing more important than knowing

that you, as a mother, as a father, has a roof over your head to take care of

yourself and your children. That is what this journey has always been

about.

So, I stand here tonight proud. Certainly, there are many

concerns that I have with regard to this legislation because I really hoped

that it would another step forward, but on behalf of all of the residents

that I represent that live in rent-regulated houses in Bronx County -- and

that is 27,000 residents -- I want to say to you, thank you. Thank you for

coming to me. Thank you for standing with me and thank you for sharing

your concerns, understanding that this is the most important thing that we

will discuss when we return to our districts this weekend. We have to

make sure that these conversations continue, because while we made

great victory today in making sure that individual apartment

improvements have been changed, making sure that the vacancy bonus is

limited to one year, that is a great stride. But, I am certainly concerned

for those of us that live in buildings that are currently under major capital


186

improvement. I'm also concerned about those tenants that are

preferential tenants, and I want to make sure that as we move forward

those continuing conversations will play out so that we can make sure

that we're truly making a difference in our State.

So, again, I know that this is a major, major, major

victory for the advocates and I want to say to every one of them, thank

you. The fight will never end. We will always stand up for those seniors

and those retirees and those children and those families that look to us for

leadership. This is about making sure that we protect the fabric of our

communities and encourage the continued growth of affordable housing

in our communities, making sure that our communities have stability, our

families are able to grow and progress. That is what it has always been

about in this journey. And so, while I am pleased today, I want to let

everyone know that the fight will never end for affordable housing in our

great State.

Also, I really want to clarify. As I have sat here and

listened to so much dialogue about rent-regulated apartments in the City

of New York, I really want to emphasize that when you talk about the one

million units of affordable housing, let's be clear that of those million

units, we are not talking about the wealthiest New Yorkers. In my

building alone the average income is just under $40,000. We are not

talking about the high-income earners in this category, but we are talking

about hard- working families and hard-working New Yorkers that

deserve to be protected. That is what it has been about, protecting those

who have taken care of us, and we owe that to these seniors and we owe


187

that to these families.

So, I think that today is about making sure that our

residents and constituents know that they have been at the forefront of

these discussions over the last few months. Certainly, again, I want to

thank the sponsor and everyone who stood with us at every long meeting

and made sure that rent regulation and rent control was always a priority.

So, with that said, I continue to work with the Executive and my

colleagues in making sure that we go a step further in the continuing

years ahead, and I will be voting in the affirmative and encourage my

colleagues to do the same.

Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Latimer.

MR. LATIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't speak

very much and I know my colleagues are as tired as I am, but as I listened

to many of them speak multiple times during the week, I try to speak only

when I have something to say. I know history is being made down the

hallway, so what I'm about to say can't possibly compete with that. But, I

do want to say that we all know that we have higher property taxes in

New York State. The real question is, why? And the answer to that

question is what is embedded in this bill that troubles me so much,

because what's assumed when you apply a tax cap as a blunt instrument is

that it is the spendthrift policies of mayors and supervisors, of county

executives and county legislators and school board trustees that have

given us higher property taxes in New York, higher than any other state

in the nation, save, perhaps, New Jersey. Who made the decisions that


188

drove us to this point? Who made the decisions? Was it the County of

Essex or Schuyler County that made the decision to require Medicaid

costs to be picked up by the county governments? It was the State of

New York that made those decisions back in 1966. Who made the

decision to structure the pension system that we have today? Was it the

Village of Lake Placid? Was it the Town of Taconic? It was the State of

New York that made that decision. People in this room and the other

room and on the second floor. Who made the decisions for personnel

policies or for laws like the Wicks Law and the Triborough Amendment?

Was it the Town of Lackawanna that made that decision? Was it the City

of Peekskill? Or was it the State of New York that made that decision?

Who made the decision to bus kids out of the district for private and

parochial schools? Was it made by the Shenendehowa School District or

by the Rye Neck School District? No. That was made by the State of

New York. Policy after policy after policy made by the State of New

York. And who made the decision to impose the MTA payroll tax, which

doesn't affect the whole State, but affects a significant portion of the

State? Who made that decision?

In every one of these situations we're looking at policies

that drive the cost of local governments at every level that we are now

capping. We are now saying that property taxes are killing us, which

they are, and we need to take bold action. And the bold action is to cap

that property tax that can be levied by cities, by villages, by towns, by

library districts, by fire districts. But, every one of the decisions that led

us to this point was made by the State of New York. And that is the


189

truth. They weren't all made by the people who currently hold the

positions, but an aggregate. The State of Utah didn't make these

decisions. The State of Georgia didn't make these decisions. The State

of New York made these decisions. So, I must tell you, when the State

tells the cities in the State and the villages and the school districts and

library districts, "Tighten your belt. Times are tough, tighten your belt,"

it's hypocritical. I'm overweight. How dare I tell anybody else to go on a

diet. How dare I? Start with myself.

We have a provision in this bill, it's been talked about

already, in which we say, we, the State says, you must have 60 percent of

the support of the people before you can raise taxes. When did we ever

apply that to ourselves? When did we ever say that? When did we ever

say before we raise a sales or property tax -- I've voted for many of them

for many communities -- when did we ever say that we ought to have 60

percent of the support for that? When did any Assemblyman or Senator

say, you know, "If I don't get 60 percent of the vote in this election I

won't serve another term." It's hypocritical to make these statements and

try to put the blame on people who I served alongside with for 17 years

before I came into this room and say, "You're the problem, Village of

Lake Placid. You're the problem, school district in Rye Neck, you're the

problem, Mamaroneck Library District" when the problem are decisions

made in this room.

Now, I'm going to sit down. I'm nowhere near my 15

minutes. I learned in first grade in Mrs. Simonson's class in 1958 at

Grimes Elementary in Mount Vernon, how to count. I can count to 76,


190

and in a few minutes those lights will go up there and I know what I'm

going to see. It was 57 to 5 in the other Chamber. So, I also know from

my life experience, our life experience, that you move on to what comes

next. What comes next, Mr. Speaker, is mandate relief and real mandate

relief. I supported the proposal made by my friend, Mr. Palmesano,

because I recognize that the State cannot have real mandate relief unless

the State is willing to take back costs that we have asked other

governments to pay for. We're the only State out of 50 that makes those

counties pay that Medicaid. And Addie Russell served in the County

Legislature, Steven Englebright served in the County Legislature, Teresa

Sayward headed a board of supervisors, Cliff Crouch headed a board of

supervisors. They're sprinkled through this room, many people who have

done county budgets dealing with that mandate. So, if we're going to be

honest, if we want to lower property taxes, then we have to go where the

changes have to be made.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity

to speak to my colleagues.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Barron.

MS. BARRON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be very

brief. The two parts of this bill that I'm going to speak on are the

property tax cap and the rent regulations. I have to lend my voice to

those who say that when we put a cap on the property tax knowing that

that's the money that funds the education of our students, we're putting

limitations on how high our children are going to rise. There are certain

elements that must be contained in an educational system that don't put


191

limitations and handcuffs, and limiting them with this property tax cap is

going to do exactly that, not only those who have special needs, but those

with general needs as well.

To move on to the rent regulations, the rent advocates

who have spoken to me have said that they are very disappointed with the

advances of this rent regulation bill, the extension of this bill. They have

cited the fact that they wanted to have consideration for Mitchell-Lama

and Section 8 to be able to move into the rent regulation capacity. They

wanted to have an end to vacancy decontrol. They wanted to have the

ability to go beyond four years as a lookback to see the history of the

apartments that landlords may have raised the base rent inappropriately.

They wanted to have an end to increasing the base rent beyond what the

cost was that landlords have incurred for capital improvements. They

wanted a landlord to, of course, be able to recoup his investment, but then

have it end, not have it continue into perpetuity. So, they have expressed

those concerns and those are concerns that I take to heart. Those

advances that we do have in the rent regulation bill do not impact on the

lower-income persons who have rent regulations, they impact the middle-

income and upper-income people disparately. I think that for those

reasons, the limited progress that we have made, which has been

acknowledged, and for the reasons that we're putting limitations on our

children's educational opportunities, I will be voting in the negative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mrs. Rabbit.

