PRESENT: Co-Chair: Swanson, Wishnie. Members: Carsky, Darcy, Latimer, Delfino. Legislators: LaMotte, Noto, Stewart-Cousins. Staff: Emilia Vita, Secretary.

ALSO PRESENT: Anthony Trelewicz, Commissioner-DEF: Hugh Grecian, DPW; Jamie Hastings, Director of Intergovernmental Relations; Tom Rothman, Bond Counsel for the Municipal Official’s Association; Robert Meehan, Mt. Pleasant Supervisor/President, Municipal Officials Association; Members of the League of Women Voters: Amy Paulin, Barbara Strauss, Ann Nelson. Fran MacEachron, Member-CBAC.

The meeting was called to order at 1 p.m., the minutes of May 13th were approved and moved on the motion of Legislator Carsky, seconded by Legislator Darcy [4-0], (Delfino and Latimer out for vote).

Mr. Tom Rothman, bond counsel, representing the Municipal Officials Association, has been reviewing the concerns that have been raised regarding the inflow and infiltration process. His letter of May 8th to the Association is in response to legal and policy concerns. His firm, Wilkie, Farr & Gallagher, represents two-thirds of all municipal corporations in New York State as well as several counties. He is also a Westchester resident from Irvington and knows how the sewer systems are assessed and operated.

Facts were given to him by Gerry Fiaella regarding the maximum capacity of the treatment plant, the study completed by and the various alternatives to have them eliminated. Mr. Rothman clarified the County needs to put on a major addition to the plant which proves to be an expensive capital expenditure. The Association is seeking to determine the most effective cost to eliminate this type of work.

He understood the County, without the consent of the municipalities, signed an Order of Consent with the State DEC to which each municipality would be required to eliminate a certain number of gallons determined each community. An engineering analysis from the Association reported significantly less dollars and major infiltration areas could be remediated to reduce the same amount of inflow and infiltration. The least expensive mechanism to each community and eliminate the Inflow and Infiltration in order to prevent the County from constructing this major addition. The Association is willing to have the cost of the work charged back to the individual municipalities in the same proportion as recommended by Rotfeld Associates. This would prove less dollars to be spent, same people spending the money, less construction and less intrusion to taxpayers, this, made a great deal of sense to those involved.

Mr. Rothman said issues were raised about the constitutionality of this, he prepared an analysis, which was forwarded to Eileen Pilla, former President of WMOA. On the same day, New York City announced they were spending $1 billion in the water shed areas to construct other government facilities to eliminate the need for the City to add on a major water treatment facility. This instance, he believes, is the same the County has done and he addresses the matter. In this constitution, it is amended to make certain that there is no questions of credit issues of whether a municipality could do certain facilities for the benefit of other governments even though they are the primary beneficiary. It also amends to specifically allow local governments to "borrow" its money to do certain things for the benefit of the municipalities and build excess facilities.

Mr. Rothman said this project has primary beneficiaries, the main being Westchester County because it will not have to provide an additional plan. He believes there is no disagreement between bond counsels on this issue. The constitution allows the County to contract its indebtedness and expend its money, part of the work is for the benefit for the County and part is for the benefit of the municipalities. While Westchester’s IMA can do all the construction work, they can only "borrow" its own dollars to pay the cost of that portion of the improvement which benefits the County. In It is a factual issue that all the improvement benefits Westchester County.

Based on the discussion with the County’s bond counsel, the other portion of improvement, benefits the municipalities because Westchester has determined this by Local Law - this is not a requirement of State statue, this is the County’s local law which can be repealed or amended according to Charter. The County has determined that certain facilities are local governmental responsibilities and this portion of the improvements which benefit the local municipalities can only be financed through local government. Mr. Rothman believes the County can construct all the work under one contract, finance the portion of improvement which benefits the County; the other municipalities can finance their share.

Mr. Rothman feels if they could sit down with Public Works and Environment they can fairly conclude that one hundred percent of the work benefits Westchester County, solely to eliminate the need to construct an additional plant. Municipalities would be doing this work, they have never done this type of work and do not plan to this work.

Mr. Rothman said if the if the Board feels an amendment in the Charter is required to vest in the responsibility of building lateral and tributary systems, they have control to make it a law, once it is enacted it is supreme and only the Board has authority to make amendments. If there is no local law, the Board must proceed under Article 5 and 5A of the County Law, which under these laws, it is a County responsibility. If a local law was never enacted, the County would be doing this work. This Board has the power to amend the local law in this situation, there is no need to go to Albany.

Legislator Wishnie clarified several statements and understood those communities who want to participate have an individual IMA, those who stay out and do it on their own, they don have to participate.

Legislator Darcy said if communities want to opt, the county then, can not recover those cost of the sewer tax. Mr. Rothman said it would be the community’s responsibility to reduce by certain percentage and they would not pay a County sewer tax. The County would charge those communities who opt in via the sewer tax.

Legislator LaMotte asked what happens when municipalities change over the years, should it be done case by case, Mr. Wishnie said they can put up the money and pay when you come into the plan.

Commissioner Trelewicz said he had no comment on the legal issues, he believes this is 100% benefit to the County, he believes it the other way. He state municipalities did do a lot of this work in the eighties (Sound Shore and Northern County) and accepted grant money from the State to perform the corrections in infiltration. It wasn’t as big, but they did it. He commented on his belief that this is not 100%, he is not responsible for local sewers, but the treatment plants are there to serve those in sewer districts. With excessive inflow, the plants are not going to built any larger if the sewers are not corrected, the State is not going to give permits to build bigger plants to treat clean water, that is why the study took place.

The Commissioner said this is the reason for a moratorium extending into a certain community, they are worse than the county because if they don’t do it, they can put up a new building. therefore it does benefit an individual community.

Legislator Swanson said the County maintains the sewers, but the laterals are individually maintained by the locals. She understands the County should not pool resource under the county’s umbrella and charge back to the community. Mr. Trelewicz said Town Supervisors tell him they can’t and his opts to that opinion.

The membership continued with further discussion about regional approaches which can be accomplished but there are some institutions may no have to pay, such as hospitals. It was agreed that bond counsel will draft guideline of general terms.

The Co-Chair agreed to move forward with this time-sensitive issue and would like to expedite further discussions before the June 30th expiration date and will schedule a special meeting if needed.

With no further discussions, the meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. on the motion of Legislator Swanson, seconded by Legislator Darcy [6-0].