JOINT MEETING WITH
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH & COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
MINUTES
ATTENDANCE:
B & A MEMBERS: Wishnie, Carsky, LaMotte, Swanson, Abinanti, Latimer, Stewart-Cousins
HEALTH: Stewart-Cousins, Swanson, Abinanti, LaMotte
LEGISLATION: Stewart-Cousins, Abinanti, Maisano, Mosiello, Ryan, Bronz
OTHERS: Budget Dept.: Kate Carrano, Diane Vanadia; CBAC: George Hosey, Barbara Strauss; C.E.’s Office: William Randolph; BOL: Chris Chang, Robert Boland, Sally Schecter, Barbara Dodds Eleanore Adenekan; Dept of Transportation: Harry Stanton; Dept. of Public Works: John Hsu;County Attorney: Alan Scheinkman,
Chairman Wishnie called the meeting to order at 10:10 A.M.
Discussion: (There is a tape on file for more information)
Chairman Wishnie asked that the Committee on Health be opened.
Sue Swanson called the Committee of Health to order. 10:20AM
Mr. Wishnie stated that the first item for discussion is item 38, which is an agreement with WCHCC to provide post exposure evaluation follow up medical services to the employees of the department for potential exposure to blood borne pathogens. The length of the contract is from June 1, 1999 through May 31, 2004 on a per patient basis. The contract is not to exceed $80,000.
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
MINUTES – OCTOBER 13, 1999
PAGE 2
Legislator LaMotte asked how this came into the Committee; did it go through an agenda?
Chairman Wishnie stated that the item did come to the Committee through the proper channel.
Legislator Swanson asked how much was the previous contract?
Mrs. Carrano answered by saying that she could not provide a definite answer at this time but stated that a lot of money came through OSHA, occupational health and safety issues, for detecting individuals with pathogenic diseases.
On motion of Legislator LaMotte, seconded by Legislator Andrea Stewart-Cousins the motion was approved by a 7-0 vote for the Committee on Budget and Appropriations.
On motion of Legislator Stewart Cousins, seconded by Legislator LaMotte the motion was approved by a 4-0 vote for the Committee on Health
On motion by Legislator Swanson, seconded by legislator LaMotte the Committee on Health was closed.
The Chairman suggested that the joint meeting with the Legislation Committee begin at this time.
Legislator Andrea Stewart-Cousins opened the Committee on Legislation.
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
MINUTES – OCTOBER 13, 1999
PAGE 3
Chairman Wishnie stated that the 2/3 super majority vote has come to both committees because the committees have been in receipt of communications from the County Executive in regards to Mr. Latimer’s letter to the County Attorney concerning the 2/3 vote. The legislation was drafted by Legislator Lou Mosiello’s, which was supported by a number of members of the Republican Caucus regarding the 2/3 vote.
Chairman Wishnie asked the Committees if they would mind if Item 1A3, acceptance of funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA), is discussed while all the material to discuss the 2/3 vote is gathered.
Chairwoman Andrea Stewart-Cousin agreed to discuss Item 1A3 ahead of the 2/3 vote.
Chairman Wishnie opened up the discussion on the 2/3rd vote by informing the Committee that this item, 1A3, is a request from the County Executive for an opportunity to apply for a $10 Million Federal Capital and Operating FTA Grant.
Chairman Wishnie introduced Deputy Commissioner Harry Stanton to explain the Grant.
Deputy Commissioner Harry Stanton stated that this grant includes two programs. One is the Section 5307 in the Next Tea Legislation and that would provide us with approximately an $8 Million program. That is our annual entitlement grant - formula grant, from the Federal Government. In addition there is a $4 Million STP Surface Transportation Program grant. The two of them together produce a program of $12,663, 560. The projects that we have specified are consistent with the current capital budget. They include the purchase of communication equipment, radios, fare boxes, purchase of
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
MINUTES – OCTOBER 13, 1999
PAGE 4
replacement Paratransit vehicles, purchase of replacement supervisory vehicles, a $2 Million dollar preventive maintenance program, which will be a light extension program for our 36 MCI Coaches that are used on the BXM4C, the route run down Central Avenue and into Manhattan. There is $300,000 in the program for project administration and a $100,000 for planning and $4.9 Million for the replacement of articulated buses for which we have received bids and which we hope to upon receipt of this grant order by the end of this year.