MRS. RABBITT: On the bill, Mr. Speaker.



192

MRS. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, I know it's quite late and

we all want to get home. I would just like to say that I agree with George

Latimer. There is nothing that we don't do here that impacts our local

communities, and for all the decades of the mandates that we have put on

our communities we're now asking our communities to go into a tax cap

for the damage that we have done here for so many years. For that reason

alone, I will be voting in the negative.


Lopez, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced.




the vote.


Mr. Cahill to explain his vote.

MR. CAHILL: Mr. Speaker, it's really quite simple.

Unaffordable real property taxes with a 2 percent cap are still

unaffordable real property taxes. I withdraw my request and vote in the

negative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Castelli to

explain his vote.

MR. CASTELLI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know,

first of all, I want to applaud the Governor and all my colleagues on both

sides of the aisle for doing the hard work that they did in this Session. It

is an honor to work with all of you.


193

This bill is certainly no panacea. There are no perfect

problems, ladies and gentlemen, and, therefore, there are no perfect

solutions. But, a tax cap is something that we need to do to save the State

from sinking. The Governor chose to lead by the front and, in doing so, I

chose to follow him in this. I believe it's an important thing. It's a

necessary measure. I believe the rent regulation is important and

necessary for the 4,476 apartments and 39 other buildings I have in the

City of White Plains and in the Town of Mount Kisco. And beyond that,

while I wish we saw a greater effort at mandate relief, I believe it is a step

in the right direction. I would hope that we will see greater mandate

relief in the short term -- Wicks Law reform, the Triborough Amendment

reform, reform for Medicaid, as well as pension reform. But, I will cast

my vote in the affirmative for all the reasons that I mentioned to you, and

I would urge my colleagues to please cast their vote in the affirmative as

well.

I withdraw my request and cast my vote in the

affirmative. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Braunstein to

explain his vote.

MR. BRAUNSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

proudly vote in favor of this bill tonight because I believe that it will help

millions of people stay within their homes, whether it be in the suburbs of

New York or in New York City for renters. I do regret, however, that we

still, to this day, haven't found any protections for co-op owners in New

York City. In New York City, if you're a middle-income person and you


194

rent an apartment, there are protections for you. If you're a one-, two- or

three-family homeowner, there's a 6 percent cap on the appraisal increase

of your unit per year. For co-ops there is no such protection. In my

district the property tax assessments came out this year, and some co-op

units saw 80 percent increases, 100 percent increases. One co-op in my

district was valued at 147 percent of what it was valued at last year.

Now, the City of New York, in my speculation, does this for revenue

purposes. They argue that they just changed to a different valuation

model. After three months of complaining, they said, "Oh, you know

what? We had a computer glitch with our new system. We're only going

to raise the valuations 10 percent." From 147 percent to 10 percent.

Now, if we don't make changes to this system -- and the City of New

York has even said that they believe that there should be changes made --

future administrations can continue to use assessments as a revenue

generator.

So, while I am voting today because I feel that we're

helping many people stay in their homes, the people of my district still

need protections in their co-ops, and I'm hopeful that next year we could

take this up and finally protect co-op owners in New York City.

Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Brennan to

explain his vote.

MR. BRENNAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to

congratulate Mr. Lopez, the Speaker and all the staff people who have

been involved for so many months, in fact, so many years, in trying to


195

win some improvements in our tenant protection laws. I will be voting

yes, clearly, because my constituents need these rent protections. I just

wanted also, for the record, to note that were the real property tax cap and

the renewal of the rent laws separated, I would have voted against the real

property tax cap.

Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Wright to

explain his vote.

MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is with

some apprehension and some trepidation that I rise to explain my vote. It

is my hope that during this next legislative Session that we will be able to

secure some improvements to this bill. For example, hopefully we can

get rid of vacancy decontrol in this next legislative Session. Hopefully,

we can secure some protections regarding MCIs for tenants in this next

legislative Session. I'm not happy with this bill, but we could have and

we should have done much better, much better. However, I am a firm

believer in rent protections for tenants, and I take this issue personally,

absolutely personally, because I am a tenant. I am a rent-stabilized tenant

and I will never, ever be a part of ever not supporting tenants.

It might be popular to vote no on this bill but, quite

frankly, it's not the responsible thing to do. So, I will be voting to support

tenants in the City of New York and beyond. So, I withdraw my request

and vote in the affirmative.

Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Bing to explain


196

his vote.

MR. BING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For several years

I have carried legislation to raise the thresholds for high-income

decontrol, and I want to thank the Speaker and also my good friend and,

in many ways a mentor to me, Mr. Lopez, for pushing to see these

income limits raised in this legislation. We need this legislation because

the vacancy -- in order to have an emergency under the Emergency

Tenant Protection Act, we need a 5 percent vacancy rate. In the City of

New York right now we have a 2.9 percent vacancy rate, so we are in an

emergency and that's why we need this legislation.

This is not just about Manhattan. Fifteen years ago, 98

percent of the apartments that were decontrolled were on the Island of

Manhattan. In 15 years that's decreased to 64 percent, almost 40 percent

of the margin of decontrol. This is a Citywide problem, and this is why

we need a Statewide solution. For the constituents in my district who are

just on the cusp of leaving their apartments, this is important because if

you do not raise the income levels, the people who are going to be forced

out of their apartments, once the apartment rents are raised, are going to

be out on the market pushing everyone else down the market and making

it more difficult for those at the lower end of the income stream to find

affordable housing and that becomes not just a New York City issue, but

a Statewide issue because these folks are going to move to suburbs

around the City of New York, outside of Manhattan, outside of the five

boroughs, and make it an affordable housing crisis not just in the City of

New York, but in the entire tri-state area. So, for my constituents in


197

Manhattan House and other parts of my district that are very close to

being forced out of their apartments, this is going to allow them to stay in

their neighborhoods, continue to make a difference, continue to spend

money, continue to pay taxes in the City of New York and continue to be

able to keep the neighborhoods they have called home for so many years

their same neighborhood.

So, I want to thank the Speaker and thank Mr. Lopez. I

withdraw my request and cast my vote in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Schimel to

explain her vote.

MS. SCHIMEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have

always felt that if it feels wrong, it is wrong and, sadly, this bill feels

wrong. If the tax cap had a two- or three-year sunset, as well as

significant mandate relief, I swear I would have given it a chance. But

five years is a lifetime for local governments and schools when there may

not be enough revenue to sustain their respective missions. Ironically,

one of the significant mandate relief items in this bill is to allow school

districts to use school buses based on actual ridership. Running empty

yellow buses is a waste of taxpayer dollars. I wrote this bill in

consultation with the Department of State Education. I am told that our

districts will save a half a million dollars each year and be able to plow it

back into classrooms. Even though my own legislation was folded into

this omnibus bill, I cannot ignore the inherent flaw of co-mingling so

many different policy areas. Together, these disparate policies can bring

an unpredictable impact to the services and protections to the people I


198

represent and that they depend on.

I vote in the negative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Kellner to

explain his vote.

MR. KELLNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to explain

my vote. What rent regulation is about is about protecting the middle

class of the City of New York. We have seen with so many urban areas

across this country when you have the vastly, vastly wealthy and the

extremely, extremely poor, you have urban decay. What rent regulation

does is keep that middle class in their home and they are the lifeblood of

the City of New York. They are the people who own businesses. They're

the ones who go to work in our hospitals and our schools every day. We

need rent regulations to keep the City of New York great.

So, I proudly vote for my vote in the affirmative. This

bill definitely expands the laws. Is it everything? Is it the panacea? Is it

perfect? Absolutely not. But, goes a long, long way in expanding rent

regulations for the first time in two decades. So, I withdraw my request

and vote in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Moya to explain

his vote.

