MINUTES
OTHERS: Budget Dept.: Kate Carrano, Leslie Bennett, Meredith Waltman, Diane Nolan; CBAC: George Hosey, Barbara Strauss, Fran MacEachron; C.E.’s Office: Bill Randolph; DOT: Commissioner Salley, Harry Stanton, Rich Stiller, Bill Leverence, John DeMilia; Westchester County Assn:/Westchester TMO: Charles Del Priore, Airport: Joel Russell, Christopher Burkhart; Law Department: Alan Scheinkman, Donna Ritucci; BOL: Sally Schecter, Rafael Vega, Tara Bernard, Robert Boland, Chris Chang, Tina Seckerson
Chairman Wishnie called the meeting to order at 9:12 a.m.
DISCUSSION:
2001 PROPOSED BUDGET: TRANSPORTATION/AIRPORT:
· Discussion regarding the amount of marketing to get people to use public transportation
· State aid (9700): result of Westchester County Assembly & Senate getting extra money that is budgeted for next year.
· Departmental Income (9050): increase due to advertising campaign
· Positions going from 22 to 31. Bus checkers are being put on as full timers rather than hourlies
· Printing & Office Supplies (3600): Printing of bus maps (75,000) that are put on bus shelters
· Equipment Service & Rental (4070): increase is due to the cost for copiers, moved from another account
· MTA Operating Assistance (4554): determined by the state: trended forward by CPI (3.4%)
PAGE 2
· Bus Operating Assistance (4924): This line represents the net payments to bus operators after revenue from bus fares, basically it is the net cost of running the system.
· Services by Telecommunications (5250): actual cost of operating the information center.
· Services by Dept of Finance (5375): now in technical services
· Services by Economic Development (6498): This represents DOT’s portion of the package
· Transportation Discount Program (4920): request DOT look at a senior discount pass for buses.
· Low floor buses reduce the number of seats. Pittsburgh just ordered 150 of them and has had problems with every one of them.
· Shuttles: Average 1600 passengers a day, most of which are coming off of the train. Beginning discussions with corporations now with regard to the shuttle system. Do not differentiate between the shuttle system and the bus system. A monthly commutation ticket for the shuttle bus would cost the rider $25 but DOT receives $50. There was a discussion with regard to putting the focus on the landlords to provide the shuttle service. This matter will be pursued further by the Budget Committee.
· Besides the capital projects it was asked if there are any changes in operation with regard to environment at the Airport. Commissioner Salley stated that one of the major items is an increase in the number of staff people in the airport budget. The additional staff will be part of the Office of the Environment at the Airport. They will be responsible for instituting and implementing on a daily basis the environmental management system program that is being put in place at the airport. Commissioner Salley explained that several aspects of the program are currently ongoing and will continue during the year. A consultant will be retained to help them get actual certification (which will probably take a little over a year, but the program will be ongoing until they obtain certification.
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET & APPROPRIATIONS
MINUTES – NOVEMBER 20, 2000
PAGE 3
· There was a discussion as to the possibility of creating a drop off/pick up area since there is a parking problem at the airport. Commissioner Salley stated that they are sensitive to the parking issue and will look into it.
· Trust accounts: grants allow DOT to do regional planning
MINUTES:
On motion of Legislator Carsky, seconded by Legislator LaMotte, the Motion to approve the Minutes of November 13, 2000 and November 16, 2000 was carried by a vote of 7-0.
RECEIVE & FILE:
On motion of Legislator Kaplowitz, seconded by Legislator LaMotte, the motion to approve Items A 2, A3 & A4 (gift acceptances) was carried by a vote of 7-0.
2001 PROPOSED BUDGET: LAW DEPARTMENT:
· Positions: increase of 9 people: The County Attorney explained that in 1998 Congress passed a statute that requires adoptions and other matters involving juveniles have to be concluded within a certain amount of time and rather than leaving children in limbo the courts are required are required to have more periodic hearings to determine what is going on with kids. New York state implemented those requirements in early 1999. Starting in 2000 we began to see locally the consequences of that. It is a good policy but it has costs associated with it. There are more court appearances required per attorney, and they are not just routine court appearances. The judges want to know what is going on with the cases, where are the kids, and what is happening with these kids. This requires people to draft orders and necessary reports as well as staying on top of these cases. Four attorneys are for Family Court as well as one secretarial position. In Westchester Judge Cooney created a separate dedicated part to deal with abuse and neglect matters in White Plains. She appointed an individual to serve as a referee who takes on a lot of the routine matters. In essence that created another part for the County Attorney’s office to respond to plus another person they have to appear before. Therefore the number of court appearances that are required increased tremendously.
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET & APPROPRIATIONS
MINUTES – NOVEMBER 20, 2000
PAGE 4
· Mr. Scheinkman informed the Committee that the other thing that is about to happen, which they anticipated, is the creation of a centralized juvenile part for juvenile delinquency matters as well as juvenile offender matters. The County Attorney’s Office is expected to staff that part as well.