Legislator LaMotte asked if the amount of the project was in the original Capital project presentation that the Department of transportation gave.
Deputy Commissioner Stanton responded by saying that the amount is the same as in their previous presentation.
Legislator LaMotte asked where the articulated buses were built?
Deputy Commissioner Stanton stated that the low bidder that won the contract to build the articulated buses is located in Denver Colorado.
Legislator Swanson asked if this is a continuing project?
Deputy Commissioner Stanton said yes, the Department has been accumulating money for this project.
Legislator Swanson then asked if the Department could provide her with a breakdown of the accumulation of the money.
Deputy Commissioner Stanton agreed to provide legislator Swanson with the requested information.
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
MINUTES – OCTOBER 13, 1999
PAGE 5
Chairman Wishnie asked how the Department refurbished 36 commuter coaches.
Mr. Stanton stated that the department returns the old engines to the company and they replace them with rebuilt engines from the company. The department noted that they do this under contract with the contractor of the major part of the system.
Legislator Stewart-Cousins inquired about the funding that is supposed to be coming to the various Counties to help with the Welfare to work program. Mrs. Stewart Cousins noted that she has not seen any money come down for that.
Mr. Stanton made the comment that these funds that were being previously discussed were coming from Capital budget not the Operating budget, which would be where the fund for that program would be.
On a motion by Legislator Carsky and seconded by Legislator Stewart Cousins
The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0 by the Committee on Budget and Appropriations.
At this point, Chairman Wishnie continued the Joint meeting with the Committee on Legislation.
Chairman Wishnie introduced Alan Scheinkman, The County Attorney, who came before the board to discuss the 2/3 majority vote.
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
MINUTES – OCTOBER 13, 1999
PAGE 6
Mr. Scheinkman stated that the County budget requires only a nine vote determination, a simple majority. There is a defined budget process in place under the law by which the County Executive is required to submit his budget by a date certain. The Board is required to adopt the tax levy by December 28th. If the board did not adopt a budget then it would default to the previous year’s budget. So there are a couple of questions as to how the 2/3rd majority vote would work. The charter has an ambiguous statement in it that says that until the County Board shall act, meaning we would go back to the previous year’s budget until the County Board acts. However, the tax levy has to be in place by December 28th. There would be an inconsistency in that if you defaulted to last years budget there would not necessarily be a problem with changing it after December 28th but there would however be a problem with adjusting the tax levy after December 28th. The reason why December 28th is picked in the charter is that the tax warrants go out to the municipalities and once that occurs it is too late to adjust it. There are a couple of other problems associated with this and I’ll discuss them briefly. One of which is we looked at the2/3rd vote issue that have been considered in Suffolk County. There are significant portions of the County’s budget, which are mandated by Federal or State laws, which are not truly discretionary items. The question is whether you wish to, if you had a 2/3 vote requirement, extend that to the mandated items or would only impact on the discretionary items. The distinction being that if the budget did not pass and it did not pass because there was a tax increase in it and the tax increase was associated with a mandated items then the County would vulnerable to litigation. Unfortunately, while there are Federal and State mandates that different legislators may have objections to, we can not circumvent those legal mandates by not passing a budget.
Legislator Swanson asked if we need a mandatory Referendum why would we have a public hearing on this?
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
MINUTES – OCTOBER 13, 1999
PAGE 7
Chairman Wishnie responded by saying that the purpose of the public hearing would be get input on all the various aspects of it; we don’t have legislation and we would need to put legislation together.
Mrs. LaMotte suggested that the Budget Advisory Committee look over the resolution for their review.
Mrs. Swanson stated that she did not feel that the Committees had enough time to review the proposal and therefore, can not determine if and when we should set up a public hearing.
Legislator Ryan requested that the committees recess for five minutes to discuss the issue.
Chairman Wishnie reconvened the committee meeting and stated that during the recess it was decided to postpone any action on the issue until next Monday.
A motion to close the Committee on Legislation meeting was made by Legislator Mosiello, and seconded by Legislator Stewart-Cousins.
Chairman Wishnie opened the discussion on East Post Road in White Plains, Item Number 41. Mr. Wishnie asked John Hsu to come to the table.