MR. MOYA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

explain my vote. We're not faced with easy choices here today. My

district has over 11,000 units which are protected by rent stabilization in

over 400 different buildings. Every day I walk through the streets of my

neighborhood and the telltale signs of affordable housing being lost are


199

seen on street corner after street corner; the luxury conversion in Jackson

Heights or a displaced family in Corona. The signs are the same, but the

pain and personal stories in each building and in each apartment are

unique. We have turned the tide today. Changes in the decontrol

threshold and calendar year limits for vacancy bonuses were unthinkable

advancements just a decade ago. I accept the political realities of the

current situation where landlords and the leadership of the other Chamber

have stood against people they don't understand and tenants they don't see

and know but, at the same time, I do not embrace these constraints. I will

not stop until our loud advocacy changes the tide completely, until we

really get strong rent reform that stops affordable housing from slipping

away from hundreds of thousands of tenants.

I reluctantly vote in the affirmative, knowing this is the

first battle that we have won in what I know will be a successful drive for

making New York affordable for working families.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Malliotakis to

explain her vote.

MS. MALLIOTAKIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First

and foremost, I would like to congratulate the sponsor, Mr. Vito Lopez,

of Brooklyn as well, for the hard work. I know he has put in a lot of

effort into this legislation. I do commend him.

You know, the one thing that I want to say is that I am

voting for this bill, but I'm extremely disappointed that New York City is

not included in the property tax cap. I'm even more disappointed that

many of my colleagues here from New York City did not advocate to


200

have New York City included in this tax cap. But, I'm not going to

penalize the renters of my district because I know that this will help them.

They do need rent stabilization. I'm not going to penalize the other

property owners from around New York State, either. So, I will be

voting in the affirmative and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Hayes to explain

his vote.

MR. HAYES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to explain my

vote. Mr. Speaker, just for some historical perspective, I believe that the

tax cap idea came back in 2007 from the Republican Conference in the

State Assembly. We have heard different people of different political

persuasions pick up the mantle, to pick up the fight for a cap on property

taxes, but in this Conference, the Assembly Republican Conference, we

were the first to bring it to the front for the debate in this State. I'm proud

that we are going to get a property tax cap tonight, but I'm not happy that

it is limited in a number of ways. I would ask that my colleagues

continue to work with us, work together, both sides of the aisle, to

strengthen the assistance that we provide to property taxpayers

throughout this State. One way we can do that, a very important way we

can do that, is through the continued expansion of mandate relief on our

localities, school districts and municipalities. Of the nine unfunded

mandates that the New York Association of Counties says cost 90 percent

of the dollars that localities spend each year, not one of these categories

were touched by the mandate relief contained in this bill. And so, I'm


201

proud that we have a property tax cap. It's only the beginning. It's not

the end. We must continue to work hard to make sure that this means

real tax relief for our property taxpayers, but it's a start. And for that

reason, I'm casting my vote in favor. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Lopez to explain

his vote.

MR. V. LOPEZ: I think, as I stated earlier and, I think,

as Assemblyman Jeffries made reference to, I think if we look at the last

20 years and the three prior bills, there were erosions --

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: You're not supposed

to comment on other members, as you know, Mr. Lopez.

MR. V. LOPEZ: As long as they're from Brooklyn.

Where's my good friend to defend me? Don't take this off my three

minutes. Two minutes, one minute left.

(Laughter)

I'm glad it's the last night. You know, the world isn't

perfect, and if it was we would all probably, I guess, be happy. We might

not even be here if it was perfect. It's negotiations, process and

commitment. The last three other bills that we had, there were erosions

of benefits. For all the tenant advocates that are apologetically voting for

this bill, there was a good chance that we could have lost the battle and

had further erosions. And we didn't even get a straight extender. We got

enhancements. Are they perfect enhancements? No. But, there is

something about this place. Too often, when people go home after a lot

of hours they're almost a little bit masochistic in their style. They'll say,


202

"Terrible bill, I had to vote for it." This bill is a better bill and enhances

rent regulations. And the Speaker should be commended. The Governor

stepped in. The Speaker made it a priority, and a lot of staff, Program

and Counsel Staff got involved in this. I think Jessica DeMarco probably

spent 200 hours coming down from Albany to New York City and

Jonathan and others really put their heart and soul in it, and I proudly

vote in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Murray to

explain his vote.

MR. MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the

person that just spoke before me -- and I won't mention his name -- as he

said, it's not a perfect bill, but it's a start. I have been advocating for a tax

cap for years and I know our Conference has as well. On Long Island we

get crushed by property taxes. So, this is a start. It's certainly not the end

all and be all, though. I'm very disappointed. When we were first going

to take the vote I thought this is a slam dunk. Of course I'll vote for a tax

cap. But then when I saw the lack of mandate relief, I mean, we're

talking weak here. We really have some work in front of us and I'm

hoping that, as I said, this is a start, not an end because we desperately

need real mandate relief. How about pension reform? How about

Medicaid reform? How about getting rid of the MTA payroll tax? Just to

mention a few that would really bring some savings.

So, it's not perfect but, yes, I'll vote for it. But I do have

to mention one quick bit of irony that I think is amazing. A member

earlier had mentioned that she thought that the continuation of the


203

millionaires' tax would be the answer. Well, it's ironic that when the

millionaires' tax that's currently in place right now that ends at the end

year, it's described as starting at $200,000, yet, the threshold for receiving

relief from your rent and protection from your rent is well, gee, $200,000.

Really? We need protection from it but, yet, we're too rich? I guess it

just depends on the issue, not necessarily the number. But, with that said,

I'm voting in favor of this bill.

Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Nolan to explain

her vote.

MS. NOLAN: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues. It's very

rare -- I have had the privilege of serving in the Chamber for a very long

time, I suppose some might say too long, but most of my colleagues

know that it's very rare that I'm really undecided and indecisive. I, of

course, want to see rent regulation extended, and I may yet, as I finish

these remarks, cast my vote in the affirmative, but it's very hard to be the

Chair of the Education Committee and meet so many, many school

district people who feel that this is going to be the worst thing to happen

to the schools in our State because it will really limit their ability to do

the right thing by children. In particular, I want to add -- and the thing

that really, really bothers me about this tax issue, tax cap, if we want to

call it that name; I sometimes wonder what it really is -- it's the 60

percent that the people would have to vote to overturn it. I just think we

are setting such a terrible precedent there. You know, it's very, very

difficult for me to cast a vote in the affirmative. I guess there's a few


204

more votes. For the moment, I'm going to keep my negative up on the

board, but I will ask my colleagues to indulge me in this indecisiveness

because I think we are taking such a serious step for a 60 percent vote on

school budgets and the consequences can be so very, very negative that I

continue to cast my vote in the negative. Having said that, of course, no

one from the City of New York wants to see rent regulation end. I want

to commend the Housing team and Mr. Lopez for all the work, and the

Speaker, that they have done on it. It's just a very, very difficult

matching, probably the worst I've ever seen in my 27 years here. You

know, it got the job done but, boy, is it a tough vote.

So, I regrettably cast my vote in the negative. Thank

you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Linares to

explain his vote.

MR. LINARES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to

express, in some regard, how difficult this vote is, as some of my

colleagues have indicated because it is, in many ways, a mixed bag of

goodies and not-so-good items in it. I represent a district that is, by and

large, representative of people who live in affordable housing or live in

rent-regulated apartments. For them, the anxiety has been so, so hard and

has taken such a toll to see them expire, being unprotected, feel that they

don't know today what will happen. And so, this is the one piece that I

looked more closely. Now, this bill, while it shows some aspect of the

bill that we approved looking to extend rent regulations and

strengthening it, it's a far cry from what we approved earlier, but I want to


205

acknowledge that, nevertheless, it's important and critical for New York

City, for my constituents, to see that they'll continue to have rent

protections and also that there is some enhancement taking place. I think

it's a step in the right direction. I want to acknowledge the Speaker. I

want to acknowledge the Chair of the Committee, Vito Lopez, and those

who have worked hard to make sure that we continue having this

protection in New York City.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Linares, how do

you vote?