· On the Child Support side, which is also significant, the court system added another hearing examiner who will hear child support matters exclusively and in Yonkers the court system created an additional hearing examiner just to hear public assistance cases. This too has a cost associated with it. Hopefully they will be able o get additional recovery of child support and some of these costs are back reimbursed by the federal and state governments.
· The other issue that relates to personnel is the Solid Waste Commission. They had to acquire an additional attorney in the Contracts Bureau to deal with some of those issues as well as additional attorneys in the Litigation Bureau. The Solid Waste Commission is in the process of interviewing everyone who has applied for a license and the County Attorney’s Office has been heavily involved with them in doing depositions and follow through to investigations.
· Litigation Bureau: added a Deputy County Attorney (Grade XVII) and two Assistant County Attorneys.
· Equipment Service & Rental (4070): due to copier contract change, it is no longer being billed by support services by IT. It is a multi-year agreement. It is a more expensive contract but the copiers provide many more features.
· Advance to Grants (4912): Domestic Violence Grant in Family Court. This year they got the same amount as last year ($75,000). Increase is due to increases in pay for 2 attorneys are entitled to as part of their regular yearly increment and salary adjustments.
· Litigation line: For cases and litigations not charged not to the 6N fund. It does include from time to time, outside consultants (for technical expertise). This line covers a multitude of things including, witness charges, additional investigations and other routine litigation costs.
LAWSUITS/SETTLEMENTS:
24. COUNTY ATTORNEY: Outside Counsel: Proposed Act authorizing the retention of outside counsel in the matter of Farley Granger v. Westchester County, et al. (10/30/00)
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET & APPROPRIATIONS
MINUTES – NOVEMBER 20, 2000
PAGE 5
· The Plaintiff, Farley Granger, is a correction officer who claims that while he was on duty on June 13, 1999, he was assaulted by Oddes Andrews, another correction officer. Both officers were disciplined for the incident.
· Mr. Granger was later successful in an arbitration that found that he had a job related injury arising out of the incident that entitled him to correction compensation benefits.
· Oddes Andrews is being sued in the Granger matter individually and in his capacity as a correction officer employed by the Westchester County Department of Correction.
· It is the County Attorney’s view that it is appropriate for the County and the individual defendants (other than Mr. Andrews) to assert cross-claims against Mr. Andrews in the Granger action for indemnification and contribution.
· Oddes Andrews is entitled to representation by private counsel at the expense of the County. The County Attorney’s Office cannot represent Oddes Andrews in the Granger case as the other defendants will assert claims against him. Even if no claims are asserted, the defense of the County and the remaining individual defendants would be different from Mr. Andrews’.
· It is inappropriate for an attorney to represent clients with conflicting interests in the same litigation. When the other County defendants interpose claims against Andrews, and assert different defenses, the interests of Andrews and the remaining defendants will be in conflict.
· The County Attorney recommended the law firm of Gross & Gross for an amount not to exceed $30,000.
On motion of Legislator Kaplowitz, seconded by Legislator Carsky, the motion to approve his item was carried by a vote of 7-0.
29. COUNTY ATTORNEY: Designation of Outside Counsel: Proposed Act authorizing the designation of outside counsel in the matter of Shani Gashi v. County of Westchester. (10/30/00)
· Plaintiff, Shani Gashi, is a former inmate who while incarcerated at the Westchester County correctional facility alleged that he was assaulted by correctional staff.
· Gary Johnson is employed by the County Department of Correction as a Sergeant and is being sued in the in the Gashi matter individually and in his capacity as a Sergeant.
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET & APPROPRIATIONS
MINUTES – NOVEMBER 20, 2000
PAGE 6
· The County agreed to provide Sergeant Johnson with defense and indemnification in the Gashi matter
· On or about June 7, 2000 an Article 78 proceeding was filed in the NYS Supreme Court challenging the County’s use of anticipatory eligibility in connection with the eligibility list for the October 2, 1999 examination for the position of “Correction Officer-Captain” entitled Kevin McGrew, Robert Danile, Gary Johnson, Ronnie Simmons and other Westchester County Department of Correction Sergeants against Westchester County, Westchester County Department of Correction, Westchester County Department of Correction Commissioner Rocco Pozzi, Westchester County executive Andrew Spano. In this proceeding, the petitioners are alleging that the Correction Officer-Captain eligibility list has a disparate impact on minorities and that the counties use of anticipatory eligibility is arbitrary and capricious.
· Since Gary Johnson now has an action pending against the County in NYS Supreme Court the County Attorney’s office can no longer represent him in the Gashi matter.
· The County Attorney recommended the law firm of Michael Pressman for an amount not to exceed $30,000.
On motion of Legislator Kaplowitz, seconded by Legislator Young, the motion to approve this item was carried by a vote of 7-0.
