PRESENT: Co-Chair: Swanson, Wishnie. Members: Latimer, Darcy, Delfino. Staff: John Egner-DPW; Aldo Vitigliano, Board Counsel; Emilia Vita, Secretary.

ALSO PRESENT: Members of the Municipal Officials Association: Robert Meehan, President (Mt. Pleasant); John Pierpont, Pelham Manor; Michael Blau, Mamaroneck; Ted Dunn, Rye; Elaine Pierce, Mamaroneck; Stephen Altieri, Mamaroneck; Gerald Jacobs, Eastchester; Jerry Faiella, Ossining; Jamie Hastings, Director of Government Relations; George Hosey, CBAC; Barbara Strauss, LWV; Amy Paulin.

The meeting was called to order at 2 p.m. The Co-Chairs asked the Association to bring the Committee up to date in regard to the Inflow and infiltration process (SSES).

Mr. Meehan said a meeting was held two weeks ago with the bond counsels (Rothman & Mayer) to discuss the legal issues and to accomplish the regional funding of this project. It was understood that a 5A District was a mechanism that can be used to do this. It then went into a discussion of policy and there were differences of opinions. First, the Association would like to discuss the legal aspects of a 5A District.

Mr. Blau explained the issue previously discussed regarding laterals and whether or not they required State legislation to amend, still bears disagreement. The Associations Bond counsel states that the County amended previously six time previously, why now State action is needed and not done in-house. The issue of 5A District came up and both bond counsel said there is a mechanism to do a regional funding to accomplish and reach a reasonable approach to the legal aspects of the process.

Mr. Wishnie recalled that when discussed at a prior meeting with the County Attorney present, it was noted that there are concerns with jeopardizing the 5A procedure and certain things in place, there would be problems. Mr. Darcy explained that Westchester County was an exception and there was concern that if there was a 5A set up, if any changes occurred, the County would loose the "grandfather" clause in the process.

Jerry Fiaella recalled that if the County were to act on or modify the Charter as it currently exists, questions were raised by trying to modify the Charter, we might loose the ability to tax the tax exempts. This was not necessarily related to be used toward a 5A District.

Mr. Meehan stated that at the last meeting of the Association, members agreed this was the right policy and should be pursued. It was explained that the process includes a prepared plan, which is already done as is a survey and the mapping, all is needed now is a basic Resolution that assesses the cost of remediation of lateral sewers to resolve inflow and infiltration.

Mr. Wishnie said there is a problem of selling the bonds. Mr. Darcy said if the Board has to consider this, there are legal aspects to be prepared to deal with. Mr. Latimer asked Ms. Hastings if the Administration has a position on progressing on a 5A District? Ms. Hastings said the County Executive told the Municipal Officials that they may pursue the processing and the Board takes action. {This section was barely audible}.

Mr. Latimer said the basic consideration, knowing what the County Executive should do if the Board passes a Local Law change, if he has the same position on 5A, it does not make a difference to wait, if he vetoes it or not, it would be challenged and then there will be a clear answer, so therefore it should be structured and have a debate on the merits of the district.

Mr. Wishnie quoted Greg Meehan from a initial meeting that it would take six to nine months to create a 5A District, which is a concern and clarify the length of time for this process. Again, bonding may be quicker, but if the amendments are done, there are potential problems, maybe 5A would be safer at the end of the process there might not be a legal challenge.

Ms. Price, in answer to the question of consent and timing, said being tied up in court challenging and processing for six months to a year, is not as problematic as thought. The consent order has three components: priority 1, 2, and 3; 3 and 2 have developed over a period of time. Priority one has the most problems and DEC has been working with communities with environmental and substance concerns, and they are moving independently with the DEC to resolve the matters.

The Association determines that the Board needs to deal with the issue of who is right on the political issue, not legal detailed issues. They submit it is more efficient to have this process done on a County basis than on a municipal basis. It will be more dangerous to look into more examinations of technical aspects, they feel they can get more support behind the position that it is cheaper for the taxpayers to do this on a County-wide basis.

Mr. Wishnie said the Committee agrees the process should be done on a regional basis, the problem is choosing which process, the political problem, is, should the County assume the responsibility of raising taxes. The Board on the other hand is willing to take on the challenge because it is a "mechanical thing", which can be continuos for years to come.

Mr. Latimer suggested to discuss with the County Executive, his position of each process, send out a public hearing to hear all sides and move ahead and asked that the municipalities to continue with their goals.

The Co-Chairs will forward the draft Local Law to the County Executive and the County Attorney for review and the Committee will proceed as it has been.

The meeting adjourned at 3 p.m. on the motion of Legislator Wishnie, seconded by Legislator Darcy [5-0].