MR. LINARES: I will vote, with hesitation, in the

affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Kavanagh to

explain his vote.

MR. KAVANAGH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I expect

to vote -- I planned to vote in the affirmative on this bill and I don't think

at this hour of the night that we're going to convince folks who after

many, many years in this Chamber have discussed the perspective that

many of us have that we need rent regulation in the City of New York. I

don't expect to convince folks on the other side of that, but I just want to

say that this is the opportunity -- the option we had this year was to

extend rent regulation or to let it expire. People in this House fought very

hard for the strongest possible bill, as we have year after year after year.

This year we have a Governor who was willing to fight on the side of

tenants for stronger protections, and the dynamic is playing out much as it

has in the past. We have a State Senate that was unwilling to make the


206

changes that many of us wanted in this House. Notwithstanding that, this

is a bill that strengthens rent regulation in significant ways. It's not --

what other people have said, it's not all that we wanted in this House, but

it is an important improvement and, at the end of the day, because we live

in such a tight housing market, because we need to have stable

communities where people can move in and people can build stable

families and rely on a lease being renewed the next year, because that's so

important for all of our communities, and because we have a landlord

community that is trying to profit not by running a reasonable business

and providing a reasonable service, but by speculating on their ability to

evict thousands and thousands of people from their homes because this

law that we are renewing tonight is the only bull work against that kind of

activity that would literally wipe out middle-class communities like the

ones I represent and also lower-income communities and working-class

communities throughout the City, we need to extend this law. We need

to continue to work on enforcement. One of my colleagues mentioned

that we are relying on the provisions of the law that say that DHCR

will --

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Kavanagh, how

do you vote?

MR. KAVANAGH: For all of those reasons, at this late

hour, I vote in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Burling to

explain his vote.

MR. BURLING: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, to explain


207

my vote. I made a promise to my school districts and to my

municipalities that I would not vote for a tax cap that did not have

meaningful mandate relief. I know how popular a tax cap is and I know

what the polls say, but when you tell people what it will do when you

don't cap the mandates that we place on our schools and our

municipalities, then their views changed. This is a cruel hoax on people.

Two years from now or a year from now when the budgets are done,

people are going to expect that their taxes are going to go down. I'll tell

you what's going to happen. I was also a county legislator, vice

chairman. I'll tell you what happened. We never raised our taxes, our tax

rate, but we sent our assessors out and we raised the assessments. That's

what going to happen. These counties are not going to be able to absorb

the increased costs that we place on them, and a tax cap is only going to

hinder it more. They're going to have to override them or they're going to

raise your assessments. So, I don't think this is meaningful. I don't think

it's going to do what it is supposed to do. I hope it does, but I think a year

from now these folks are going to come back to us and say, "You tricked

us."

Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Losquadro to

explain his vote.

MR. LOSQUADRO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When

we discussed earlier a potential amendment to this bill, there was a

statement that was made that this would just simply shift the burden to

the State, away from the counties, and I say that would have been exactly


208

the mechanism that would have forced the State to undertake the real task

of relieving municipalities from these mandates. In the absence of that

amendment, in the absence of codifying that in this legislation, the cap

itself, I agree with the Governor, becomes that mechanism and we will

have to undertake the course of real mandate relief in very short order. It

needs to be done. We know it needs to be done. We know this bill is not

perfect, but it's a step in the right direction to getting the mandate relief

that we need for this State, for our municipalities and for the taxpayers.

I proudly vote in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Ceretto to

explain his vote.

MR. CERETTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know,

at the beginning of this Session, when I first came on I was on the

Housing Committee and, to tell you the truth, I didn't even know about

rent stabilization or rent control. I had never even heard about it.

Sometimes I feel like, you know, with the people in New York City and

where I live, way on the other end of the State, it's almost like we live in

two different worlds. In my area, Niagara County, we're the second

highest per house value on taxes. We're the second highest in the nation.

I see the devastation and what it does to my area. When I meet the

seniors and I talk to my seniors, a lot of them are being forced out of their

homes for the same reasons that I hear that they're being forced out of

New York City. So, we have something in common. The good thing, I

think, tonight, is what I'm hearing and what I saw is we have something

different but, yet, we're trying to fix something that's the same problem --


209

help our children, help our elderly. And, again, as somebody on the

taxpayer side I can tell you this: Were not fully happy either, it's just as

the rent control people aren't fully happy or satisfied in what we have

done all together. But, you know what? I truly feel we have made a lot

of progress in my freshman year here. It gives us something to come

back for because the job isn't done but, yet, we're on the right track.

That's why I'm voting yes, because we will get there and I truly believe

that. So, thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Rodriguez to

explain his vote.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to

explain my vote. This is certainly a challenging situation with respect to

rent regulations in the City, and I rise to represent the 16,000

rent-regulated apartments that I look to defend as a result of moving

ahead with this legislation. However, the challenging part is that the

median income for my community is approximately $25,000. So, some

of the protections that we have included in the bill are not necessarily

targeted on my community. So, what we are looking for and hope to

move forward with in our next Session is how do we continue to focus on

strengthening the tenant protections around rent regulation. I think when

we talk about the improvements, in particular, we have many, many

apartments that are -- buildings that are less than 35 or 50 units, which is

another area that I hope we continue to explore when we look at revising

and potentially strengthening this legislation in the future. But, we have

to take a step because no step would continue to put 2.5 million people at


210

risk with respect to losing rent regulation in general.

So, while this does not accomplish everything we would

like it to do and that there are many things that are left out of this

legislation -- and I would like to remind us that we probably have to look

no further than the bill we passed earlier in terms of the variety of

different tenant protections that we could implement, but are not able to

do to this situation with respect to the politics as they exist here. But, I

cast my vote in the affirmative to make sure that we continue to protect

2.5 million New Yorkers who benefit from rent regulation. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Palmesano to

explain his vote.

MR. PALMESANO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to

explain my vote. This isn't a perfect bill, and I admit this has been a

tough vote. But, it's a first step. I, for one, wish there was a lot more

mandate relief in this bill. That would be the proper way to do this. I do

believe this cap is going to force this issue of mandate relief. It has to,

and it has to start with Medicaid. We had an opportunity earlier in this

Chamber to address that issue, but I think we're going to continue to

revisit it. We must go after that growth in the Medicaid program that's

burdening our county. We put it there. The State of New York put it

there and we should take it away. And pension reform is critical to

address these mandates. I do believe it keeps local control. I never said

the property tax cap would lower taxes. The only way we're going to

lower property taxes is when we effectively go after these mandates that

are the true cost drivers of our property taxes. But, what this bill will do


211

is it will make it more challenging, a little bit more effort to raise taxes,

and that's a good thing in my opinion.

As my colleagues said, we don't adopt that here in this

Chamber, but maybe we should. If we're willing to pass that on to our

counties, on to our local governments, I think we should do that here.

Make it more difficult to raise taxes. Make it a supermajority in this

Chamber to raise taxes. Let's live by what we're putting on to our local

governments. I'm for that. I'll support that. So, as the Governor has used

his bully pulpit to pass the tax cap, it is my hope that he continues to

move forward to address meaningful mandate relief. He needs to do it

because this bill needs to put more into it and push for a supermajority of

vote to raise taxes at the State level. If it's good for our local

governments, it should be good for us.

I will be voting in the affirmative.


votes?



The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On this

historic night, we will now go to the C-Calender, previously advanced.

Go to Page 3, Rules Report No. 632, Mr. Heastie, please.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: C-Calender on Page

3, Rules Report No. 632, the Clerk will read.


