









Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
The history and nature of public authorities, their advantages and disadvantages, and suggests areas of appropriate usage. Public authorities are corporate bodies authorized by legislative action to finance, construct, and operate revenue-producing enterprises outside of the regular government structure. the creation of authorities, their impact, and their functions in financing, management, and planning.
Typology: Lecture notes
1 / 17
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!










19571
If there is one area of agreement between the proponents and op- ponents of the public authority, it is that the authority is one of the most significant and widespread developments in state and local govern- ment in the past quarter of a century.' Today, state and local govern- ments employ authorities for such varied purposes as the construction and operation of transportation services, marketing facilities, recrea- tion centers, public utilities, schools, airports, bridges and turnpikes. 2 Authorities now represent several billions of dollars in capitalization and their obligations are significant on the investment market.^3 The rapid growth of the authority and the increased reliance upon its use has raised challenging questions concerning its appropriateness as an instrument of government. 4 The purpose of this article is to dis- cuss briefly the history and nature of the public authority, to examine its advantages and disadvantages and to suggest areas in which the authority may be most appropriately utilized.
NATURE AND HISTORY OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY
Briefly, a public authority is a corporate body authorized by legislative action to function outside of the regular structure of state or local government in order to finance, construct and usually to operate revenue-producing enterprises. The states have provided for the creation of authorities in various ways. In most jurisdictions, authorities, especially on the state level,
t Member, Philadelphia Bar. Formerly First Deputy City Solicitor, City of Phila- delphia. A.B., 1943, University of Pennsylvania; LL.B., 1949, Harvard University.
1. COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS, PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN THE STATES, For- ward (1953); FORDHAM, LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW 25 (1949); TEMPORARY STATE COMmSSION ON COORDINATION OF STATE ACTIVITIES, FIRST INTERIM STAFF REPORT ON PUBLIC AUTHORITIES UNDER NEW YORK STATE 23 (1954).
(553)
554 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 105
are created by special acts of the legislature. Such, for example, is the pattern in New York.^5 Other states authorize the creation of public authorities under general enabling acts. The outstanding example is Pennsylvania which, under The Municipality Authorities Act of 1945,' enables local governments to create local authorities to operate a broad variety of projects. Some states such as Alabama and Michigan permit the establishment of authorities for limited purposes, such as the con- struction of industrial and commercial buildings for rental to private business 7 or the construction of off-street parking facilities. In general, the^ authority^ has the^ status^ of^ a^ public^ corporation^
8
and may make contracts, acquire and dispose of real and personal property, sue and be sued, borrow money and issue evidences of in- debtedness, fix rates and collect fees or charges for the use of facilities, and hire personnel.' The authority is usually managed by a board or commission which determines policy within the framework of the authority's jurisdiction and approves, modifies or rejects actions suggested by a full-time employee who serves as the principal executive officer of the board. The members of the authority are generally appointed-by the gover- nor, in the case of a state authority, and by the mayor or city council, in the case of a local authority-and often serve without salary."^0 Fre-
556 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 105
a need to develop an effective agency to handle interstate and inter- community problems.' Although public authorities appeared (^) in this country ' 6 as early as the 1890's," the first major impetus to the authority movement took place with the establishment of the Port of New York Authority in 1921.'" Within the five year period between 1926 and 1931, the Au- thority had marketed $142,000,000 in bonds secured by the revenues of bridges, tunnels and other authority projects." That body, (^) with its striking record, was the star that the coming galaxy of authorities sought to emulate. The depression, which brought about an increase in public work construction as a means of stimulating recovery, also brought about a shrinkage in the assessed valuation of taxable property and hence a reduction in borrowing power. This accentuated the need for revenue bond financing and proved a stimulus to the growth of public au- thorities. 9 Encouragement came also from the federal government through such measures (^) as the power of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to lend funds for self-liquidating (^) projects of public bodies, the letter in 1934 from President Roosevelt to the governors of (^) the states suggesting the adoption of legislation that would authorize revenue bond financing and the creation of public authorities,^2 " and the financial assistance (^) provided by the United States Housing Act of
(^2 )
THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY
World War II brought a halt to state and local construction pro- grams and hence witnessed the creation of relatively few authorities. In the postwar era, however, the demand for public improvements grew apace. Authorities, popularized as a quick means of realizing new facilities, have not only multiplied with vigor but have found use in new areas such as toll road operation, port development and govern- ment building. With this brief background, the advantages and disadvantages of the authority may perhaps be best assessed by examining its functions in the following areas: (1) financing; (2) management; and (3) planning and responsibility.2 2
FINANCING
One of the primary advantages claimed for the authority is that it permits the financing of improvements outside state constitutional debt limitations.^2 " The states whose constitutions do not restrict public borrowing are few.2 4^ Most state constitutions either prescribe that public borrow- ing may take place only where approval is received by popular refer-
amount which most of these states long ago reached.2 6^ Local govern- ment debt is also restricted, generally by the limitation based on the "debt-to-property" ratio under which indebtedness is limited to a fixed percentage of^ taxable^ property^ in^ the^ local^ government^ unit.