Mr. Hsu stated that the limits are from Cuomo Place to Sterling Place. Mr. Hsu continued to say that phase one of the project was presently out to bid. Mr. Hsu noted that the area is a CDBG area, which is a development area that the City has been trying to revitalize. On County roads, John noted that the County maintains curb face to the curb face and the roadbed in between. The County does not maintain the curb face back to the property line. Post Road has always been an issue in regards to people tripping or puncturing tires and this project is to help the County mitigate litigation exposure from the City of White Plains
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
MINUTES – OCTOBER 13, 1999
PAGE 8
Chairman Wishnie noted that this project is a capital project amendment; the cost is 540,000 in bonds, and the Committee on Public Works signed it out.
Mr. Hsu stated that the planning board approved the project with only one concern, which was the tree scaping.
Mr. Boland asked if the $540,000 represents the whole project or just phase one of the project.
Mr. Hsu stated that the $540,000 supplements contributions of City. The City has estimated the total cost of $940,000 for the two phases.
Legislator LaMotte asked why this project didn’t go through CDBG.
Mr. Hsu said that he did not know why it did not go through the CDBG program.
Legislator Swanson stated that she would vote in the affirmative with the caveat that she is supplied with the history behind the project in regards to their CDBG application.
Chairman George Latimer stated that he was comfortable voting in the affirmative for this proposal because the project has been approved bipartisantly by the White Plains City Counsel.
Legislator LaMotte noted that she was told the policy of the County was to get rid of County roads. Mrs. LaMotte expressed concern over the possibility of other municipalities coming to the County for curb and street repair.
Chairman Wishnie requested some history of the project to determine whether the City of White Plains attempted to use CDBG money first before approaching the County about the project.
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
MINUTES – OCTOBER 13, 1999
PAGE 9
On a motion by Legislator Latimer, seconded by legislator Abinanti the motion to pass the resolution was approved by a 4-3 vote.
The Chairman then introduced the County Attorney, Alan Scheinkman, to discuss item number 41, an IMA with the City of New Rochelle.
Mr. Scheinkman stated that the County would be acquiring Garden Street from North Avenue to I-95 Exit 16, North Avenue from Huguenot Street to Main Street from North Avenue to Echo Avenue (All in New Rochelle).
Mr. Scheinkman noted that the area is in the vicinity of New Rock City. The State is putting in a large sum 4.5 Million for various site improvements; the City is putting in an even larger sum of $24,400,000. The acquisition of these links is an essential contribution by the County to the City’s efforts to revitalize its downtown area by improving access to major retail facilities.
The City of New Rochelle doesn’t know how these basic corners were left out of the County road projects. The City is not asking the County to pay the fair market value; they just want to cover the City’s cost of fixing the roads up. In return the City would maintain the roads.
Legislator Carsky asked what would be the term of the bond
Mrs. Carrano said the term of the bond would be twenty years.
Mrs. Swanson stated that she would like to see the planning board report on County roads criteria because the roads that fall under the category of County roads lead from one community to another; this project is just in one community.
Mr. Scheinkman noted that North Avenue runs from the City of New Rochelle to the Town of Eastchester and Main Street also known as route one leads to other communities.
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
MINUTES – OCTOBER 13, 1999
PAGE 10
Mr. Latimer suggested that the Committee stall the conversation on this issue and advance with the meeting.
Legislators Maisano and Bronz encouraged the Committee to vote in the affirmative for this project saying that it would benefit the County as a whole and help to alleviate a very serious problem in New Rochelle.
Mrs. Swanson inquired for the record why the County is buying road beds and she also wanted Commissioner Landi to come in and repeat what he has said for the last eight years about the County and the purpose of having municipalities take back the County roads.
In an attempt to obtain answers regarding the White Plains issue previously discussed, the Chairman introduced Larry Salley, Deputy Commissioner of planning who stated that the four major Cities in Westchester County have their own CDBG programs. Mr. Salley did not know the answer to the question of whether or not White Plain attempted to bring this project to fruition through CDBG funds before approaching the County with the project. He did say however, that he would find out that information.
The Chairman then discussed the three annual resolutions that the Committee has to sign in regards to the rules for the public budget hearings.
On motion by Legislator Abinanti, Seconded by Legislator LaMotte the motion was approved by a (4-3) vote.
On motion by Legislator Abinanti, seconded by Legislator Carsky the motion to adjourn was approved by a 7-0 vote.