212


Heastie, Ramos. An act to amend the General Municipal Law, in relation

to obtaining best value for purchase contracts.


Heastie, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced.

An explanation is requested, Mr. Heastie.

MR. HEASTIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill

would allow municipalities and other localities the option of using the

best value criteria when procuring contracts for services and goods, but

not including public works. This would bring in line local procurement

practices with those of the State of New York.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Molinaro.

MR. MOLINARO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just on

the bill very, very briefly. We understand the intent of the legislation and

recognize that, certainly, it is supported by a number of groups, including

the Mayor's office. The concern that I think many of us have and some of

the objections that have been raised by the general contractors and others

focus around the concept that currently competitive bidding, lowest, most

responsible bidder, is a process that was meant to ensure transparency

and protect against corruption. While the intent of the legislation is

commendable, the objections raised by others speak to this very question

of what is best value, and while the bill attempts to define what that may

be, there is a fear that bidding will become less and less transparent and

the potential for corruption could be made greater. And for these

reasons, I would urge my colleagues to think very, very carefully about


213

the legislation and expanding competitive bidding in is way.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.




the vote.





The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Mr. Speaker, we will now go to

the B-Calendar for the last bill of the evening, I might add, Rules Report

No. 630, Ms. Glick, please.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Proceeding to Page

4, Rules Report No. 630, the Clerk will read.


Glick, Peoples-Stokes, Hoyt, Schroeder. An act to amend the Education

Law and the New York State Urban Development Corporation Act, in

relation to establishing components of the NY-SUNY 2020 Challenge

Grant Program; making an appropriation therefor; and providing for the

repeal of such provisions upon expiration thereof.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: On a motion by Ms.

Glick, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced.


214

There's a Governor's message at the desk. The Clerk will read.




Assembly Bill No. 8519 and Senate Bill No. 5855.

The facts necessitating an immediate vote on the bill are

as follows:

This bill would implement components of the

NY-SUNY 2020 Challenge Grant Program.




bill.


ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Jordan.

MR. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the bill.


MR. JORDAN: This has been a long battle that, I think,

primarily has been instituted to try to provide some added revenue for our

colleges to improve the educational opportunity for our college students.

Two things about this bill strike me as fundamentally contrary to that

purpose. One is something that I know SUNY Albany has lobbied for

extensively and fought for, for a very good reason. Before I came to the

Assembly, sweeping was something I used to do in the kitchen or on the


215

front porch. I have discovered in Albany that that's a clever way to get

money from one fund into the General Fund to feed our spending

problems. Well, they were concerned about that, and they wanted a lock

box. They didn't get it. So, properly, they are concerned that without a

lock box controlled by the Comptroller, funds that are put into this

through higher tuition can be swept away to fund other unrelated

programs. Secondly, and more, I guess, surprising to me, was to find

language in the bill that mandates project labor agreements on

construction projects, and I really couldn't come up with an

understanding of why that would be. But, my concern is this: In New

York last year, 76 percent of our contractors were open shop. Project

labor agreements essentially preclude open shops from bidding on the

project. That is fundamentally contrary to what we should be about. I

am all for project labor agreements if they are optional. If a bidder thinks

it's the best way to do the job, let them bid it that way. Do not mandate

things that preclude 76 percent of our industry from bidding on the

project.

For those two reasons I will be casting my vote in the

negative and I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mrs. People-Stokes

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are, as you know, quite a few historic events going on in our State

Capitol tonight and, okay, we have been joined by who, I think, is the

person who should certainly be leading this conversation, the Chair of our

Higher Education Committee, Deborah Glick. The work that was done


216

on this bill by Ms. Glick, her Committee and the staff and, certainly, the

Speaker and the Governor is, quite frankly, historic as well.

As has been noted, this legislation is a long time coming.

Back a few governors ago, there was something set up called the Higher

Education Commission, and several of us, including Member Glick, spent

our entire summers while other folks were off, traveling around the State

to different SUNY institutions and CUNY institutions, listening to both

the advocates, the administrators, the faculty, the staff and the students

about some solutions that they thought could get them to growing their

opportunities to provide better services, and a lot of what came out of that

is a lot of what's in this legislation today. Not long after that, the

University of Buffalo came up with a strategic plan that really looked at

how we can build on our research institutions to help grow not just the

economies of the districts where they're located, but the economy of the

State as well, as well as the economy of knowledge-based, scientific-

based businesses. As a result of all of those things, the transformation

has been SUNY 2020, and it actually not only just focuses on the four

research institutions that New York so proudly has, but -- I can hear his

whole conversation -- but it also focuses on SUNY in its entirety and

CUNY in its entirety. I think that because we have broadened it to that

aspect that it actually will be beneficial to every community and every

institution that delivers public higher education in the State of New York,

and I think it's a wonderful opportunity and a very historic occasion.

Because it is only for five years, Mr. Speaker, I think for those of us who

are concerned, you know, that this really may not be the right thing to do,


217

allowing boards of trustees, the SUNY Trustee Board as well as the

administration of these respective institutions, to make decisions about

whether or not their tuition will increase up to $300 -- it doesn't mean

that it will or that they will even ask for it -- but I think after five years we

will be able to see through this, what I call a "demonstration project," that

it has not only been beneficial to increasing the capacity of these

institutions, but it will be beneficial to increasing the academic

excellence of these institutions and, thereby, I think, also increasing the

number of students who will be attending there.

There has been a lot of conversation as well, Mr.

Speaker, about concern for students of low and moderate income who

may not be able to meet the higher costs. Ms. Glick, through her

vigorous work, I think, has offered the proper solutions to make sure that

that does not happen. Also, the SUNY Trustee Board has been directed

by the Chancellor for each institution to individually look within itself to

make sure that there are always going to be opportunities for students

who are in need of additional resources.

So, the fact we have all of these creative ideas working

to make sure that the resources are available, the student population will

grow, I think that every community where SUNY and CUNY

universities, colleges, are located are going to prosper as a result of this

bill. I'm sure everybody knows that folks from Western New York are

very much supportive of this but, at the end of the day, what's good for

Western New York, I think, is also good for the rest of the State. So, I'm

really proud to take a vote today that will begin a process of allowing our


218

higher education institutions to take their rightful place in our

communities.

I recently traveled to the City of Philadelphia, one of my

favorite cities in all of America, and everywhere in Philadelphia much of

what we have in New York they have there. There's a college or

university almost in every neighborhood, and there's also a hospital

almost in every neighborhood. So, there's a connectedness for New York

in particular, and definitely Buffalo, with the universities, both public and

private, and hospitals, creating opportunities to grow economies, that can

grow communities and create jobs.

So, I again look forward to working with Member Glick

and the rest of the committee, as well as the Speaker and all the members,

to make sure that this actually will be beneficial to those institutions.

Now, my colleague on the other side of the aisle did mention that there is

not that lock box concept. That was a little bit of a disappointment

because when you know that there's a key on it, you it's not going to

change. But, I think when we have a governor like Governor Cuomo

who has made such a commitment on so many issues and has really put

all of his efforts into making sure that they were successful, I believe

when he says that we're going to make sure that there's a maintenance of

effort, that there will be no back-dooring out of the resources. Families

will know for sure, if their students need four years, exactly how much

it's going to cost them for tuition. There won't be anymore 35 percent

increases that get swept into the State's budget. The resources that are

collected by these respective institutions will stay at those institutions so


219

that they have the opportunity to grow their facility and staff and increase

the number of programs that are offered in each respective department.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity

to speak on this bill. I really hope that all my colleagues who still have

some hesitancy about this will, you know, give this a try. I mentioned

earlier that there are a lot of historic things going on in this State today.

This is yet another one of them. There was the tax cap. Now there's

same-sex marriage. And, hopefully, there will be some autonomy and a

bit of room for SUNY and CUNY to grow and flourish this State, like it

should, as the Empire State. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly will

be voting in support of it.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. McLaughlin.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the bill.


MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The SUNY system is a jewel of

public education throughout the country. I'm a big fan of SUNY.

Sixty-four institutions, including the top veterinary school in the country.

They do a fantastic job and I'm a big fan. I've been a strong advocate for

including SUNY Albany in UB 2020. I think that's vital that we do that.

This bill is not bad, but there are some things here that

give me significant pause and it will cause me to vote no on this

legislation. The fact that there is no lock box concerns me greatly. I

understand the maintenance of effort piece, but I believe we should have

had a lock box with this. The fact that the bill does not address public-


220

private partnerships, which I view is very important to the universities, is

not addressed at all as far as I can see in this bill. Also, for me, the

project labor agreements, I view them as anti-competitive and I think that

too many times they shut out the open shops and they cause kind of a --

sometimes a 20 percent increase, a lot of estimates say, in these

construction costs. So, although I'm a huge fan of SUNY and I like the

fact that we're kind of evening out the tuition over the years because too

many kids get hit with these big spikes, which isn't fair to them, so I like

the fact that we're evening that out, there are a couple of glaring

weaknesses here that will cause me to vote in the negative. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Heastie.

MR. HEASTIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and to my

colleagues. I know I have told many of you my personal story, and for

those of you who have heard it before, I apologize for saying it again and

again, but I remember the day that I was going over my college

applications and offers with my mother, who was a nurse. We were

looking at the offers from MIT and UPenn and RPI and Stony Brook, and

as I saw the look in my mother's eyes when she was so proud that MIT

would dare to offer her son the ability to go to the School of Engineering

at MIT, I could see that she knew that there was no way, while she was

also paying for my older sister to go to college, that she could afford for

me to go to MIT. I remember, I said to her, "Mom, don't worry about it.

I'll go to Stony Brook. It's a top-rate engineering school and I will be

fine." And here I am, you know, years later as a member of the

Legislature. But I, do think we all agree on a diagnosis of the patient.


221

SUNY has been starved. Money has been taken away from them, even

when we've done prior tuition increases. But, I think what we're doing

here today is not the best cure for the patient, and the best cure for the

patient, because as we have talked about and debated other bills today

that talked about the affordability and how costs are rising, a tuition

increase is a tax on college families, and what we will be doing today is

actually raising taxes on college families.

Now, were there better ways to do this? I do believe that

we could have continued the millionaires' tax on the so-called

millionaires because we have to remember, it's millionaires that are

leaving the State; many times it is our young people who, when they

graduate from college and have mortgage-sized debts when they graduate

from college are the ones who are looking to move to the south and out

west. And we have to remember -- I have a Chief of Staff and she's 25

years old. She went to UPenn -- and she's probably going to be upset

with me for putting her business out in the street -- but, she has over

$100,000 of college debt at 25 years old. So, as I'm going to painfully --

because I know that SUNY does need the money -- I'm going to painfully

vote for this because I do think SUNY does need the money and I feel for

my western colleagues, particularly Crystal Peoples, who believe that this

will help Western Buffalo, but I think at some point this State and this

nation has to start to worry about how much debt we're putting our

college graduates in.

So, I will, again, painfully vote for this bill. Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.


222

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Ra.

MR. RA: Mr. Speaker, on the bill.


MR. RA: I just want to commend the sponsor, Ms.

Glick, and Speaker Silver, the Governor and Majority Leader Skelos for

their work on this. I think this is an important piece of legislation

because it does include this rational tuition plan that will, along with our

State's maintenance of effort, enable the SUNY and CUNY institutions to

continue to provide a quality education to New York's students. It also

includes this New York SUNY 2020 grant program, which is going to

allow the institutions to compete for funding, it's going to allow them to

do important construction projects which are going to create jobs and

implement cutting-edge new programs. It's certainly, you know,

something we always pause with when we're looking at the cost of

education, and the 21st District, which I'm privileged to represent, has a

lot of students that attend Nassau Community College and then move on

to our SUNY schools throughout the State, and they go on to the

healthcare profession and as teachers and they're really doing great things

in our community. One of the things I really want to applaud in this

legislation is that the sponsor made sure that we took care of some of the

lower-income people in terms of protecting them from some of the

increases that will occur and, especially, allowing the TAP awards to

continue to cover that.

So, with that said, I think this will help prevent the

continued occurrence of students having to go for an extra semester of


223

school, the cost of which is much higher than what they're going to be

paying over the four years under this legislation. As a result, I'll be

casting my vote in the affirmative.

Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Barron.

MS. BARRON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the bill.


MS. BARRON: This move, this bill, as I understand it,

is to help generate revenue for SUNY and CUNY. I think if we had, as

one of my colleagues has indicated, continued the millionaires' tax, there

would have been the funds that could have been added to SUNY and

CUNY to allow them to fund the programs that they need to have to

maintain the excellent universities that they have. We've heard that there

is a TAP tuition credit to lend assistance to those who are in the lower

income. I went online to the Higher Education Services Corporation site,

and they have a calculator which asks you to plug in figures of your

income and they will generate for you a projection as to what your award

will be. It was very interesting. If you're a financially-dependent student

in the $40,000 taxable income bracket, single with two people in the

family, applying for TAP and the tuition is $5,000, you would qualify for

$500 a year. If you are a financially-dependent student in the $25,000

taxable income group at $5,000 tuition, you would qualify also for $500 a

year. If you are financially independent in the $25,000 income bracket,

single, one person, applying for TAP for $5,000 tuition, you would get


224

zero TAP dollars. If you are financially independent, $12,000 taxable

group, single person, you would qualify for $2,500 a year. So, going

back to the financially-independent person, $25,000 a year, $5,000

tuition, you would not have any tax, according to the calculator on the

HESC website.

So, people are trying to tell us that while the low-income

students will be provided a tax credit, which will cover any increases that

come, but let's look also to the middle-income student. When CUNY

was founded, they said that they were a school fashioned as a free

academy for the purpose of extending the benefit of education

gratuitously to persons who have been pupils in the common schools of

the City and County of New York and they would be offering a

high-quality, tuition-free education to the poor, working class and

immigrants. Then in 1969, after the struggle by African-American,

Latinos and others who were underrepresented at CUNY, they installed

an open admissions policy. That policy continued, and in 1975 CUNY

imposed tuition for the first time, and in 1999, CUNY ended its open

admissions policy.

Now, as we talk about TAP being awarded and we talk

about students in CUNY and SUNY, of the 147,000 students who attend

CUNY undergrad, only 66,000 of them qualify for some level of TAP,

and of the 77,000 part-time students who qualify, of the part-time

students enrolled at CUNY, only 174 qualify for TAP. I believe that last

year there was legislation enacted which removed TAP awards for

graduate students. So, all of those graduate students are no longer


225

eligible for TAP. At SUNY, out of 192,000 students -- I don't have the

total number -- oh, 134,000 are receiving TAP at SUNY. We're talking

about tuition, but we also need to realize that there are other

out-of-pocket costs. Tuition is just the beginning. You've got your book

costs, you have travel expenses and other incidentals that come up with

being a student at SUNY or at CUNY.

We have to also recognize that each year or each time

that TAP comes up for review, there are more and more students who are

dropping out because the award limits change and are modified from year

to year. So, the fact that there are "X" number of students receiving TAP

now does not guarantee that those same number of students will be

eligible for TAP. We understand that TAP is for four years, but there are

so many students now who are taking more than four years -- even

though they may be taking the minimum 12 credits to qualify for TAP --

so many more students were taking more than four years, and a part of

the reason that they're taking more than four years, New York City -- in

New York City, the New York Times reported that even though there are

high schools that receive a rating of A, 40 percent of those students that

go on to college need remedial courses, which I think is a testimony to

the failure of mayoral control, but be that as it may, those students who

are graduating from so-called "A schools" are not prepared for college or

career. So, it's going to take them more than four years because they

have to include the remedial courses that they need to bring them up to

par.