27
With the path to constitutional amendment of debt limitations generally blocked by vociferous and articulate advocates of govern- mental economy, as well as by the complications of the amending
19571
THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY
as license fees and^ cigarette^ taxes.^ Even^ some^ states^ which^ accepted the special fund doctrine held^ that^ such issues^ fell^ directly^ within^ the purpose of the debt limitation, since the improvements^ were^ not^ self- liquidating in that the revenues were not^ earned^ by the^ structures financed by the bonds. 4 It was not surprising, therefore, particularly^ in those^ states^ in which courts rejected or restricted the special fund doctrine, that wary legislators should seek to meet financing needs through the authority device. For one, the device proved^ a^ means^ to^ approach^ the^ court with a new conception; for another,^ it^ was^ thought^ to^ be^ a^ more^ subtle subterfuge, since "independence" from the^ state^ governmental^ structure was an additional argument on which to base exemption from state debt limitations. It is not entirely clear why certain courts should have found it easier to appreciate that the pledge of revenues of authority facilities is less a debt within the constitutional sense than^ the^ pledge^ of^ a^ munic- ipality of^ the^ revenues^ from^ improvements.^ Nevertheless,^ whether through subtlety or sophistry, it was the authority that demonstrated the victory of indirection, and won significant support in such cases as Tranter v. Allegheny County Authority3 5^ and Robertson v. Zimmer- man.3 8^ Subsequent^ decisions^ sanctioned^ authority^ bond financing^ even for non-revenue producing facilities, 7 and set a pattern^ for^ expanded use of the^ authority^ in^ those^ states^ 3 8^ as^ well^ as^ in^ others.
3 9
560 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 105
But the field of municipal finance has not remained static. Granted that in some jurisdictions restrictions on state and municipal (^) borrowing once presented a compelling (^) reason for the use of authorities, that com- pulsion now appears largely non-existent, at least in the case of revenue- producing facilities. (^) Today most courts, more sophisticated in the necessities of municipal finance and less sympathetic with archaic con- stitutional restrictions, have granted considerable leeway to local (^) gov- ernments, and their revenue financing is on terms equal with (^) those of authorities. The special fund doctrine, under which an (^) obligation payable wholly out of the net operating revenues of the enterprise which it finances is excluded from constitutional debt limitations, has won ap- proval in almost all of the states having constitutional municipal-debt limits."^0 There (^) has also been wide acceptance of the "expanded special fund theory" under which the state or local (^) government may pledge the revenues of any existing revenue-producing (^) utility for the purpose of constructing or acquiring a different type of utility.^4 ' Likewise, in many states, the financing even of non-revenue producing structures and (^) services has withstood the confinement of constitutional clauses without resort to the authority device. For ex- ample, in the case of educational facilities, approval has been given to the construction of dormitories financed by revenue bonds secured (^) by the pledge of such revenues as earnings of the university press 4 and fees from other halls; ' in the case of a state hospital, the pledge of con- tributions made by counties for services rendered to their residents has been found acceptable; (^) 44 and in recreational facilities, the pledge of excess revenues of an electric plant supported the construction (^) of an auditorium, field^ house^ and swimming^ pool.^45
562 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol.^105
financing without the necessity of using the authority device.^ Accord- ingly, relief from constitutional debt limitations does not, in most states, provide an adequate ground for authority financing. If the authority is to be justified, it^ must^ be^ on^ another^ basis."'
MANAGEMENT Another frequently heard advantage claimed for the authority is that it brings to public functions the characteristics of business enter- prises, and thus enhances the efficiency of government in achieving its objective. 3 As a primary demonstration of this thesis, it is contended that the public authority is managed by more capable men than are regular government offices. Since members of the authority generally are not paid and because the authority is largely independent of the state or municipal government, it is thought that the authority will attract suc- cessful and public-minded businessmen who will run it with the same initiative and success^ demonstrated in^ their^ private^ business." As further demonstration of the advantages of authority opera- tion, there is cited its independence and freedom from the inflexibility and red tape of traditional governmental in^ such^ matters^ as^ the^ hiring of personnel, purchasing and other managerial controls. This thesis, if sound, is an alarming one. As Dean Fordham has observed:
"Local government of any size is^ big^ business,^ and^ we^ need good management and efficiency throughout. If we cannot substantially achieve them, short of diffusing various functions among a variety of ad hoc units, we are^ indeed^ in^ a^ bad plight."^ "
But, along with Dean Fordham, the writer believes that it is the thesis, rather than the plight, that requires examination. In apprais-
tion, 89 Pa. D. & C. 189 (1954) (improvements to water and sewer systems and to transit facilities). Nevertheless, in 1954 Philadelphia^ created^ a^ municipal^ airport^ au- thority for self-sustaining projects at the city's airport. On more mature reflection, the city fathers have kept the authority largely inactive and have financed its^ airport^ proj- ects through regular city channels.
