As the New NY Bridge construction project continues into its second summer season, questions persist about the transparency and legitimacy of the financial plan for the project. A few weeks ago, Governor Cuomo announced that the New York State Thruway Authority would be receiving $511.45 million in low- and no-interest loans from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). The fund is traditionally used to upgrade water infrastructure across the state – through the NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation, which jointly administers the funds with the Department of Environmental Conservation. The announcement that the loans would pay for many environmental mitigation projects related to the bridge project and the circumvented public review and legislative process to enable this loan riled up environmental, transportation and government groups statewide. The “unconventional” use was noted by EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck, scores of elected officials and seven newspaper editorials.

As noted by Tri-State and others in a letter to the EFC, projects receiving CWSRF funds must be included in the Intended Use Plan – the list of projects to be funded for a given year. The bridge construction project was not in the version made available for public review and comment earlier this year, but rather only added by amendment as a “minor modification” last month along with seven other projects totaling approximately $130 million, bringing the total request of funds to $641 million.

Approval for the loan is a three step process: approval by the EFC board (easily passed); the five-member Public Authorities Control Board (next meeting on July 16); and the New York State Thruway Authority (meeting date TBD). Interestingly, the New York Public Authorities Law requires that an “application made concerning a project shall include the terms, conditions and dates of the repayment” and states that public authorities like the Thruway Authority are not allowed to “make any commitment, enter into any agreement or incur any indebtedness for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, or financing any project unless prior approval has been received from the board.” Given that construction on the new bridge is a year underway, is this loan request a violation of the Public Authorities Law?

Given the remaining questions regarding the legitimacy of this loan and the murky details of the financial plan for the entire bridge project, it is the responsibility of the PACB to get some answers. When did the CWSRF funds become a consideration for funding? Were these funds included as part of the state’s financial submission for the TIFIA loan?  Where is the Thruway Authority’s complete financing plan that explains exactly how the TIFIA and CWRSF loans will be paid back – including anticipated toll rates – as required by the law? Will more funds be diverted from other authorities or funding sources? If a history of MTA dedicated taxes is foretelling, the answer would be yes given the diversions that have happened from the MTA in 2009, 2010, 2013 and 2014.

The project has been awarded the biggest TIFIA loan ever despite the requirement that a detailed financial plan be submitted before the loan approval. And while details of proposed toll amounts have not been disclosed by NYS (in spite of numerous FOIA requests), toll revenue will help finance remaining construction.

While there is little disagreement about the merits of constructing a new bridge, the lack of a solid, complete detailed financial plan begs the question: how has construction for one of the biggest, and most publicized, infrastructure projects in the country been able to advance with such shady financial background? This should be the overarching context for discussion during next week’s PACB vote.