I'm concerned, also, that there will be additional fees that


226

will be awarded to the research schools, and I see that as the beginning

after two-tier system. I'm also concerned about the reduction in the

number of African-American and Latino and other so-called minority

students who will not be able to pay what, for some people, seems to be a

mere amount of up to $300 and then the following year, an additional

$300, which means $600 more than this year, and the following year

$900 more than this year and so on.

So, I think that this tuition request is another way of

limiting the access of African-American and Latino students, poor people

and, also, middle class, especially having gone to use the calculator at the

website and seeing how little the TAP awards are. I'm very concerned,

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, that we are undermining our

responsibility.

Someone made mention of the fact that they thought

sweeping was just what you did with your broom in your house. I was

shocked when I came and found out that sweeping meant that the money

that was allocated for a particular agency, and this time we're talking

about education, was taken away with no intention of being replaced, no

intention of being replaced. It's not that, oh, we're going to take it and

replace it at some later date. We have no intentions of giving it back.

I'm also concerned that there is no lock box. Yes, the

wording may say a maintenance of effort. That's no guarantee. That's no

guarantee. "Notwithstanding" is another word had that this Body uses

from time to time. So, notwithstanding the fact that there's a maintenance

of effort clause, that does not mean that money will not be taken through


227

a sweep or some other measure from what its intended purposes are.

There are no guarantees. A lock box would have been somewhat more of

a guarantee because I've been told the Executive can pretty much take it

even if there is a lock box. But, in any event -- Mr. Speaker, can we have

a little less noise? It's difficult for me to concentrate.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Can we have some

silence, please?

MS. BARRON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, a lock

box would have been more of a guarantee, but that's not in this bill. We

have an obligation as a legislative Body to put our money where we say

issues are important, and if we say education is important, if we talk

about from pre-K through 20, then we need to put money in what we say

is important and we, as a Body, have not done that or we have allowed

those instances to come and take that money from the dedicated

purposes. I think that this bill is not good intentioned in terms of

maintaining a broad, open door and especially in this climate where

people are being laid off, people do not have jobs, people are looking for

jobs, people have two and three jobs to try to maintain their homes and

pay their mortgages and homes are in foreclosure, I think this is bad

timing, especially given our economic circumstances and I will be voting

in the negative.


MR. HAYES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the bill.



228

MR. HAYES: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my

colleagues, first and foremost from western New York on both sides of

the aisle. I have always considered it one of the greatest privileges of my

role as a State Assemblyman to be able to represent the campus at the

University of Buffalo, the north campus, the main campus, and this bill

tonight is a culmination of the spark of a lot of hard work and effort that

started with the Western New York delegation and the people at UB who

had a vision and who had a dream about the future, about a bright future

for Western New York and for the State of New York. And although this

bill that's before us tonight is not exactly like what was envisioned at the

very beginning of that journey, it still remains intact a very powerful

catalyst for what is so desperately needed in Western New York, and that

is a place where the university, its intellectual capital, the way it can

integrate in the business community and the possibility to create jobs for

our most precious investment, those young people that we spend so much

time and so much money investing in and educating in this State and the

heartbreak that we feel, so many of us, when we watch them have to

leave New York State for other places simply to find a job to be able to

raise a family and to enjoy a quality of life. These are big issues. These

are tough issues and they are issues that my colleagues on both sides of

aisle from Western New York took to all of you in this House and in the

State Senate to tell the story. And as we attracted supporters and friends

along the way, there were others in other parts of the State who had a

similar vision for their communities and we welcome the ability for

UB 2020 vision to now become SUNY 2020 and its vision. But it's going


229

to take the continued effort and leadership of our Governor, Governor

Cuomo, to make good things happen at these university campus centers

and to continue to keep higher education affordable for our young people

and their families. And, again, although this does not have every

component of the original vision, and it is not the perfect panacea, it is a

wonderful catalyst for Western New York and for New York State, and

for that reason, I'll be casting my vote in the affirmative. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Schroeder.

MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, on the bill.


MR. SCHROEDER: You may have noticed, I have not

uttered a word this year, six months, on the floor or in conference

regarding UB 2020 or SUNY 2020, for obvious reasons, mostly because I

didn't want to jinx it. I'm optimistic, positive by nature, Mr. Speaker, but

if you were to tell me three years ago, three months ago, three weeks ago,

three days ago that my name would appear as a co-sponsor with the Chair

of the Higher Education Committee here in the Assembly on a

UB-SUNY bill, I would have been doubtful. So, I would like to thank

publicly the Chairperson, Deborah Glick, and also, a special thank you to

Speaker Silver.

I realize now that some things take time to hatch or to

develop. The Italians have an old saying, "Roma non è stata costruita in

un giorno." Sorry, Carol and Marina. Just put down, "Rome wasn't built

in a day." I would also like to suggest that many of you watch hockey,


230

NHL Hockey, and they have the number one star after each game. In my

opinion, the number one star in the New York State Assembly on this

issue has been Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes, her tireless

efforts. She has credibility and added value to all discussions having to

do with UB and SUNY 2020. Also I would like to thank the Western

New York delegation for pursuing this vigorously.

Finally, last January on a cold winter's day in Amherst at

a press conference at UB, I said that Governor Andrew Cuomo would

find a creative way to get this done and that he understood that this would

be good for all SUNY students across our State and communities across

our State.

And so, I would like to thank you, colleagues, for your

patience on this three-year discussion and your yes vote tonight would be

appreciated.

Thank you.


THE CLERK: This act shall take effect on the first day

of July next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.


the vote.


Mr. Katz to explain his vote.

Colleagues, we still have business to do in this House.

I'm sorry, Mr. Katz.

MR. KATZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like


231

to say that I do agree with my colleagues that SUNY is truly one of the

jewels that we have here in our State, but I also would like to say that as a

Penn grad, New York does have the second-best veterinary medical

school in the State.


ACTING P. RIVERA: Mr. Katz in the affirmative.

Mr. Crespo to explain his vote.

MR. CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to explain my

vote. A lot has been said this week about voting our conscience on

issues -- if you will excuse me. A lot has been said about voting our

conscience on issues and, as a student, a graduate of John Jay College

who was able to take advantage of the SEEK Program in order to afford

my college education, I understand what it is to struggle financially. And

so, in the same year that we said to millionaires that they would be off the

hook in terms of helping us deal with a tough economic crisis and in the

same year that we said that we could not afford to continue to invest in

higher education, to now come here and say that we need the students to

be the ones to cover those expenses for SUNY and CUNY, the expenses

that we cannot find the funding for, I think, is an unconscionable

decision. I commend the sponsor of this bill for trying her best to make

sure that low-income students would not be affected directly.

Nonetheless, now is not the time for us to ask students to do what we

could not do, so I'll be voting in the negative.

MR. CANESTRARI: Mr. Speaker, excuse me. Could

we have some quiet the Chamber, please? If you're leaving after this last


232

vote, please leave quietly. Our colleagues are explaining their votes.

They deserve our courtesies, please. Please be quiet and say your

goodbyes out in the hallway. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Gottfried to

explain his vote.

MR. GOTTFRIED: Mr. Speaker, when I was about 14

years old, about the first demonstration I ever went to was a protest

against then-Governor Rockefeller's effort in those days to impose tuition

charges at what became the City University of New York. I understood

then, a lot of people understood then, and I believe it even more today

that a college education today is the economic and cultural equivalent of

what a high school education was years before, and no one in their right

mind would suggest that we should be funding our schools by charging

tuition to families that want to send their youngster to high school. It is

every bit as wrong and irrational to be charging tuition for public higher

education.