52. Aside from lack of advantage, there are disadvantages to authority financing. These go largely to the question of responsibility and are discussed at pp. 568-69 infra. 53. See Toll Roads^ and^ Toll^ Authorities,^^26 STiATs^ Gov'T^ 157,^167 (1953).
THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY
ing authority management, a magic aura of success has been attrib- uted to the fact that authorities are self-supporting. But to be self- supporting means only that the authority's charges^ are^ no^ less^ than^ its expenditures; it is no guarantee of efficient operation at low cost, especially where the authority operates under monopoly or semi- monopoly conditions, and where there has been a pooling of profitable facilities with unprofitable ones. That authorities are self-supporting does not mean, therefore, that the cost to the consumer will be reduced.- 6 On the other hand, it is no proof of inefficient municipal management merely because services are not self-supporting or that a city's budget does not balance. Comparison of the relative efficiency of regular government and the authority, if it is to be meaningful, must take place on the plane of costs and services. That comparison does not seem to have been made to an extent sufficient to draw general conclusions. Apart from costs, it is not clear that the authority has an^ advantage over the regular government on the basis of quality and independence of membership and flexibility of managerial controls. In terms of political independence, it must be remembered that authority members, like many other government officials, are appointed by the mayor or governor.^57 An appointing official^ who^ is^ politically minded is not likely to immunize himself from political considerations in selecting authority members." Even when businessmen are chosen, their appointment frequently is the result of their political rather than their business activity. On the other hand, the mayor or governor who supports merit appointments should attract qualified men for service within the regular governmental framework as^ well^ as^ within the authority.^59 There is also the question of whether the board-of-directors type of management, which is^ typical^ of^ the^ authority,"'^ is^ the^ most^ desirable
56. See Address by Lennox L. Moak, Thirteenth Annual Conference of Penn- sylvania Municipal^ Authorities,^ Oct.^ 25,^ 1955,^ p.^3 (Bureau of^ Municipal^ Research^ of Philadelphia mimeo.)
1957]
THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY
it should not hold good for the authority. The authority is not immune to the demands of politicians for patronage; indeed, in some cities where civil service is extensive, the authority is perhaps the last refuge of the patronage seeker.es Similarly, if competitive bidding procedures are desirable for the municipal government, why should they not be desirable for the author- ity? " Authorities are not immune from favoritism and politics in their contracts, and the public trust can be abused by part-time mem- bers as well as by regular government officials. The need for flexibility of controls should not be confused with abdication of controls. The fact that bidding and purchasing requirements in many municipalities may be outmoded points to their revision, 7 not their rejection. It is significant that the trend in legislation dealing with authori- ties has been to impose requirements of merit selection, competitive bidding, budgeting and accounting and other controls found in normal municipal operation.^6 The experience of public administration indi- cates that, as more abuses are discovered in authority operation, more controls are imposed. In sum, the managerial superiority of the authority does not seem to have been demonstrated, while its freedom from controls does not appear to be entirely desirable. If municipal governments continue to revise their managerial controls to conform to modern concepts of governmental administration, there would appear to be little need to establish authorities for management reasons alone.
PLANNING AND RESPONSIBILITY An authority that exercises its functions within the geographical limits of one general function unit 6 9^ invariably poses problems for the state or city planners. Most state and local authorities have been conceived for a single or limited purpose job. Even if more than one project
65. In Philadelphia, for example, it is no secret that prospective employees of most of the local authorities obtain political clearance before they are employed, a situation that does not exist in the case of regular city employers who are under a board civil service system. PHILADELPHIA HomE RULE CHARTER § 7-401. 66. The purpose of competitive bidding is to obtain "the best results at the lowest price and to forestall fraud, favoritism and corruption in the issuing of contracts." RHYNE, THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL CONTRACTS WITH ANNOTATED MODEL FoRMus 35 (1952) and cases cited therein. 67. See FIELD, SIxES & STONER, op. cit. supra note 64, at 351; RHYNE, op. cit. supra note 66, at 21-24.
