Niagara County lawmakers sure have spent a lot of time on state issues lately.

This week was no exception as the Legislature went on record as being downright disgusted by the state’s treatment of the county on a variety of issues, including the “sweep” of surplus dollars from the Power Authority into the state’s general fund, the lack of a residency requirement for Medicaid recipients and the failure of the state to take action on the future of the Robert Moses Parkway.

The county agreed to take its concerns about the power authority “sweeps” to court.

On Medicaid residency — an issue the county last asked the state to address in 1992 — legislators agreed to tell Gov. David Paterson and state legislators to impose a requirement that individuals receiving Medicaid assistance in New York actually have documented proof that they live in the state.

“Gov. Paterson has asked us to provide him with ideas that he can use to trim the budget,” said Majority Leader Richard Updegrove, R-Lockport. “This seems like an absolute perfect time to make this request.”

On the parkway issue, county lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle agreed that the divisive issue has dragged on too long. They argued that since the road is controlled by the Department of Transportation and the land it’s on falls under the jurisdiction of State Parks, it is the state’s job to conduct hearings on what the future holds for the controversial stretch of road between Niagara Falls and Lewiston.

“It’s the state’s decision and there is no gray area,” Updegrove said.

Under review

Legislators also agreed this week to conduct a review of how other counties handle the duties of public administrator of estates. The move came in response to questions raised recently about the county’s own public administrator, Treasurer David Broderick.

County Attorney Claude Joerg and members of the Republican-led Majority have arrived at the conclusion that Broderick’s role as administrator essentially amounts to yet another unfunded mandate because state rules require the county’s top fiscal officer to assume responsibility for some estate work, while providing little guidance on how the work should be performed or what level of government should pay for it.

One of the chief concerns raised during the Broderick controversy is his use of county employees for administrative work. The goal of the review is to determine if estates assigned to the county can be handled without placing undue burden on county resources.

The county has previously gone on record as supporting a request by two county judges for an audit of Broderick’s estate work by the state Comptroller’s Office.

“We understand that there may be some reform to this office,” Updegrove said. “We certainly support reform where we can do it.”

Newfane resident Edwina Luksch suggested lawmakers were skirting the real issue by conducting such a review. During Tuesday’s meeting, she accused them of ignoring the real issues of concern in the Broderick matter, including his wife’s involvement in real estate transactions he oversaw personally.

“If you don’t think that is being widely talked about in the court of opinion, you have another one coming,” she said.

See-through-salaries

Read article here