We should not be raising tuition, we should be lowering

tuition. We should be eliminating tuition for public higher education. It

is wrong to fund public higher education by taxing students and their

families for that basic public service. Now, Speaker Silver and Deborah

Glick and many in this Chamber have done an amazing job of containing

and limiting the tuition increases in this bill, but I believe it is important

to stand up and say raising tuition is the wrong thing to do. We should

not be doing it. We should be funding public higher education through

broad-based, progressive taxation where the rich pay more and the poor


233

don't. That's how we pay for important public services in this society,

and I vote no.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Englebright to

explain his vote.

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When

we finished the budget, we finished it on time, but we left incomplete that

part of the budget that related to the real institution, the ultimate

institution of optimism for our State, which is our public higher education

system of CUNY and SUNY. And tonight, even though we have worked

and worried our way through a whole myriad of proposals and

possibilities, I think what we have before us is something that completes

the need that was left so obvious at the time that the budget was

completed to actually provide funding sufficient for SUNY to continue its

mission; most particularly, the research centers have such potential. I

believe that the challenge grant program that is a part of this bill is vitally

important for the creation of new patents and, through that, new jobs and

from that, the future of our State. For the best and our brightest minds,

this bill may be the most important thing that we have done this year. It

maintains the open door. Even though there are costs associated with it,

not to have done this would have closed that door and that would have

been truly devastating, not only to those individuals but, ultimately, to the

entire trajectory of our State.

This is a journey. Tonight we make a number of steps

forward. I congratulate the Chair, Deborah Glick, who has studiously

tried to bring people together and find a way --


234

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Englebright, how

do you vote?

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: -- and I'm also going to explain

that I'm going to vote yes --

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Thank you.

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: -- and congratulate the Governor

and the Speaker at the same time. Thank you very much.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mrs. Peoples-Stokes

to explain her vote.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

just wanted to rise and thank my colleagues for their support on this very

important issue. I really do think that if we don't do this that, in spite of

how it looks, we actually are limiting access to a lot of students and we're

actually causing more families to expend more than they need to by not

doing this. I think it also, you know, helps create an opportunity where

people will clamor not just in New York State to get into a CUNY or

SUNY school, but all over the world to get into one of these schools of

excellence. So, again, thank you very much for your support. I certainly

want to say thank you to the Speaker and Member Glick and all of the

staff that worked on this because I know it took a lot of people's efforts to

make this a reality and I am grateful. I trust that everyone will have a

great summer and a great evening.



votes?


235



The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Mr. Speaker, I understand you

have resolutions for us to consider.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Yes, we have

resolutions.

Privileged resolution by Mrs. Rabbitt, the Clerk will

read.

THE CLERK: Resolution No. 782.

Legislative Resolution commending Sharon "Jellybean"

Warantz as she celebrates her 20th year as the founder and President of

Jellybean Promotions.

WHEREAS, It is the sense of this legislative Body to

recognize and commend individuals and businesses which contribute

substantially to the economic health and vitality of the communities of

the great State of New York, and to their quality of life; and

WHEREAS, Attendant to such concern and in full

accord with its long-standing traditions, this legislative Body is justly

proud to commend Sharon "Jellybean" Warantz as she celebrates her 20th

year as the founder and President of Jellybean Promotions, Goshen, New

York; and

WHEREAS, For 20 years, Jellybean Promotions has

provided quality imprinted promotional marketing products for use at


236

trade shows, golf outings, grand openings, or other special events, or to

recognize or motivate employees, thank customers, attract new

customers, or participate in a community event; and

WHEREAS, Under Sharon Warantz's able leadership

Jellybean Promotions offers more than 500,000 items and personal,

friendly service with on-time delivery and at competitive prices; and

WHEREAS, Pens, mugs, water bottles, and travel mugs,

tote bags, mouse pads, magnets, bumper stickers, caps and hats, plastic

bags and stress relievers are Sharon Warantz's most popular items and

many people have received her own purple pens in greeting; and

WHEREAS, Sharon Warantz is a member of the Orange

County Chamber of Commerce and serves on its Board of Directors and,

she and her business are certified as a Women's Business Enterprise by

the Women's Business Enterprise National Council; and

WHEREAS, She has given business workshops and

spoken to groups throughout the area and when called upon to contribute

her time, talents and expertise to countless civic endeavors, she has

always given of herself unstintingly; and

WHEREAS, In recognition and appreciation, Sharon

Warantz has fittingly been honored with the Girl Scouts Heart of the

Hudson and YWCA of Orange County's 2008 Business Award and the

Orange County Chamber of Commerce's 2010 Board Volunteer of the

Year Award; and

WHEREAS, Businesses, such as Jellybean Promotions

and its owners and employees, exert a strong, positive influence on the


237

communities they serve and are an essential component of the economies

of Orange County and the State of New York, and of their quality of life;

and

WHEREAS, It is with great pleasure that this legislative

Body acknowledges this exceptional business and its contributions, and

those of Sharon "Jellybean" Warantz, fully confident they will continue

to enjoy the success Sharon has worked so hard to achieve; now,

therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That this legislative Body pause in its

deliberations to commend Sharon "Jellybean" Warantz as she celebrates

her 20th year as the founder and President of Jellybean Promotions and to

applaud her for her successful and dynamic leadership and her exemplary

service to her community; and be it further

RESOLVED, That a copy of this Resolution, suitably

engrossed, be transmitted to Sharon Warantz.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: On the resolution, all

those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The resolution is

adopted.

Privileged resolution by Mr. Crouch, the Clerk will read.

THE CLERK: Resolution No. 783.

Legislative Resolution commemorating the 200th

anniversary of the Town of Masonville.

WHEREAS, Each and every city, town, village and

hamlet within its borders proudly resonates with the rich and noble

history of the State of New York; and


238

WHEREAS, It is the sense of this legislative Body to

recognize and commemorate the anniversary of the founding of

municipalities throughout the State, noting in turn their contributions to

the fabric and development of this great Empire State; and

WHEREAS, This legislative Body is justly proud to

commemorate the Bicentennial of the Town of Masonville, New York,

recognizing the significance of this special anniversary and applauding its

distinguished history; and

WHEREAS, Formed in 1811, the Town of Masonville,

located in Delaware County, is a vital community rich in historical

tradition and the spirit of pride of its citizens; and

WHEREAS, The Town of Masonville will proudly mark

its 200th anniversary on Saturday, July 16, 2011 with a Parade from

Town Hall to the Federated Church of Masonville, where there will be a

ceremony recognizing the auspicious milestone of the Town's 200th

anniversary; and

WHEREAS, There will also be a historical display in the

church's Fellowship Hall featuring items chronicling the history of

Masonville along with a slide show and photo albums and photographs

donated or loaned by Masonville residents for the occasion, and, later, in

the afternoon, there will be an old-fashioned community picnic and

entertainment on the Masonville Elementary School's back lawn; and

WHEREAS, Remaining fruitful over the ebb and flow of

decades of growth and change, the Town of Masonville retains its

commitment to enhancing the quality of life of its citizens; and


239

WHEREAS, As the Town of Masonville celebrates its

200th anniversary, it honors its illustrious past, its proud heritage and its

promising future; and

WHEREAS, In recognition of the Town of Masonville's

rich history and enduring contribution to the State of New York, this

legislative Body is proud to pay tribute to this spirited Town upon the

occasion of its Bicentennial; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That this legislative Body pause in its

deliberations to commemorate the Bicentennial of the Town of

Masonville and to enthusiastically salute its residents as they celebrate

this auspicious occasion; and be it further

RESOLVED, That a copy of this Resolution, suitably

engrossed, be transmitted to the Town of Masonville.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: On the resolution, all

those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The resolution is

adopted.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: With that, Mr. Speaker, I move

the Assembly stand adjourned until Monday, June 27th, Monday being a

Legislative day, and that we reconvene at the call of Speaker Sheldon

Silver.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: The House stands

adjourned.

(Whereupon at 11:31 p.m. the House stood adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of Speaker Sheldon Silver.)

Date post:	17-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 2011 1:47 P.M. - New York State Assembly · 24/6/2011 · NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 24,...

Documents