566 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 105
is involved, the projects generally fall within a single area such as transportation, sewage, port facilities or the like. Planning by the authority, even where sufficiently developed, is inevitably centered around its area of operation. Municipal and state planning, however, cannot be as single- minded.^70 The development of playgrounds, for example, is related to the planning of residential developments; the desirability of airport locations may depend on the question of planned industrial develop- ments. In this broad framework the authority is often a single trader pursuing its own projects without participation in the-over-all planning program. The Joint Committee on Urban Traffic Congestion of the Ameri- can Bar Association has expressed the point in the context of parking authorities as follows:
"The main disadvantage of a parking authority appears to to be the use of an ad hoc governmental unit in an area where integrated planning is of the utmost importance. The provision of parking facilities is only one aspect of any urban traffic problem. Closely related are the problems of street use, encouragement of mass transportation, encouragement of private enterprise solu- tions, and other aspects of city planning development. The park- ing authority frequently proceeds to provide parking facilities be- fore the relationship of these facilities to the whole traffic problem has been thought out and a fully integrated program decided upon. The initiative and spirit demonstrated by parking au- thority projects moving at a rapid pace in a manner stimulating private development, may seem commendable at the time but the projects may eventually prove unsound and unrelated (^) to the city's overall plan^ to^ solve^ its^ traffic problems."^ 7'
The legislature can, of course, require the authority to obtain the clearance of the appropriate planning body. 72 But such requirement would not appear to provide an adequate solution to the problem. An example drawn from the writer's experience will help to illustrate. A few years ago the parking authority of a large eastern city selected a particular area for the construction of a parking garage. Plans were prepared for submission to the city's planning commission. At the meeting of the planning commission, the most prominent mem-
568 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 105
need of a broader planning base that will encompass and direct the work of all of the authorities in a particular region." The merits and demerits of the state and local authority must also be evaluated in the area of political philosophy. It is a tenet, if not an axiom, of^ democratic^ society^ that^ government^ be^ politically^ responsible to the electorate.^7 "^ If^ we^ are^ to^ divorce^ a^ governmental^ body^ from direct control of politically responsible officers, it seems fair to ask that the reasons for such divorcement be compelling ones. Proponents of the authority have^ offered^ justification^ in^ the^ claim that certain types of entrepreneurial action can be more efficiently man- aged if made independent^ of^ the^ regular^ channels^ of^ government.^
77
Such justification (if factually correct), might be adequate if use of the authority meant only the choice of a management device. Invari- ably, however, use of the authority cannot be insulated from questions of broad and significant governmental policy. For example, one of the significant questions facing state and local governments is the extent to which "benefit received" principles should be the yardstick for public improvements. Under the "benefit re- ceived" concept, improvements are^ paid by charges upon^ users.^ The advantages claimed for this concept are that it avoids the necessity of heavier tax burdens, it provides the consumer with concrete evi- dence of the value of his payments, and it serves as a^ measure^ for the determination of the extent of need and of popular demand. 8 On the other hand, traditionally in a democratic society the creation of governmental services has not depended on the potential ability of the using public to pay for the service, but upon such tests as the general welfare of the community, the development of^ an^ area^ and^ a^ standard of the minimum level of services.
75. This is not a suggestion that regional general function units should be estab- lished. However, for some possible developments along interstate lines, see FORDHAM, A LARGER CoNc-rv OF COMMUNITY c. 2 (1956) ; Edelstein, supra note 73, at 190.
THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY
The choice between^ following^ benefit-received^ principles^ and^ the traditional criteria appears to be the kind of policy decision elected officials should properly make and be responsible for, not only initially but on a continuing basis. That decisional process for each project is largely lost^ by^ use^ of^ the authority^ device^ which,^ by^ its nature,^ is committed to benefit-received principles in the operation of its projects. 79 Similarly, whether users of a profitable project should support nonprofitable projects, or what priority should be assigned to given projects, or what the comparative merits are, in the case of each project, of financing from tax revenues, general obligation issues or revenue bonds, are all questions involving basic governmental policy.^ To^ re- move such questions from the regular orbit of governmental control is to remove them from responsibility to the electorate.' The benefits that accrue^ from the^ authority^ do^ not^ appear^ sufficient^ to justify^ such departure from our governmental philosophy.
CONCLUSION The need for the authority appears greatest on the bi-state or re- gional level as a means of handling problems that cross jurisdictional lines. On a state and local level, however, the authority does not appear as attractive^ an^ instrument^ as^ has^ been^ commonly supposed.^ Its^ finan- cing devices are now available in most jurisdictions to^ municipal^ and state governments. Its management advantages are largely unproved. In the planning area, it may prove disruptive of efforts to^ integrate community efforts along the lines of a comprehensive plan. And on the level of political responsibility it presents a^ departure from^ dem- ocratic traditions unwarranted by need or experience.
1957l