25. COUNTY ATTORNEY: Lawsuit Settlement: Proposed legislation authorizing the County Attorney to settle the lawsuit entitled Briante Building Corp. v. County of Westchester Index No. 97-12037. (10/30/00)
· The settlement is in the amount of $1,625,000 which is inclusive of $504,085, That has been thus far withheld by the County from Briante Building Corporation. The legislation includes an act which would amend the 2000 Airport Fund budget for the purpose of drawing sufficient funds from the Airport Fund 1999 Fund Balance to cover the remaining portion of the settlement.
· This action was filed in Supreme Court on July 31, 1997. Briante alleges that the county owes it over 11 million dollars in connection with a contract in which Briante agreed to act as the general contractor with respect to certain portions of the Airport Modernization Project including the construction of the new airport terminal.
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET & APPROPRIATIONS
MINUTES – NOVEMBER 20, 2000
PAGE 7
On motion of Legislator Stewart-Cousins, seconded by Legislator Young, the motion to approve this item was carried by a vote of 7-0.
BUDGET TRANSFER: BRIANTE LEGISLATION:
· This act amends the 2000 Airport Special Revenue Budget by $1,120,915. The amendment is funded in full by an appropriation from the airport’s unrestricted fund balance.
· The purpose of this appropriation increase is to fund a portion of the litigation settlement with Briante Building Corporation.
· The total amount of the settlement is $1,625,000 of which $504,085 will be paid from amounts previously withheld from the contractor. The balance of $1,120,915 is funded by the Airport Budget through this budget amendment.
On motion of Legislator Young, seconded by Legislator LaMotte, the motion to approve this item was carried by a vote of 7-0.
37. COUNTY ATTORNEY: Lawsuit Settlement: Proposed Act authorizing the County Attorney to settle the lawsuit entitled Tony Wilcher v. Joseph Castellano and Jeanne Castellano. (11/13/00)
· While traveling in route to work at the Westchester County Department of Correction, Correction Officer Wilcher was injured in an automobile accident when his vehicle was hit by a vehicle driven by Jeanne Castellano.
· As a result of injuries sustained C.O. Wilcher was totally incapacitated from work for 47.2 weeks.
· It was deemed that C.O. Wilcher’s injuries were casually related to his employment as he was on the Valhalla Campus in route to his work assignment, he received correction compensation benefits pursuant to the Correction Officers contract.
· C.O. Wilcher was paid $92,984 in correction compensation benefits during the period of his absence from work.
· C.O. Wilcher commenced action against Joseph Castellano and Jeanne Castellano in Supreme Court. As the County paid him benefits as a result of the accident, the County had a statutorily recognized lien on any recovery for lost wages and medical expenses from this lawsuit.
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET & APPROPRIATIONS
MINUTES – NOVEMBER 20, 2000
PAGE 8
· The best settlement offer C.O. Wilcher received was $92,500. County was approached to waive or reduce its lien. County refused to waive its lien, but did offer to reduce its lien by the statutory one-third amount to ensure that plaintiff’s counsel was compensated. As part of the settlement the County agreed to accept $60,631.85 in full satisfaction of its lien. C.O. Wilcher’s attorney will receive $31,868.15. C.O. Wilcher will not get any monetary recovery.
On motion of Legislator Kaplowitz, seconded by Legislator Stewart-Cousins, the motion to approve this item was carried by a vote of 7-0.
38. COUNTY ATTORNEY: Lawsuit Decision: Advising the Board of the favorable decision reached in the case of Liberty Environmental Systems, Inc., et al v. County of Westchester. (11/13/00)
· On October 31, 2000 a jury in the above-referenced matter returned a verdict favorable to the County.
· Liberty Environmental (liberty) and a co-plaintiff sued the County in federal court in 1994 seeking approximately $35 million in damages. The action arose out of the County’s selection of a different private vendor to provide the County with long-term sludge management. This litigation represented the single greatest litigation liability reported in the County’s financial statements. The case was tried over 7 weeks.
· Three claims eventually made it to the jury:
1) On the first claim, that the County violated Liberty’s federal constitutional right to equal protection during the 1991-1993 selection of the County’s sludge hauling vendor, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the County. Since this was the sole civil rights claim the County will not be liable for the plaintiff’s legal fees.
2) On the second claim, tortuous interference with contract, the jury again ruled in the County’s favor.
3) On the third claim, breach of good faith and fair dealing, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Liberty, but only awarded $60,000 in damages.
· The total award against the County in a case in which the plaintiff sought $48 million is $60,000.
· The County Attorney stated that while he does not agree that any award was justified, he regards the jury verdict as essentially vindicating the County position in this matter. It would not be cost effective to appeal the modest award since the cost of doing so would greatly exceed the amount of the verdict.
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET & APPROPRIATIONS
MINUTES – NOVEMBER 20, 2000
PAGE 9
Given the potential liability to the County, this verdict represents a significant victory for the County.
On motion of Legislator Young, seconded by Legislator LaMotte, the motion to Receive and File this item was carried by a vote of 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further items for discussion, on motion of Legislator Kaplowitz, seconded by legislator LaMotte, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m.